[Terrapreta] Charcoal is not OM but Stable Soil Carbon.

[Brian Hans]

Tom et al.,
   
  I dont see how charcoal can be considered OM. I have been calling it Stable Soil Carbon. I was taught to not call the endpoint of composting OM but rather humus and other stable carbons. And because there is no real humic components in charcoal, we are left with calling charcoal 'stable carbon in the soil'.
   
  I am looking for others opinion here (and Im sure TP readers wont let me down). 
   
  Brian

Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
                Jim,
   
  “sequestering massive amounts of carbon” is the key. You seem to be saying that compositing doesn’t scale in a modern agricultural environment. Composting would seem to fit better at a small scale, as an urban high value soil amendment, or for a rural smallholder where the ingredients may be more available.
   
  I agree that Eduard in that at least in our environment the TP product must be prepared so that there are clear and predictable agronomic and economic benefits. That’s why I think the urban homeowner would be a good target for TP products that may in another form be applied to agriculture. Ag buyers will not pay as much as the homeowner, landscaper or enthusiastic gardener.    
   
  I look at charcoal as a means of facilitating the growth of biomass. It becomes a stable part of the mix of OM rather than an attempt to replace or create OM. 
   
  Tom
   
  >For those thinking about saving the world by reducing CO2, composting maybe a nice academic subject but it has no place in the practices for sequestering massive amounts of carbon.

>Jim
   

_______________________________________________
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/20080330/7545fe00/attachment.html