[Terrapreta] Soil Food Web
Kevin Chisholm
kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Thu May 1 23:14:19 CDT 2008
Dear Max and Philip
Now, this is a very interesting turn of events!! Our efforts to
understand how TP was really formed seem vindicated. The vast scale of
the so called Terra Preta deposits, and the depths that are far more
than required for agricultural use certainly support the "natural
process" as you describe in your Scenario #1.
This seems to bring into question of where so-called Terra Preta
Deposits are actually Anthrosols. See:
http://eusoils.jrc.it/events/SummerSchool_2005/CD_ROM/SS2005_Files/2DAY/AnthroTechnosols_OSpaargaren_U.pdf
for a definition of soil types.
In my opinion, the important question is not whether the so-called Terra
Preta soils were man-made or not, but rather, how well they work in
doing the job that we want done.
As discussed in a recent thread, Terra Preta can do many good things.
What will further its usage is whether or not its usage will do the job
that the user wants done.
So... perhaps we should ask "What is Terra Preta?" I think we can all
agree on teh following features:
1: It is a black carbon soil.
2: It is located in Brazil
3: It contains charcoal
4: It contains pottery shards
This contrasts to other Black Earth Soils, as found in the USA, Canada,
and France, which:
1: They contain black carbon
2: They are not in Brazil
3: They may, or may not, contain charcoal,
4: They don't contain pottery shards.
Thus, while Brazil, Charcoal, and pottery shards are necessary to have a
Terra Preta Soil, they are not necessary to have a "Black Carbon Soil."
Dr. Ingham's point is that "natural Black Carbon Soils", such as the
Holland Marsh, Indiana Black Soils, and the Black Soils of France, may
be inherently different from a "synthetic" "Black Carbon Soil" made from
additions of finely pulverized charcoal to soil.
Natural Black Soils, of the nature referred to by Dr. Ingham, may have
their "black carbon" in a form where it can be consumed by soil
microbes, while black carbon from charcoal does not seem to be
consumable by microbes for some several thousands of years. If this was
the case, then the black soils produced from charcoal would have the
advantage of increasing the CEC, for improved growth, BUT the single
treatment could be counted on to last for a very long time. Natural
carbon soils are known to get consumed over time by some combination of
oxidation as a result of tilling, and consumption by soil microbes.A lot
of field testing will be required to address these valid concerns. It
seems we should distinguish between natural black carbon soils, and
black carbon Anthrosols made using pulverized biomass char from pyrolysis.
Best wishes,
Kevin
MFH wrote:
>
> Another door is opened and there’s a whole new world on the other side.
>
> If Elaine Ingram is correct in her hypothesis on the creation of TP,
> and in particular that time is a determining factor, it is going to be
> difficult to either repeat this process experimentally or take it to a
> production level.
>
> I am wondering therefore, whether anyone on the list has any knowledge
> of what the results may be for traditional composting, with applied
> pressure. There seems to be evidence that charcoal forms quicker under
> pressure during pyrolisis although there doesn’t seem to be any
> consensus as to why – maybe composting rates are also accelerated?
>
> Max H
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of *Philip Small
> *Sent:* Friday, 2 May 2008 3:14 AM
> *To:* Kevin Chisholm
> *Cc:* info at soilfoodweb.com; Terra Preta
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Soil Food Web
>
> 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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 <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list