[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25

[Mark Ludlow]

Hi Kevin,

You have it right if you are suggesting that to get the full benefits of
char one must have a complex system and be a soils scientist, to boot.

I'm looking for the rhythm method here; something that cuts across the
bandwidth of agricultural technology and chemical analyses. A few simple
rules, as it were. If we have to go high-tech to get optimal or even
measurable benefits then char is probably DOA.

The Western World has an addiction to technology. Injecting anhydrous
ammonia into the soil was pretty radical in its day. But what an immediate
effect! It's doubtful that even the most deliberate char application system
will have the same kinds of self-obvious effects. Does that mean we
shouldn't bother? Hardly! But it may be time to temper the optimism; at this
point, our lack of knowledge seems to outweigh what we are certain of (which
seems to be limited to the fact that carbon can be sequestered for some
centuries).

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:37 PM
To: Nikolaus Foidl
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25

Dear Nikolaus

Wow!! This is a neat proposed system indeed! However, it very much 
points out the complexity involved in "doing things right." 
Additionally, it points out the need to know "what else was done?"

Actually, to sort out the benefit of char additions, one would need 4 
test plots:
1: Control
2: Control + Char
3: Control + "All that other Good Stuff"
4: Control + "All that other Good Stuff" + Char

Given that "All that other good stuff" is necessary for the charcoal to 
be shown in its best light, we would be doing a serious disfavour to 
biochar additions to the soil, if all we add is charcoal.

We must be very careful to structure tests properly, and also, we must 
be very careful about comparing the benefits seen from char additions in 
different tests. For example, comparing 1: and 2: might suggest "Char 
improves yield by 10%, but comparing 3: and 4: might give a 30% 
incremental yield with charcoal.

Best wishes,

Kevin



Nikolaus Foidl wrote:
> Dear Kevin!
>
> In industrial sized agriculture you would use a 10 m3 tank hauled in the
> back of the seeding machine, pumping a slurry of fine milled charcoal,
> mycorrhizae infected soil and diluted melassa together with your favorite
> mix of fungi and bacteria and apply it as a side dressing or a broad band-
> below seed-dressing.
>
> As you repeat the same every year 2 times your field little by little will
> have the required charcoal concentration everywhere.
>
> The mix as well should contain some high protein containing sludge (hammer
> milled leaves from alfa alfa or Moringa) to rise nitrogen and organic
matter
> content below or around the roots zone. If you apply it this way the total
> mass applied below the root zone is less then a factor 35 compared with
> whole field application and rotavation. As well the energy need is much
> lower and its done in the planting operation.
>
> In the moment i am buying a seeding machine with a 500 gallon fertilizer
> tank and will mount a slurry pump to the tank to feed my plants through
the
> fertilizing slot.
>
> Best regards Nikolaus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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