[Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Jon,

I think it is a matter of scale, isn't it, Jon?  "No-till" and "low-till" farming practices were supposed to increase soil organic matter content (soil organic carbon content, too) and THEY DO THIS.  But, it takes a very long time to see dramatic increases.  I have heard from many sustainable farming practice people that it can take 30 years to put the soil organic carbon content back to where it was when modern farming began on a piece of land.

I think it is a matter of form, isn't it, Jon?  The carbon in soil organic matter/SOC is carbon, yes.  But, it is carbon involved in organic molecules (usually carbohydrates) and it is very digestible by living soil organic matter.  Carbohydrates are digested by them for the energy mostly and it is expired almost entirely as CO2.  Carbon in the form of charcoal does not do this.  It is not digested or degraded by the activity of soil microorganisms over a relatively short period of time (a few years).  Humus is an improvement to growing conditions in soil, in the short term, but it is not sequestered carbon.  The carbon in humus (SOC) will return to the atmosphere within a few years after it goes into the soil.  Charcoal resides for a very long term; centuries or millenia, as is testified by the existence of charcoal particles, still in their original form, having lasted for 2500+ years in Terra Preta soils in the Amazon.  Charcoal carbon is far more resilient in soil than humus (SOM/SOC).

Additionally, because of its form, charcoal carbon serves a different function in the soil than humus.  It is a catalyst for chemical reactions, not a reactant.  It provides a matrix for soil microorganisms, not food, not energy.  It holds water and buffers pH, helping overly acidic soils and overly alkaline soils become more neutral.  It can improve cation exchange capacity and make plant nutrients more available to plants growing in the soil.

Your argument is that increasing soil organic matter/SOC increases carbon in soil.  True as this is, it IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SEQUESTRATION.  Increasing soil organic carbon is NOT considered to be an effective carbon sequestration method by the IPCC.
No other method (other than charcoal carbon) can put carbon into soil and have it stay.

Now, I do think that you will argue that if the correct ag practices and soil amendments are used, then INCREASES in soil organic carbon will continue on that land, and as such the amount of carbon kept out of the atmosphere will be sustained and continue to rise.  True as this is, when the practices are stopped, the emission of carbon will recommence and carbon sequestered will decrease.  This does not happen with charcoal carbon.  It has a resilience that does not require continued applications of correct practices to maintain it.

Your arguments do seem to go this way.  SOC is carbon in soil ... But, this is not carbon sequestration.  BRIX is an increased calorimetric quantity ... but that does not necessarily equate with increased nutrients or increased sustainability.  Why don't you quantify what the BRIX increase really is?  What part of it is photosynthetic products like sucrose?  What part of it is increased mineral, nutrient, and/or vitamin content?  I know BRIX reports the content of "refractometric dried substance (RDS)".  But answer the question, Jon?  What, where does the increase in BRIX come from with "high BRIX practices"?  I think BRIX is primarily a measure of sugar in plant juice.  I think the increase in BRIX from "high BRIX practices" comes mostly (if not entirely) from the increase in sugar.
When will you quantify anything related to "high BRIX practices"?

As I understand the biology of plants, minerals and plant nutrients go primarily into the cell walls of plants, into the proteins, not into the sap of plants or the cytoplasm of cells.  People and animals do not eat stalks.  People and animals do not eat the bulk of the plant matter.  More plant matter from crops is left as waste than is eaten by above ground animals.  Digestion by animals (cloven hooved, walking, sentient, or microorganism) leads to expiration of CO2, whether it is above or below the surface of the soil.  Improving the productivity of land in terms of plant crop output is NOT the same thing as increasing the amount of sequestered carbon in soil.

Do you have any argument to support your assertions, Jon?  It is like you point at the right direction and say that you are headed there.  Terra Preta IS carbon still "sequestered" after 2500+ years, already, without having to get there some day, many years hence.  It it not just headed there, it IS there.  Terra Preta is vastly fertile soil, with fertility that HAS lasted for 500+ years, under continuous cultivation, in some places.  It already works to improve crop productivity.  It isn't just moving in that direction.
It also, verifiably "sequesters" all of the carbon in that charcoal that is still in it, after millenia.

You continue to try and get us to understand how your methods can do what we want to do.  I do not think we really need to understand how Terra Preta works to know that it does work.  It has lavishly productive crops growing in it to this day.  It has thousands of year old charcoal carbon in it that has been "sequestered in the soil" for the entire time.

We probably do need to understand more about it to create more of it and to make it work for our grwoing productivity purposes in the short term.  We do not need to understand more than that IT HAS BEEN THERE for thousands of years, since humans put it there, for us to use it for "carbon sequestration" purposes.


Regards,

SKB

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon C. Frank<mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com> 
  To: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture


  Hi Michael,

  We work with several organic pesticides such as neem.  They are great to use as the quality of the soil and plants are building.  They are useful tools but the goal is always to grow crops with enough health that bugs are not attracted to the plants in the first place.

  It is always a joy to see crops in the picture of health and nearby weeds riddled with bug damage.  This comes about when the soil is optimized for growing crops and not weeds.

  If you think it is a pity that we help farmers increase crop health, soil humus, and microbial health without biochar than we are not even close to being on the same page.  Your logic is strange.  A healthy soil that is building humus IS sequestering carbon.  Are you saying that the only form of carbon sequestration must involve biochar/carcoal?  You are welcome to your own opinion of course.  

  Jon

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Michael Bailes [mailto:michaelangelica at gmail.com]
    Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:44 PM
    To: Jon C. Frank
    Cc: Terrapreta
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture




      As far as recommending charcoal it cannot be done until there is a supply for people to economically utilize it.  That infrastructure is far from being in place.

    Depends on where you are on the planet but I agree.This is a sad chicken and egg problem:
    Charcoal will not be made easily (& ecologically soundly by pyrolysis) and cheaply until people demand it.
     It will not be used until is is available  easily and cheaply. 
    This impasse has to be broken. That might mean pioneers of Tera preta methods may have to pay a premium price for char until manufacturers catch up with the demand .


      Also FYI we never recommend or sell . . . any type of pesticide or herbicide.

    What is wrong with judicious and carefully timed use of organic pesticides like neem, Quassia, pyrethrum (natural) , Tobacco, lime-sulphur etc 



      I believe biochar or charcoal can play a role in the future as it becomes more available.  In the meantime we have learned how to increase humus in the soil without charcoal or biochar.  It involves getting calcium levels high enough to support increased microbial populations, increased fine root hairs, and increased exudates from  healthier plants.  
    It is a great pity you have this attitude/policy/idea
    Charcoal is one of the best ways of increasing soil microbiological life and plant growth 
    But more importantly it sequesters carbon (CO2) and so helps the very real problem of global warming.
    i think wealthier nations need not only to reduce CO2 emissions to a neautral point they need to do much more to counter the amount of CO2 being produced by thrird world countries like China and India. 
     China has just reached the same level of CO2 emissions of the USA.

    You could at least present the benefits of Char at your conferences and let your electorate decide what to do themselves.

    Michael the Archangel 

    "You can fix all the world's problems in a garden. . . . 
    Most people don't know that"
    FROM
    http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf <http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf>
  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070918/12d0081c/attachment.html