[Terrapreta] Numerical data

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Richard,

I think I see what you are saying.  The "microbial bloom" caused by charcoal in soil are both what are doing the nutrient storage and where the nutrients are being stored.  It takes "living" organics to store the nutrients.  The organics also happen to be carbon bearing and they can live both above and below the soil surface.  The carbon in or around the living organics can be part of the living or can be inert and in the surroundings; charcoal is inert in soil, carbon in the cellulose and lignin of wood, under the vascular cambium is inert, too.

When soil microbes digest once standing but now fallen to the ground biomass, then they too, persist in an environment of inert or partially energy containing carbon and nutrient bearing chemical structures.  Whether this is carbon and nutrient store is in the living or dead, decaying biomass, or whether it is in with the living and dead soil microorganisms seems to make little difference to the microbes, right?

The site concentration of nutrients is positively enhanced by the existence of carbon and nutrient stores in both the underlying fertile soil and the above ground enhanced plant growth.  The dying bits forest canopy falling down over and onto Terra Preta soil below, in the dry season, and rained onto and into that soil might well be the answer to the regenerative nature of the Terra Preta.  That and the monsterous numbers of biomass digesting microbes on and in the TP soil, to digest all of the falling biomass.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Haard<mailto:richrd at nas.com> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 11:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Numerical data


  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<mailto:richrd at nas.com>
      To: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
      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<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<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
      http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
      http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080113/3b2b3535/attachment.html