[Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture

[Jon C. Frank]

My comments interspersed.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org]On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
  Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:16 PM
  To: Terrapreta; Jon C. Frank
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture


  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.

  [Jon C. Frank]
  No-till on row crops is a joke.  The carbons oxidize back to the air
without forming humus.  No-till means increased weeds and herbicides.  It is
used to mask the poor soil structure that has resulted from conventional
agriculture.

  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).

  [Jon C. Frank]
  Carbon in the soil in the form of humus is a great starting place.  This
form is needed in order to give off CO2 to enhance plant growth.  If soil is
managed correctly the amount of humus in soil is increased as time goes on.
I would disagree with you and would call this sequestration.  Yes it would
be preferred to add charcoal carbon to a high humus soil for long-term
sequestration.  We work with a grower in Iowa who is quite an anomaly.  We
recently had a field day at his farm.  At the field day he showed a pit dug
over 5 feet deep.  I was able to push a 3/8 inch rod 4 feet deep into his
soil.  The soil remains BLACK, soft, and friable for over 4 feet.  Black
soil 4 feet deep is carbon sequestration even if no charcoal was involved.

  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.

  [Jon C. Frank]
  I agree with most you write above except I believe carbon is a catalyst to
increase soil energy and may even hold nutrients in the root zone as Lou
Gold referenced.

  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.

  [Jon C. Frank]
  We disagree but I am in favor of putting charcoal carbon into soil when it
is feasible for farmers.

  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.

  [Jon C. Frank]
  We agree.  Our goal in restoring soil is to INCREASE CO2 release, and then
re-capture it with the plants growing on the soil.  This is explained more
at:
  http://www.highbrixgardens.com/restore/healthy_soil.html


  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"?

  [Jon C. Frank]
  In plant growth an increase in brix is an increase in both carbohydrates
and minerals (and other phytonutrients).  A refractometer does not divide
these components.  The answer is, as you know, quite variable as you move
from crop to crop and even from one soil to another.  Yet the principle
remains.  I can give one example.  Poor quality alfalfa may run 6 brix when
it is cut and only have 1% of calcium on a dry matter basis.  A high quality
Alfalfa may have a brix reading of 16 brix and have a 2% calcium on a dry
mater basis.  This example is easy to correlate if the grower takes a brix
reading at the time of cutting.

  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.

  [Jon C. Frank]
  Your "understanding" does not invalidate the concept of using the brix
reading as a measure of quality.  The use of brix as a measure of quality is
poo-hooed by the university system because they do not promote a system that
creates quality.  They promote a system that is low-brix and needs crop
protection.

  Much of the nutrition in plants is in the sap or juice.  The fiber that
remains is not all that nourishing but it does play an important role in
keeping the food moving through the system.

  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.

  [Jon C. Frank]
  I am all in favor of adding charcoal back to soil but truthfully on
someone else's land the choice is neither yours nor mine.  It is the
farmers.  To get farmers to do that requires a proper incentive that is
currently lacking.  Until the incentive is in place we offer a program that
complements the charcoal well when it is applied at some future date.

  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.

  [Jon C. Frank]
  Sean,  here is where you need to be very careful.  Single factor solutions
never work.  If your only solution to any problem/situation is to add
charcoal it will ultimately fail.  Economics, nutrient density of produce,
soil remineralization, soil biology, available calcium, available
phosphates, and many more all play a role.  In your zeal for carbon
sequestration you can't lose sight of the big picture.

  Regards,

  SKB

  ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jon C. Frank
    To: Terrapreta
    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
    _______________________________________________
    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/20070919/78bc72f3/attachment.html