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

[Philip Small]

I mis-communicated.  It was specifically aggressive *source control* (rather
than *pre-treatment* per-se) that has throttled heavy metal levels in
sludge.  Sometimes the two terms get used interchangeably in casual
conversation, much like the term toxin
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin>gets used casually to mean "any
substance claimed to cause ill health
health" when it's formal meaning is "a
poisonous<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison>substance produced by
living cells or organisms that is active at very low
concentrations". -philip

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Philip Small <psmall2008 at landprofile.com>
wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
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/20080611/1b9e9363/attachment.html