[Terrapreta] Frenzy - wordsmithing, humour, no TP value

[Philip Small]

Kevin: Of course it is an apples and oranges comparison.  Environmental
health and human health is priceless. I know inhaling black C can lead to
lung problems - it informs my enthusiasm for char, but I choose not to value
it substantially less as a result. Its a choice in perspective.

In my work I get to deal with the easy part of sludge: the nutrient value
and making sure we don't overload the soil with nitrogen so that it ends up
in groundwater, yet enough that the farmer doesn't have to come in with
supplemental fertilizer. I deal a bit with the heavy metals and from my data
I see that with the sludges I work with, the metals application takes many
years to show a detectable increase above background.

I have investigated some overapplication enforcement events, but have not
found the soil test that could detect a difference in soil constituent
levels between overapplied and normal applied and unapplied.  Not even
phosphorus, although I expect bray-extract phosphorus would show a
difference if given several months to mineralize. The tests I used included
fecal coliforms, but aerobic soil conditions wiped out the fecals in the 48
hours between the application and my testing. My deepest apologies if that
sounds like a sales pitch.

I read the papers, I know there is deep cause for concern.  I am absolutely
convinced that we must have research to address those concerns. I think
triclosan manufacture needs to halted. I think our society needs reexamine
our use of pharmaceuticals.

However, in my opinion, banning all land application of all sludge based on
what we understand of the contaminant content and biological health risks
creates more environmental problems than the environmental health and human
health issues that are solved. Not being involved in that part of the
science, it depends on a lot of 2nd and 3rd party sources of information, so
I keep reading the news to see how I should alter it.

More aggressive pretreatment, a regulatory mechanism quite successful in
throttling heavy metal content in the 1970's, can work against
pharmaceuticals.  My community just instituted a ban on phosphate detergents
to cut down on the waste water P content due to eutrophication concerns.
Communities can ban the use of specific pharmas also.  I would love to see
community bans on triclosan-containing hand soap.   I think some sludge
deserves to be banned from land application, but I don't have the criteria
or data base from which to make specific recommendations beyond what is
already in place. I think some sludge is going to be OK for land application
after even the most intense scrutiny, and I favor land application over
incineration, landfilling, and ocean dumping for sludge we can trust.  If
char can divert sludge from incineration, ocean dumping or landfilling, I
favor char. I truly doubt that level of enthusiasm is going to end up in a
sludge sales brochure. -philip

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
wrote:

>  Dear Philip
>
> What you are telling us is very much like a clip from a "Sludge Sales
> Brochure." What about the toxins in sludge, and their negative value?
>
> Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Philip Small <psmall2008 at landprofile.com>
> *To:* Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Frenzy - wordsmithing, humour, no TP value
>
> On sludge.  Sludge-N applied to farm fields normally replaces N
> manufactured using nonrenewable energy.
>
> The bulk of municipal waste water treatment solids is microbial biomass.
> It may smell like shit because it is still putrescible and smells anaerobic,
> but it isn't faeces anymore. Much of the putrescible content is food waste,
> especially in communities with kitchen sinks set to up with garbage
> disposals (I favor sewer fees on garbage disposals.  If you have one, wise
> up and yank it off).  Stabilized after 20-25 days of detention, with most of
> the putrescible characteristic used up to grow biomass, biosolids achieves a
> classic microbial C/N of 6-8, and an N content of between 3 and 6% on a dry
> weight basis.  Even considering that only 25% of that org-N is
> plant-available the first year, at US$0.5/lb in 2007 and 2x that in 2008,
> that org-N content is of considerable fertilizer value: $15-30/dry ton.  Add
> another $10-$20/dry ton for the mineral-N content.  At 5DT/ac, that's an
> applied value $125-$250/acre in 2008.  What will it be in 2009?
>
> For sludge that can be trusted (I believe some can, some can't<http://transectpoints.blogspot.com/2008/06/hephzibah-sludge.html>)
> it makes more sense to me to bulk up sludge with char than to make the
> sludge into char.  For one, the N in sludge in mineralized with a fair
> amount of inefficiency. Ammonia volatization and denitrification also take
> its toll on sludge-N uptake efficiency. Adding char can help with the
> denitrification especially. Another consideration is that sludge is fairly
> high in organic acids, such as humic acids and especially fulvic acids. That
> seems a valuable  complement to char.
>
> Each sludge is different, and each community's land resource is different.
> If the candidate fields are all in N-fixing alfalfa or legume-mix pasture,
> well it doesn't make as sense to retain the N value, but it would make sense
> if the candidate fields are wheat. Just some thoughts. -philip
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Gary Barei <garyb1957 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, this one time, I'll bite --- wordsmithing
>>
>> We've all gotten so politically correct, technically competent, hell,
>> media-savy and diplomatic!!
>>
>> If it looks like shit, and it smells like shit, and it tastes like shit
>> ........ Momma says ... it probably is SHIT!
>>
>> So, let's cook it up, say 500 degrees Fahrenheit, no oxygen allowed ...
>> black gravelly / powderly looking stuff  ...
>>
>> Hmmmmmmmmm ....
>>
>> Looks like : a soil amendment,  maybe a water and  ion  retentive,  a
>> microbial  heaven  on earth  (literally), a CO2 trap  ....
>> Smells like: well, hell ... it doesn't smell ... except for that sweet
>> organic, grassy, earthy,  we had the best time in the corn rows (sorry, I
>> digress)....
>> Tastes like:  Well, it just tastes good, natural I guess, plants loved it
>> ... less herbicides, fertilizer and pain ... and we all did it in a crappy
>> way, if you get my drift!
>>
>> SO - what does Momma say now?  Same as ever!!!  Look, Smell, Taste --- how
>> is your local, regional, national politician, taking Momma's good advice?
>>
>> I'm afraid to do the math, but 6 Billion of us must have, say, minimum,
>> 250 gm of "night soil, bio-sludge, post-processed biomass, nutrient depleted
>> excrement" to contribute daily  ... somebody post the number ... I'm too
>> afraid to launch the calculator.... What if we pyrolysed it?
>> ..............oops, say it out loud!
>>
>> ENERGY
>> POOP/NUTRIENTS (yeah, I mention that, but most like to look the other way!
>> ~LOL~, so many goodies left over!)
>> BIOCHAR - soil me, drop me in the river .... I wish I could sing the blues
>>
>> How to save the planet?  ...  Laugh at the above, and get serious about
>> tomorrow's choices.........
>>
>> My 2 cents, Canadian, at the time of posting, global market calamity
>> trading in currency notwithstanding.  Thanks!
>>
>> BTW, I bought oil at $79 US last  November ... Dumped it recently, but it
>> makes me sadder, every day :-(
>>
>> There it is!  La Poo Point!
>>
>> *******************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:15 AM, MFH <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>  Its becoming increasingly obvious that there's the beginning of a whole
>>> new "wordsmithing" industry on how to save the planet, like using human poo:
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/11/2271675.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Philip Small, RPSS
> Land Profile, Inc. * PO Box 2175 * Spokane, WA 99210
> 509-844-2944 cell * 509-838-4996 fax * 509-838-9860 office
> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/philipsmall
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>


-- 
Philip Small, RPSS
Land Profile, Inc. * PO Box 2175 * Spokane, WA 99210
509-844-2944 cell * 509-838-4996 fax * 509-838-9860 office
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/philipsmall
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080611/7e35b43b/attachment.html