[Terrapreta] Numerical data

[Richard Haard]

Hi Sean


On Jan 12, 2008, at 6:26 PM, Sean K. Barry wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for this report.  I am enthused to see that you have been  
> able to show measurable improvements in some of the characteristics  
> that make soil fertile, with just these experiments that you have  
> performed this year.  May your work continue easily for you.  Please  
> let us know more, when you find out, about this combination of  
> charcoal and compost amendments to soil and their combined  
> interaction in the soil in making it the outstanding performer in  
> your plant growth experiments.
>
> You did discuss in some earlier posts about fungus in the soil  
> samples.  It is only one observation about the microorganism  
> activity in the soil you used in that experiment, but I think it  
> bears worth further consideration about what is occurring there.   
> Was the bloom in the fungus attributable to the charcoal?  Were the  
> greater OM, CEC and Phophorus (or plant growth) seen in the samples  
> containg fungus?  Is more fungus at all interrelated with the better  
> performing soil samples?

This may be the case but it is too early for me to have this kind of  
understanding in a 2-3 year study. Lots of soil insects and collembola  
(springtails) and nematodes feed on this mycelium becoming a nutrient  
reserve in their biomass. I still do not understand what the seasonal  
variations soil nutrient levels are.

In my plot study the dominant fungus we viewed was a species that came  
in with the conifer sawdust based  compost we purchase and routinely  
use at our farm. It is a species of birds nest fungus , Nidularia ,  
and it is a strictly saprophytic and not mycorrhizial partner. Next  
year in the same beds after the substrate degrades other fungus  
species may come into play which use the non - organic habitat of the  
charcoal and interact with crop plant roots. The fungi Larry found in  
his pretreated charcoal in his small vegetable bed were different.  
Also we spend quality time looking at every other kind of critter  
using charcoal as habitat, worms, saprophytic nematodes, insects as  
this is an indication of charcoal becoming a sustainable ecosystem in  
itself. Think about this if  - terrapreta is beneficial to crop plants  
then the soil will also be a complex and dynamic place.

Using compost as a standard pretreatment at our farm we notice our  
crop species (native shrubs) in the second year of growth have  
mycelium on the ground surface and support fruiting of mushrooms. Both  
are evidence of beneficial fungus interacting with the crop plant roots.

I am thinking that as the simple substrate carbohydrates in the wood  
waste disappears , the cellulose, lignins and sugars that are released  
in their decomposition the charcoal habitat will become more  
attractive to species of fungi and bacteria that are either  
autotrophic or symbiotic with tree/crop roots. Where Larry is working  
now is pretreatments that make charcoal rapidly attractive to these  
beneficial organisms. It also interests me very much and I am  
encouraging him to develop an experimental model to compare his  
treatments to untreated at least.

It is to early to 'publish' these findings but what we are observing  
makes very fertile discussion material which is what I appreciate at  
this place.

Now Sean let me refer to your earlier reply  to Thomas Allen, a very  
good statement overall about the history of terra preta and the  
potential for benefits to agriculture and climate change mitigation -   
however lets expand on this quote from your post - as it is related to  
what i am trying to point out above.

' They made this soil back then, out of almost infertile native jungle  
soils, to give the soil the fertility it needed'

If the native jungle soils are infertile then how can they possibly  
support the complex triple canopy forest with wonderful diversity of  
wildlife? The answer as you probably already understand is in these  
moist tropics the nutrients to support the ecosystem are stored in the  
standing crop of the forest and biota. In this humid warm environment  
organic material decomposed and soluble nutrients are released almost  
immediately. During the dry season the forest trees defoliate and  
these leaves decompose in the first rains and the soils which are  
completely involved with plant roots capture these nutrients. This  
nutrient recycling in combination with the slower processes of  
geochemical weathering with aid of symbiotic fungi and autotrophic  
nitrogen fixing bacteria the net losses are balanced.

Slash and burn agriculture in these moist tropics are productive for a  
few years but because of the nature of agriculture ie the  
simplification of the ecosystem to a single element - the crop - it  
makes nutrient loss severe, as Nikolaus Foidi has described in his  
recent postings.

So the big question is what it is that terrapreta does that is  
different from the native oxysols of the region? The best hypothesis  
to me is that terrapreta must be enriched habitat for beneficial  
organisms that promote abundant soil biomass that conserve nutrients  
from leaching just as does the forest canopy foliage in undisturbed  
forest. The mycelium of a saprophytic fungus that is decomposing  
lignin or cellulose is also food and habitat for equivalent of  
plankton in the soil. Biomass itself is a stable  insoluble reserve  
for nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients. In the forest root zone  
- the rhizosphere - sugar exduates from the tree roots serve as food  
for the microbes that make this nutrient reservoir. Drought in any  
soil is the end of life cycle for billions of microbes and insects. In  
a fallow agricultural soil - between crops -  there are no roots to  
capture these released nutrients. Terrapreta then through physical  
attraction by charcoal and rapid microbial activity must be the mode  
of nutrient conservation.

With inorganic carbon in the soil of the moist tropics this  
microflora /fauna must become its own biocarbon input through their  
autotrophic energy and nitrogen source and enhanced geochemical  
inputs. How else could Dr Bill Woods have reported on anectdotal  
information that terrapreta harvesters near Manaus claim that the soil  
renews itself? This observation by Woods in the BBC video was seminal  
to me in trying to understand what is going on.

Best

Rich

>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Haard
> To: Terrapreta
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:08 AM
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Numerical data
>
> This is addendum to my earlier report of
>
> Charcoal in agriculture: Experimental research at Fourth Corner
> Nurseries
> Richard Haard, Fourth Corner Nurseries, Bellingham, Washington,
> January 3, 2008
>
> posted recently at
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/haard4cncharcoalreportjan07
>
> I have been looking at the data sets of the soil analysis we conducted
> on the plots on June 25, 2007 and October 30, 2007. The first soil
> samples were taken about a month after project setup and planting and
> the last was at the end of the growing season. I sampled with a hand
> held soil coring device, and took samples uniformly in each 17 foot
> long test bed. They were dried and screened to remove lumps and pieces
> of wood/charcoal etc.
>
> We sent the samples to the soil lab and had a standard soil test run
> with for organic matter, major, minor and trace elements, Cation
> exchange capacity (CEC) and associated base exchange percentages for
> K, Mg and Ca.
>
> There were a few anomolies in the data set that should not be
> surprising as there is no reason to expect a 500 long by 4 foot wide
> section of a farm field be uniform in analysis. In addition, without
> doubt there is sampling error. One of the control samples read
> abnormally high the first reading and then fell into the same pattern
> as the other control plot. This is the reason why control ranking is
> skewed in the data set.  Otherwise the data is remarkably consistent
> and I feel I have learned something about using compost and charcoal.
>
> I obtained a program to plot on an x,y and z axis any three items for
> each treatment plot. I chose to look at Organic matter, CEC and
> Phosphorus. It gave me a cute 3D image that ranked the data sets on
> all three parameters at once.
>
> Item by item there were changes from June to October. In all of the
> plots soil Phosphorus ranged from 5 to 8 (PPM) in the spring and from
> 7 to 12 in the fall. Organic matter also increased from 3.4 to 6.5
> (% ) spring and 4.1 to 7.5 in fall. the CEC also changed  10.8 to 15.3
> (MEQ/100g), spring and 9.3 to 13 in fall.
>
> The rankings shown by this  program indicate synergistic effect of
> compost and charcoal. Charcoal1 tended to score higher as is expected
> since it is a fine powder.
>
> (Cm= compost, F=Fertilizer,C1= John's Charcoal, C2=Larry's Charcoal,C=
> Control)
>
> If we take all 4 readings (duplicate sets taken twice) as averages,
> the 3 way comparison, (of OM, P and CEC) , sorted things out this way
>
> Cm+C1 > Cm+F+C1 > Cm+C2 > Cm+F+C2 > C > Cm+F > F+C1 > Cm > C1 > F > C2
>  > F+C2
>
> Relative rankings 1 to 24 were averaged showing this spread
>
> 22, 22,16.5,15.5,13.5,12.5,12,11.25,10.5,8.5,7,6
>
> This indicates to me there is a synergism between the compost and
> charcoal.
>
> I'm looking forward to more data next season from the same plots
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Rich Haard, Propagation Manager, Fourth Corner Nurseries, Bellingham,
> Washington
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: /attachments/20080112/d3c36776/attachment.html