[Terrapreta] scramble or blueprint

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Jim


Jim Joyner wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Very good. I pretty much agree.
>
> If I could modify that question just a little from "/How can char 
> additions to the soil help a Farmer make more money?/" to, "/How can 
> char// be used in the soil to its greatest advantage?/" You see, we 
> immediately eliminate dumping it down a mine shaft but we open up to 
> new possibilities.

I agree that your statement of the question is much better.
>
> Being a farmer, of course, you question suits my needs. And there may 
> be other productive applications for char-in-the-soil (in the water?) 
> for gardeners, landscapers, water shed specialists . . . probably 
> others too. While I think making a profit will be necessary for the 
> farming community to use char-in-the-soil on a worthy scale, I also 
> think that if we can just find and detail out the most efficacious 
> uses of char-in-the-soil, profitability is up to the soil 
> entrepreneur, as it were, and those entrepreneurs will do just fine 
> from there.
>
> As a farmer, your question suits my needs but only in a very general 
> way. From here I think we only need a hand full of strong, solid basic 
> facts to engender a great deal of interest from a lot of people who 
> are in a position to use char-in-the-soil.
>
> So let's go further, shall we, in finding the "greatest advantage"? In 
> the list of basic thing, it seems we need to know:
>     1) what does it do in the soil and how?
>     2) Which is the best kind of char to use under for which 
> circumstances (soil type, clime type . . .)
>     3) How much should be applied?
>     4) Are our tradional assumptions about soil composition valid with 
> char-in-the-soil?
>     5) Are our traditional methods of soil testing valid with 
> char-in-the-soil?

I think your questions 4: and 5: are very important. A different Growing 
paradigm" may be appropriate for soils containing significant quantities 
of char. Testing methods almost certainly have to be modified for soils 
containing char or black carbon. Testing procedures employed now can 
report soil char and BC as organic matter, when it is definitely not 
organic matter of the kind that can be used as nutrition by soil microbes.

To your list of questions, I would like to add the following:
    6: What is the preferred size of char additions to the soil?
    7: Is there a significant advantage to be had from inocculating the 
BC soils with microbes? (bacteria, fungus, etc)
    8: What is the best form in which to supply necessary replenishment 
nutrients to a BC soil?
    9: Is a Black Carbon soil that was formed from decomposition of 
vegetative matter under anaerobic conditions (e.g., the Holland Marsh) 
            similar in expected performance to a BC soil formed with 
charcoal from wood pyrolysis?
    10: Under what circumstances would charcoal additions to teh soil 
NOT be advantageous?
>
> I'm sure there are more basic questions to answer. Having the answers 
> to the questions above is more likely to advance the use of 
> char-in-the-soil than anything else I know. Once they are known, then 
> promotion of char-in-the-soil is likely to be easy. The audience is 
> large and is likely to be receptive.

Yes indeed!!
>
> Once these questions are answered then we can go on to ask questions 
> about sustainability: economic viability (your question, I think), 
> environmental friendliness (something many here are interested in) and 
> social responsibility.

Dumping charcoal down a mine shaft, of adding it to soil in a 
willy-nilly manner would be addressing the problem with one hand tied 
behind our backs. I would doubt that Carbon Credits, if they come about, 
would ever be sufficient to justify these methods of carbon 
sequestration. However, when the other benefits of char additions to the 
soil are factored in, then char additions to the soil may be financially 
very attractive. Indeed, there may be some situations where the benefits 
of char additions to teh soil are so advantageous that carbon credits 
and subsidies are not necessary to encourage more widespread use of 
charcoal additions to the soil.
>
> I would invite you and others to add to or modify the list of basic 
> questions. If we can come to consensus on the question, then maybe we 
> can get on with the New World Terra Preta.

Hopefully the list of questions you started will get us on the road to 
understanding how char additions to soil can be used to greatest advantage.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> Jim
>
> Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>> Dear Lou
>>
>> These Scenario package ASSUME that we are entering a period of Climate 
>> Change that the Actions of Man are able to change.
>> If there was Global Warming, and if it was indeed caused by Man, Science 
>> should be able prove it. As it stands now, the best teh IPCC could do 
>> was credit a decision to "consensus science." The phrase "consensus 
>> science" is an admission that the decision is not based on science, but 
>> rather, on opinion. Going by the opinion of the majority can have 
>> serious consequences. "A million lemmings can't be wrong."
>>
>> We are asked to "believe" in Anthropogenic Global Warming. If there was 
>> adequate science, truth, and fact, we would not have to "make the big 
>> leap and believe it to be so." The evidence would speak for itself.
>>
>> At this point in time we have two options:
>> 1: To do nothing
>> and
>> 2: To do something
>>
>> The Shell Study examines two possible action scenarios from the second 
>> option only. The best we can say about the Shell Study is that it is 
>> interesting but incomplete.
>>
>> Is not the purpose of the Terra Preta List to seek an understanding of 
>> the use of charcoal in Agriculture? Can we focus on learning more about 
>> TP, rather than diffusing our efforts with climate change issues? There 
>> are many venues where GW can be discussed, but few where TP can be 
>> discussed. It is patently obvious that if you bury carbon in the ground, 
>> you will sequester carbon. There is no need to discuss that any more, in 
>> that the case is already proven.
>>
>> I would suggest that when on the TP List, we should focus on answering 
>> the basic question:
>>  "How can char additions to the soil help a Farmer make more money?"
>>
>> Does that make sense for the TP List?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> lou gold wrote:
>>   
>>> Interesting discussion starting up at DOT.earth
>>>
>>> Seems relevant to one of the major discussions here.
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/looking-forward-an-energy-scramble-or-a-blueprint/index.html?hp
>>>
>>>
>>>  April 18, 2008,  12:42 pm
>>>
>>>
>>>     Looking Forward, an Energy Scramble or a Blueprint?
>>>
>>> By Andrew C. Revkin <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/arevkin/>
>>>     
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org