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

[Gerald Van Koeverden]

Brian,

Of course you are correct.  The trouble with char in the soil, is  
that it doesn't fit into the category of mineral nor organic matter.   
It only fits into concepts like 'tilth' or soil structure - in  
referring to those agglomerations of soil particles in temperate  
climes that are indicative of a healthy soil.  It is these soil  
'agglomerations' that provide a structured environment to optimize  
the cycling of microbial life.

Typically it is very difficult to promote 'tilth' in the heavily  
weathered lateritic soils of the tropics.  I suspect that the char in  
terra pretas is what plays the role of sort-of-duplicating its  
effect, as well as adding to the CEC.

if this is so, where we will see char being of most benefit in the  
temperate climes is in soils where tilth - whether because for  
example of over-tillage, compaction or narrow range of texture (very  
sandy, clayey or silty) - is hard to get and maintain.

Gerrit

On 30-Mar-08, at 4:14 PM, Brian Hans wrote:

> 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. Â Â Â
>
> 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://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080331/56152539/attachment.html