[Terrapreta] Char made made under pressurized conditions?
Richard Haard
richrd at nas.com
Sun Mar 30 23:21:35 CDT 2008
Jim - my thoughts on your comment
Rationale for composting charcoal on a larger scale farm before use.
'Composting' incidentally may be the wrong term. Pretreatment may be a
better expression.
We (speaking for myself anyway) are not the mainstream researchers
here. We are the hands on 'users' who learn about properties of this
additive that researchers in the future can base research for
eventual definition best agricultural practices.
Further, use of charcoal may be different in different kinds of
agriculture < industrial vs subsistence vs urban market gardens>,
climates, soils and economies of scale for each sovereign. Lastly
future perspective.
1. It is easier to spread over large fields if volume is increased.
Therefore why not use compost as a diluent?
2. biological activation of the charcoal additive - give beneficial
organisms a start before applying in field.
3. nutritional activation of the charcoal additive - pre-charge the
charcoal pore spaces and active surfaces with nutrients in order to
make the charcoal function and not at least detract from existing
nutrient profile.
I agree with your comment on costs of hauling materials. We use
considerably more than 200 tpy and haul same distance. It is cheap at
source but moving and spreading are a big cost.
As a compromise for a farmer of your scale and assuming my points,
1,2,3 are valid. What practices could you suggest?
Our local activity on pretreatment is to test this notion that we have
on the necessity of pretreatment for charcoal to best function in soil.
Many thanks
Rich H
On Mar 30, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Jim Joyner wrote:
> Why cling to this romantic idea of composting? On practically any
> scale it is not worth it.
>
> First, with the exception of the most ideal situations, it is
> uneconomical. I used to make 200 tons of compost each year. The
> materials (bedding and cattle manure) were free, eight miles away.
> They loaded my truck too. But after calculating the cost of hauling,
> turning, spreading, the profitability on crops was only marginally
> better than just a good rotation scheme. There was no difference in
> quality. And putting any sort of cost on opportunity for the time
> wasted, it was a wash or a loss.
>
> Second, using compost, it is almost impossible to know what nutrient
> mix is going to result. Compost is not magical. What one puts in is
> what one gets out.
>
> Compostable materials are getting harder to find whether you are a
> gardener or a farmer. That is because the efficiency of land/crop
> use has been forced to increase. There is little waste in crop
> production. In fact, what appears as waste is often the sign of bad
> soil management. Taking crop residues is self defeating because,
> such a practice just moves the cost somewhere else. (I'm excluding
> the use of sheet composting here, for that is basically a practice
> of best utilizing field wastes right on the field. But this would
> have little relationship to the use of charcoal).
>
> The best and most effective way increase OM in the soil, at least in
> the temperate climes, is to grow it there -- good cover cropping and
> rotations. The most economical and best way to control and replenish
> nutrients in the soil is with the use of rock powders. Ultimately,
> that is where all the nutrient comes from anyway. Using composted
> materials from nutrient mined soils may increase OM temporarily but
> does a poor and uncontrollable job of replenishing.
>
> So, back to charcoal in the soil. Grow the OM in the soil. In a
> balanced soil (just like good compost), there will be no ammonia
> given off. What little there is will be quickly converted to
> nitrites and then to plant-usable nitrates.
>
> Unless compost is subsidized with tax money (e.g., like
> municipalities composting leaves and tree waste), there is no sense
> in using compost at all. Even then, once the cost of using it is
> calculated in, it may not be worth it. The only place it can make
> sense is if there are materials available for free and labor is very
> cheap.
>
> 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
>
> Jeff Davis wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> OK, there is no smell from my compost pile so I should not have a
>> problem. I've had people tell me that it's not a good idea to compost
>> because of too much pollution like ammonia but no smell no problem!
>> That's good news!
>>
>> So besides urine is there any other way to produce something like
>> ammonia (natural) to enrich the charcoal ?
>>
>> If one was going to apply just urine to a field any ideas how many
>> gallons to the acre? Or I should say how to equate a gallon of
>> urine to
>> a bag of fertilizer.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 06:30 -0400, teelws at jmu.edu wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Fulke Gunther is right on about the compost pile. Anytime you
>>> have an ammonia smell you have a problem. Adding "edible" carbon
>>> to get the C:N ratio above 25:1 is essential. Adding char does
>>> something else. In this case you have to have the ammonia in the
>>> form of ammonium ion, NH4+. It will attach to the negative charge
>>> on the surface of char pores and be immobilized until removed by a
>>> stronger chemical or electrical attraction. Aeration and proper
>>> moisture content are essential for this process. Too dry you have
>>> volatilization, too wet and leaching results.
>>>
>>> By the way, char carbon does not count in the C:N ratio you want
>>> because it is nearly biologically inactive. It provides a surface
>>> area for complex biological activity, but if made properly should
>>> be effectively inert, which is why it lasts in soil so long. A
>>> good compost ratio includes only the portion of carbon potentially
>>> edible by bacteria. The biggest advantage of adding char to
>>> compost (aside from the sequestration over the long term) is that
>>> it reduces leaching losses of nitrogen compounds, keeping nutrient
>>> available for plants for longer periods.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>
>>>> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:46:09 +0200
>>>> From: Folke Günther <folke at holon.se>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Char made made under pressurized
>>>> conditions?
>>>> To: "'Sean K. Barry'" <sean.barry at juno.com>, <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I have been following the discussion for some days
>>>> now, and now, I can't keep quiet any more.
>>>>
>>>> 1. If you get ammonia from your compost pile, you
>>>> are managing it in the wrong way. You either has
>>>> too little plant material vs. meat or
>>>> nitrogen-rich material, too much water, or too
>>>> bad aeration. All these problems can be
>>>> alleviated wit the addition of charcoal.
>>>> 2. Don' put urine on warm charcoal. You will loose a
>>>> lot in the air.
>>>> 3. On the other hand, if you have aces to urine,
>>>> from a source-separating toilet, or from a
>>>> stable, it is a god idea to add it to fresh
>>>> carcoal. It will be absorbed to a large extent
>>>> (I don't have numbers here, does anybody have
>>>> numbers on how much urine could be absorbed in
>>>> charcoal?) Anyhow, the smell from a jar of urine
>>>> will fade considerably when charcoal is added.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adding two system diagrams on the combination of
>>>> different activities in a charring society If they
>>>> are unintelligible, please contact me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Folke Günther
>>>>
>>>> Kollegievägen 19
>>>>
>>>> 224 73 Lund, Sweden
>>>>
>>>> home/office: +46 46 14 14 29
>>>>
>>>> cell: 0709 710306 skype: folkegun
>>>>
>>>> Homepage: http://www.holon.se/folke
>>>> blog: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Från: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
>>>> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] För
>>>> Sean K. Barry
>>>> Skickat: den 29 mars 2008 22:40
>>>> Till: Terra Preta; Jeff Davis
>>>> Ämne: Re: [Terrapreta] Char made made under
>>>> pressurized conditions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is an interesting idea, because of the free
>>>> source of cool ammonia-NH3 gas from from off a
>>>> compost pile. I wonder what the concentration of
>>>> ammonia-NH3 in air is? It is entirely possible that
>>>> ammonia-NH3 would be absorbed into charcoal, but
>>>> maybe in the form of a solidified ammonia salt, like
>>>> ammonium bicarbonate (NH4HCO3), rather than as a
>>>> gas. I don't believe NH3 gas reactes with carbon-C
>>>> atoms on the surface of the charcoal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eprida had/has a product called ECOSS which has (I
>>>> believe) ammonium bicarbonate deposited on the
>>>> surface of the charcoal (like an M&M candy
>>>> coating). Some of their early bags smelled like
>>>> ammonia when first opened, I heard. I think making
>>>> a fertilized with ammonia charcoal product would
>>>> require some way to "fix" the NH3 molecules onto the
>>>> charcoal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SKB
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>> From: Jeff Davis
>>>>
>>>> To: Terra Preta
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 4:21 PM
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Char made made under
>>>> pressurized conditions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking more on the lines of capturing the
>>>> lost ammonia gas (etc)
>>>> from the composting pile. If it would be possible
>>>> to absorb this in the
>>>> cooling period of the charcoal. I know it's a
>>>> close to zero chance.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>> > Either case, I still doubt that N2 as a
>>>> reasonably inert gas will do
>>>> > anything - either as a fertilizer or be absorbed
>>>> into the char.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeff Davis
>>>>
>>>> Some where 20 miles south of Lake Erie, USA
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Terrapreta mailing list
>>>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>>>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>>>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Jag använder en gratisversion av SPAMfighter för
>>>> privata användare.
>>>> 16268 spam har blivit blockerade hittills.
>>>> Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin
>>>> e-post.
>>>> Hämta gratis SPAMfighter idag!
>>>> ________________
>>>> urinecharcoal.gif (27k bytes)
>>>> ________________
>>>> systemdiagram.gif (64k bytes)
>>>> ________________
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Terrapreta mailing list
>>>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>>>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>>>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>> Wayne S. Teel
>>> MSC 4102 ISAT
>>> James Madison University
>>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>>> Tel: 540-568-2798
>>> Fax: 540-568-2761
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Terrapreta mailing list
>>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080330/0bd941a8/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list