[Terrapreta] Soil Food Web

[Philip Small]

I am fascinated by Elaine Ingham's initial take on Terra Preta. In her
initial view (posted 2006), TP was not the result of amending soil with
fire-derived charcoal, but rather was the result of in-situ anoxic
biological processes involving thermophilic organisms, processes which also
occur during composting and which produce black carbon. The implication is
clear:  (1) Terra Preta Nova is best created by specific assemblages of
organisms in an iterative process over a long period of time. (2)
Charcoal-centric strategies are a distraction to accomplishing this. I am
persuaded by (1) and not by (2).   A key to TPN could easily be tucked away
within this absolutely captivating paradigm. I would be keenly interested in
learning what additional insights into Terra Preta that Elaine Ingham has
had since. I deeply hope she responds to Kevin's invitation.

Following are some 2006 posts to SANET-MG, a discussion group about
sustainable agriculture. As you can see the context is very specific to
charcoal as produced by an abiotic process and used as a soil amendment, not
to terra preta.


====
Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:43:36 EDT
 The only benefit I see when using charcoal is that it provides a physical
"fluff" to the soil, forming passageways for oxygen and water to infiltrate
deeper into the soil.

In real soil, these passageway-building functions are provided by bacteria,
fungi, protozoa, and beneficial nematodes.  If the proper biology is
present, then proper soil aggregation will be an on-going process.  Once
"fixed", it remains fixed, as long as nothing is done to kill the biology,
or prevent the organisms from doing their soil-building functions.

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0609&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=6282
===

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:09:56 EDT
Charcoal addition, WITHOUT ANY organisms, nutrient, or water addition with
it, was what was being discussed.

If you wish to add in other factors, along with the charcoal, then the
discussion will be very different.

Charcoal, by itself, as an addition to soil, doesn't contribute much besides
physical structure.

Can charcoal hold cations?  Sure.  But if you want to increase cations in
soil, you need to add the cations.  Charcoal contains relatively few
nutrients, since many of them were lost through volatilization during the
high temperature - lack of oxygen phase require to turn carbon into
charcoal.

Addition of charcoal typically results in increased requirement for soluble
N, P ,K, S, etc, since the nutrients in charcoal are not easily
accessed without the help of quite a few different kinds of  organisms.

If you want to add all the other things besides charcoal that are in Terra
Preta, i.e., if you want to add bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes,
microarthropods, humus, fulvics, proteins, sugars. etc then we aren't
talking about just charcoal anymore.

How long has it been since "black earth" was anaerobic?  It does not has a
sickening, stinky smell to it as it has been described to me.  It is not low
in oxygen.  It is not hot.  Terra Preta is not charcoal.

Recalcitrance of any organic matter is relative, and I'll agree with Lutzow
et all absolutely on that statement.  If you have no fungi in the "mix", the
wider C:N materials are going to have a hard time breaking down.  If the
fungi that can use that wide C:N material are present, those "recalcitrant"
materials can disappear pretty quickly.

If organic matter has been sterilized, or does not contain the organisms
capable of breaking down the bonds in the material, then that material will
appear "recalcitrant".

How many times in scientific studies have fungi been excluded from the
"microorganisms" doing the work?  Of course cellulose is going to appear
"recalcitrant" if you forget to include the worker that can use that
material.

Charcoal has to reach temperatures where much of the biology will be shut
down, killed or at least put into dormant conditions.  Therefore, charcoal
usually does not come with the set of organisms to break it down.

Benefits of addition of charcoal to the soil?  Few active organisms, few
usable nutrients, possibly requires N, P, S, etc additions from someplace
else to allow it to decompose, no water?  There is little benefit that
charcoal can provide.

Restrict the information being considered to just what I was talking about,
and do NOT add in all sorts of other things.  Please don't muddy the
conversation that was being held.

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0609&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=7253

===
Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:46:06 EDT
.....I clearly indicated my response as being about charcoal.
Charcoal by definition is wood held at high temperature (175 to 180 C) with
low oxygen (doesn't burn but essentially crystallizes).  This can be done
mechanically, or can be done by biology.

If someone wants to develop a new term, for example "char", then a clear
definition is required.  Conditions for production of that material need to
be defined.

When people compost using woody materials, such as oak, pine, cedar,
eucalyptus, or other wide C:N bark, heartwood or sapwood, with other
materials (green plant material and high N containing material) on which the
bacteria and fungi grow rapidly, use up oxygen, and generate high heat
(above 170 C), then conditions are correct to produce charcoal.

Compost is NOT sterile at 175 C.  Just because none of the organisms growing
at those temperatures will grow on any lab culture plate, does not mean
those organisms do not exist.

But many conventional microbiology-based people make that mistake.  There
are a huge number of species and high numbers of individuals at high
temperatures.  Take a look at deep sea vents.  Check out the number of
species in a ml of seawater, regardless of whether that water is from deep
ocean vents or from near-shore, or mid-depth.

The reason that compost piles heat is through the heat released at the
organisms grow.  No organisms, no heat in a compost pile.  If you have heat,
you have growing organisms.

In Terre Pieta, there are a huge number of organisms.  Which is more likely
to be more important to the production of the fertility of this
soil?  Charcoal, the charred organic matter, or the organisms?

If you have a material that is compacted, it often lacks
oxygen.  Mycorrhizal fungi are strict aerobes, and cannot grow when oxygen
is lacking.  If material that structurally helps oxygen move more easily
into the material is added, the mycorrhizal fungi will be seen to grow more
readily as the conditions restricting their growth are alleviated.

Did the structural material supply carbon?  mineral nutrients?  or allow
oxygen to move into the material?

What is the real explanation for the benefit of charcoal for mycorrhizal
growth?

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0609&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=7917
===
Thurs, 14 Sep 2006 11:04:17 EDT

Charcoal formation by biological processes has not been dealt with by any
engineer, that I know of.  Not in any scientific publication, because when
it comes to understanding what biology can do, engineers are really, really
poor at ever having attempted to figure it out.  Those darn microbes are
just a pain to get them to behave in a consistent fashion.

Compost that goes anaerobic does not make big chunks of charcoal, which is
another reason why engineers ignore the biological process.  It is not an
efficient way of making a commercially successful charcoal production
facility.

But when you go back to the middle ages, the way charcoal was made from wood
was not with extremely high temperatures.  Not efficient production methods,
but it got the job done.

Look at a compost pile that is black, has pieces of what are analyzed as
charcoal in it (no charcoal put into the pile to begin, no wood ash or
burned material in the starting materials).  Where did the charcoal come
from?

Once carbon in a compost pile starts begins to "char" (maybe biological
charcoal production should be defined as charring, since big chunks aren't
produced, as in commercial charcoal operations), you aren't going to be
growing the plants that once could have been grown in that material.

Along with the anaerobic conditions required to produce charcoal,
anaerobic biological processes volatilize nitrogen as ammonia, sulfur as
hydrogen sulfide, phosphorus as phosphine gas, produces low pH volatile
organic acids, and a group of toxic materials that will kill plants if that
material is placed near the roots before being aerated properly.

If the pile goes anaerobic, and then you let the biology deal with the
problem (it can take years), carbon is blown off, mineral nutrients
concentrate again.  We then have what I suspect is the Terre Pieta that has
people so excited (as they should be excited).

If scientists had paid attention to all the conditions that can occur in
composting processes, and differentiated aerobic composting from the effects
of anaerobic processes during composting, understood what goes on with
different starting materials, temperatures, moisture, oxygen concentrations,
etc, then we wouldn't be so thrilled with Terra Pieta.

But because commercial fertilizer concerns wanted to convince the general
public that the compost the general public was making was BAD, and that they
should buy inorganic fertilizers, because inorganic fertilizer was "better"
and easier to use, scientists who examined compost paid no attention to the
fact that what they chose to measure as "compost" was not in fact compost by
any definition.

I have been appalled by the composts being produced at most academic
institutions.  Typically, their "compost" stinks to high heaven, and are
health hazards.  It is usually black in color (charcoal), the ammonia coming
from it is at toxic levels for the machine operator, and the pH is usually
lower than anything I would ever pot a plant in.  And the human pathogens in
it!  Egads!  You can't kill *E.coli* when the conditions are ones that favor
its growth.

Not that any most commercial composting operations are any better, that I
know of.  There are no biological standards for most of the organisms that
are in compost, but it is all those organisms, from bacteria to fungi to
protozoa to nematodes that make compost.

The US Composting Council rejected the idea of any biological assessment of
compost EXCEPT *E. coli *or other pathogens.  My opinion of why they did
that is because none of the commercial compost makers would have been able
to sell their materials as compost, if even minimal biological standards
were imposed.

What you can buy at most "compost" yards is not compost, it is mulch, or it
is putrefying organic matter.  A biological assessment will show you that in
an instant.  I've been training people to look at compost for a couple years
now, and it takes possibly as long as 5 minutes to be able to determine
whether you are dealing with real compost, mulch, or anaerobic putrid
material.

If the organic matter is pitch black, stinky and slimy, it is not compost,
it is putrefying organic matter.  Many of the nutrients were blown off as
gas, and of course cannot compete with inorganic fertilizers.  If you are
trying to prove that "compost is bad", then this works perfectly.

But it is not compost.

How then does Terre Pieta get to be so wonderful?  It went anaerobic, it
lost nutrients, and yet, it is a great growing medium.

Time.  Time to let the aerobic biology work on the "char", on hte anaerobic
waste materials and turn all of that into humus.

Well, I've ranted long enough, late for work........

Elaine Ingham


In a message dated 9/13/2006 7:49:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [log in to
unmask]<http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?LOGON=A3%3Dind0609%26L%3DSANET-MG%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D437421%26B%3D-------------------------------1158246257%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUS-ASCII>writes:
 Hello Elaine,

I was unaware that charcoal formation could occur at temperatures as low as
175-180 C. Can you direct me to a reference that describes the formation of
charcoal during high temperature composting ?

>Charcoal by definition is wood held at high temperature (175 to 180 C) with
low oxygen (doesn't burn but essentially >crystallizes).  This can be done
mechanically, or can be done by biology.

 Joel

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0609&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=8654
===





On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
wrote:

> Dear Philip
>
> Philip Small wrote:
> > My impression
> > <
> http://transectpoints.blogspot.com/2007/01/teaming-with-microbes-arrived-today.html
> >
> > is that Soil Foodweb's Elaine Ingham remains "unswervingly skeptical"
> > of biochar. Her point of view, last I heard, was that biochar, beyond
> > a devastatingly high C:N ratio, does not contribute to the soil food
> > web. In my opinion her endorsement is critically important to the
> > acceptance of biochar as a beneficial soil amendment by the general
> > public.
>
> I am taking the liberty of including Soilfoodweb as a recipient of this
> e-mail, with the hopes that they will forward it to Dr. Ingram, and that
> she will respond indirectly, or directly. I would ask that she outlines
> her concerns, and tell us what we should demonstrate in tests so that
> she would feel justified in supporting charcoal additions to soil.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:19 PM, MFH <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au
> > <mailto:mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>> wrote:
> >
> >     For those who may not be aware, the Soil Foodweb is a very valid
> >     organisation dedicated to soil analysis and improvement.
> >     www.*soilfoodweb*.com <http://www.soilfoodweb.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >     The following is a brief report from the Australian branch, with
> >     mention of Carbon sequestration but they don't see to have
> >     focussed yet on the use of charcoal. I'd suggest that they could
> >     be useful allies.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Max H
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080501/bdba6f1c/attachment.html