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

[Robert Klein]

Hi All

I remain very conscious of the fact that our science knowledge on char products is still very circumscribed and we are fighting a continual battle to not throw the bay out with the wash water.

Pure carbon in a fine enough form to be breathed may actually have little dilatory effect except to grab a few molecules.  The problem is that there are a lot of real nasties happening at the same time.  It would be nice to know and to develop protocols for various temperature ranges with a applicable scientific protocol that ferrets out the secondary issues.

We know for sure that the system works for what may be mid temperature charring.  That is why reconstructing the original methods is so important.  We retain access to a two thousand year field test that is unequivocal

regards

arclein.


----- Original Message ----
From: Philip Small <psmall2008 at landprofile.com>
To: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Cc: Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:49:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Frenzy - wordsmithing, humour, no TP value

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 
To: Terra Preta 
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) 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/b84d3b80/attachment.html