[Terrapreta] viable idea?

[Richard Haard]

Tom

Ah yes - In my reading over the last few weeks I have the impression  
that this bio-char realm is a bit like an Escher drawing where the  
goldfish is peering out at the world of air. There are the unique soil  
conditions in the humid tropics and the out of control slash and burn  
and chemical agriculture. We know that the use of charcoal emulates  
the role of organic matter in soil yet is permanent and that to use it  
in combination with manure, compost have additive beneficial effects.  
In light of this result charcoal is not quite the same as 'true' terra  
preta. But this is not good reason to delay recommending to small  
holder farmers in the moist tropics to utilize slash and char.

Our studies , (here in Bellingham) are academic and most interesting  
as is the challenge to all others who are engaged in this study and  
also to build equipment and processes to make and distribute charcoal.  
In a way, we in the temperate north are isolated from this turmoil of  
natural habitat destruction and  connected human displacement. Our  
studies and advocacy for the use of charcoal should also be directed  
to governments, aid organizations and other NGO's to recognize the use  
of charcoal to help farmers in the moist tropics.

Along this line of thinking is the reason behind my mumbling on the  
list last few days on slash and char as I am writing an article for  
our farm quarterly catalog. I am hoping to have a readable article to  
publish to our mailing list  readers and also to use to get the  
attention of organizations who are thus far only trying to slow down  
this loss of habitat and promote sustainable forestry. Charcoal needs  
promotion as another tool in their kit,  to shorten crop rotation  
times and to reduce dependence on chemical fertilizers. Perhaps also  
to save some rainforest and also sequester some carbon along the way.

Rich H

Also scroll down for a note to Lewis I neglected to forward to TP list.

On Feb 20, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Tom Miles wrote:

>
> We can save the world, but figuring it out is the challenge. It will  
> take more than char and manure to feed 6 billion people but research  
> and experimentation to improve soil productivity using these tools  
> can help. I think that is Lehmann’s message in the article. I don’t  
> think that challenge just belongs to research organizations.   
> Charcoal is made all over the world. If the agronomic value of  
> combinations of charcoal and nutrient sources is demonstrated then  
> individuals can make choices about using some char to produce more  
> food.  At the very least we can help offset soil carbon loss in all  
> countries.
>
> Maybe the recipes are more complex. As Richard points out  it is  
> probably more complicated than simply adding charcoal. It is similar  
> to the plaggen (peat based) anthrosols that were constructed over a  
> long period as the soil micromorphological studies have shown with  
> some fairly involved steps of preparation, burning and blending  
> manures, bones, etc. These soils ceased to be constructed when  
> fertilizer was introduced.
>
> Tom


Jim - Below is what I sent to Lewis but neglected to forward to the  
list.

I think these quotes I clipped from the Scientific American article is  
from scientists behaving in the way they are expected. With measured  
skepticism. Their job is to do research, gather data and further  
refine our knowledge on charcoal in soil and terra preta. At the same  
time farmers in the humid tropics where they have difficulty  
maintaining soil OM, holding nutrients in excessive rainfall ought to  
be informed about this slash and char practice.

I agree with what Lewis stated. Baseline seems to be that charcoal is  
beneficial in these conditions. Why wait to move ahead. Especially  
when onsite carbonization with smoldering fires can accomplish this  
process for small holder farmers.


On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Jim Joyner wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Not sure what to make of the report -- it's got some really strange  
> comments in it (maybe just out of context) -- but it does seem the  
> notion of TP saving the world is a bit premature. A bit like  
> counting ones chicken before they hatch.
>
> Jim
>
> Richard Haard wrote:
>>
>> This report (summary statement below ) from May 15, 2007 Scientific  
>> American sums up the opinion that Larry and I share. We both think  
>> that dumping charcoal on soil does not make terra preta. Our  
>> interest is to work on enrichment culturing  beginning this spring,  
>> sort of like to highly aerobic system used to make compost tea only  
>> tailored to getting charcoal and charcoal/substrate\ acclimated to  
>> enhance the naturally occurring biota .
>>
>> Special Report: Inspired by Ancient Amazonians, a Plan to Convert  
>> Trash into Environmental Treasure
>>
>> But is it Viable?
>>
>


Perhaps I chose the wrong phrase clipped from the SA article. There  
room for more basic research. Yes, because terra preta nova does not  
match terra preta. Perhaps as they said in the article to make terra  
preta it is all part of a process in the moist tropics that may take  
100 years or more to occur.

It is understood there is advantage to use charcoal as soil additive  
and that in combination with other materials, compost, fertilizer crop  
performance is further improved. Carbon is sequestered and studies are  
showing certain chemical and biological properties.

As I stated in my posting on the previous day slash and char should be  
promoted as a best agricultural practice for the conversion of  
agricultural waste, timber slash. Support of this concept by  
governments, TA organizations and environmental advocates would lead  
to a reduction in clearing new land with shortened fallow periods. The  
larger problem here is the make and sell <charcoal> versus make and  
use <charcoal>  as soil additive. This thought is what is leading me  
to low tech smoldering reduction of om in fields.

Rich H
On Feb 20, 2008, at 2:21 AM, MMBTUPR at aol.com wrote:
>           from     Lewis L Smith
>
>
> As a veteran of Dr. Alexander's "energy cane/energy grass" program,  
> I am impressed once again that we need to define a variety of  
> alternative inputs [ agrichar #1, agrichar #2 ...  agrichar N ] and  
> begin testing them on 50 square-foot plots with random block design.
>
> Right now we are thrashing around, because everyone has a different  
> idea of what agrichar is but few people are defining his or her  
> version in replicable form.
>
> Cordially. ###
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080220/1e92cbc8/attachment.html