[Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture
Sean K. Barry
sean.barry at juno.com
Wed Sep 19 19:44:49 EDT 2007
Hi Jon,
You say,
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<http://www.highbrixgardens.com/restore/healthy_soil.html>
This is not my goal. This is a very simplistic view and I think it is dead wrong!
Increasing CO2 release alone does not increase plant growth. The rate of sugar production from photosynthesis is the rate of a reaction which occurs in growing plants. It is affected by carbon dioxide concentration, light intensity, the availability of water and certain nutrients (e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen are important atomic components of the adenosine diphosphate - ADP and adenosine triphosphate - ATP molecules)), AND temperature. An increase in the rate of reaction requires an increase in all of them.
Photosynthesis is (very basically)
6(CO2) + 6(H2O) + light photons => C6H12O6 + 6(O2)
Plants convert light energy into chemical energy. Increasing one of the reactants (CO2), alone, will not increase the rate of photosynthetic output. The reaction does not occur in the dark, or at temperatures without liquid water.
Photosynthesis is actually a very complex reaction, involving other molecules; like nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate - NADP (C21H29N7O17P3), reduced NADP - NADPH, and adenosine triphosphate - ATP (C10H16N5O13P3).
The rate of the reaction will increase ONLY if all of the required input reactants and the amounts of supporting molecular catalysts are increased proportionately. Since when does increasing the CO2 concentration in the air around growing plants increase the amounts of; water, nitrogen, phosphorus, ADP, ATP, or SUNLIGHT, which would ALL need to be increased to raise the rate of photosynthetic output?!
Does lighter than air CO2, which could be released from soil at night stick around down near the leaves of the plants until sunrise?!
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by making soils release more DOES NOT increase plant growth! It would only increase the GHG effect of higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and exacerbate the consequent Global Climate Change problems.
I challenge you to find ANYONE who has ever published a peer reviewed article in ANY scientific journal, which reports ANY indication that increased atmospheric CO2 levels alone will promote the bigger or faster growth of any plants. I do not believe this is possible.
You will not find any such articles. I believe that ANYONE with a learned experience in high school chemistry alone could argue effectively against any such proposal, Jon.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
To: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Jon C. Frank<mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture
Hi Jon,
Plants do use use CO2 to grow. But, if increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations had actually caused increased uptake by plants and increased growth of those plants, then why are atmospheric CO2 concentrations rising?! I don't believe this. CO2 concentrations are rising. The increased uptake IS NOT happening. If it was, then CO2 concentrations would be stable.
I think that the cycling of CO2; uptake by plants and releases by decaying (CO2 is expired when carbohydrates are digested by microbes) had already reached equilibrium long before humans even appeared on the planet. We have been pumping 300 million year old fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere for 150 years. If plants were going to increase in growth and take up more carbon, then surely the CO2 concentrations would not have continued to rise and accelerate those increases over that 150 years. Human activity is an external forcing, which the natural environment will NOT SINK, because it is outside of the normal CO2 cycling of the natrual environment. The flux of CO2 into the atmosphere has been pushed beyond the equilibrium point.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon C. Frank<mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com>
To: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture
My comments interspersed.
-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org<mailto: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<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<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
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
_______________________________________________
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/20070919/91aee1c8/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list