[Terrapreta] SOM, Char, and Inorganioc Carbon: Was Re: scramble or blueprint

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean


Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>  
> ... 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 ...
>  
> I had not heard or read this.  Where did you read this?

I did not read this anywhere. I made it up all by myself. Gimme some 
credit, eh? I'm not just a pretty face, you know.  ;-)

>   You might check this with Johannes Lehmann, or Christoph Steiner?  I 
> think they have figured out how to separate charcoal-in-soil carbon 
> from soil organic matter.

They are both "world class researchers", and I have read one paper 
co-Authored by Johannes that does seem indeed to differentiate between 
char/black carbon and "standard" Soil Organic Matter", like compost, 
vegetation particles, soil microbes, etc. See: 
http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/70/5/1719#FIG6  However, I 
don't think that the analytic methods they employ are employed by 
average Soil Analysis Laboratiories when they receive a request for a 
"Soil Organic Matter" analysis.

As I understand it, the present procedure for reporting "Soil Organic 
Matter" (SOM) consists of burning the soil sample to eliminate anything 
burnable. This weight loss is attributed to "Soil Organic Carbon." This 
analysis would report the char carbon and the true "organic carbon" 
(roots, vegetative matter, microbes) together as "Soil Organic Carbon." 
So, if you then figured "Char is not Organic Carbon", and asked the 
Laboratory to measure "Inorganic Carbon", they would hit the sample with 
acid to evolve CO2 from carbonates in the soil, and by measuring the CO2 
evolved, they would report the carbon liberated from carbonates as 
"Inorganic Carbon" and would not report the carbon content of the carbon 
in the char.

Consider two hypothetical soils, both with a reported SOM analysis of 
say 3%, made from the same base soil that was stripped of SOM. If one 
was made from char containing a weight of carbon equal to 3% of sample 
weight, and the other was made from vegetative matter, soil microbes, 
and sugars containing the same weight of carbon, one could expect very 
different agricultural response from each of these soils. Hence, my 
suggestion  for modifying soil analysis procedures commonly employed, to 
differentiate between carbon from char and carbon in "conventional" SOM.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

>  
> Regards,
>  
> SKB
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>     *To:* Jim Joyner <mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net>
>     *Cc:* terra pretta group <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:35 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] scramble or blueprint
>
>     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/>
>     >>>    
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>