[Terrapreta] Biochar and the nitrogen cycle

[Greg and April]

My replies will be interspaced in Green.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sean K. Barry 
  To: Biopact ; Terra Preta ; Greg and April 
  Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 15:48
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Biochar and the nitrogen cycle


  Hi Greg,

  My comment are Interspersed with yours, but in BLUE
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Greg and April 
    To: Biopact ; Terra Preta 
    Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:35 PM
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Biochar and the nitrogen cycle


    Interspaced between the **************** .

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Biopact 
      To: Greg and April ; Michael Bailes ; Terra Preta 
      Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 9:13
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Biochar and the nitrogen cycle


      Skyhigh fertilizer prices are currently making a lot of farmers think about lowering their application rates, I think.

      *****************

      <shrug>    I'm not so sure.    While they may be rethinking about the application rates, there has been little sign that it's dropping.    Many farmers have the belief that extra fertilizer will help plants through a drought.    

      When the price of fertilizer get's above that of char, then we will see a big change, but until then I believe that it is going to be business as usual. 

      This seems an odd thought.  Since it is water mainly and photosynthetic activity that mobilizes nutrients from the soil into the growth of plants, the thought of extra fertilizer as providing "drought resistence" seems an obvious waste.  Without enough water (a.k.a. a drought) then photosynthesis will decrease and the ability of the soil to mobilize the nutrients and have them move into the roots of plants (which only absorb water soluble nutrients that are actually in solution) will also decrease.  It therefore seems to me that "extra fertilizer" will not help during a drought.  If you mean help when the rains come after a drought ends, then I would suppose also that this depends more on when the "grwoing season" is versus when the drought occurred.  If it rains in the fall, near to or after the harvest, then the extra fertilizer will just run off or leach down and again just be a waste.

      It's the idea that during a drought, the plant has a harder time taking up nutrients, so an abundance will make it easier.    Many farmers will add extra nutrients when they know a dry spell is coming - the idea being that the extra nutrients will help the plant through the dry period.

      There is some basis for this belief, in organic agriculture, as well fed organic plants usually have roots that go deeper ( sometimes 3-5 times deeper ), better able to tap water that is lower in the soil.

      *****************

      The good thing about biochar amongst smallholders in the tropics is that most of them don't use fertilizer to start with. An intervention there to make agriculture more productive with char and fertilizer (the combination of which is most beneficial), can teach farmers about correct rates from the very start because rates would be optimized for use on char-amended soils. Obviously, access to knowledge and economic incentives are the key drivers for success here. 

      ********************

      It's really not the small farmer in any country, it's big Agro Businesses and the belief that you have to either become big or get out, that is at the root of the problem.    Poor pricing for a farmers crops is also another root of the problem - a farmer has to get more out of his limited amount of land and for a long time fertilizer was the only way to get more crops from the limited land.

      I once spoke to an organic grower who said that farm subsidies, the push for higher yields, and the "benefits" of industrial agriculture are the worst things that have ever happened to agriculture.  He said that farmers are between a rock and a hard place with subsidies (that demand improved yields or they go to someone else) and industrial fertilizers which "juice up" production and make them dependent on both, fertilizer to obtain the yields, and subsidies to obtain the fertilizer.  Then round and round again, because getting the subsidies requires producing the higher yields.  The only ones who can survive buy bigger and bigger farms requiring bigger and bigger equipment and Agro business interests (the "drug" peddlers of the agricultural community).   The end result has only been lower profits per acre, with greater yields per acre than ever before.


      I think that we are talking of simular things, in different ways.

      Regardless, Big AgroBusiness is bad news.

      *********************

      A formal N2O emissions market might come in handy, but I don't see this coming about anywhere soon. 

      ************************* 

      I doubt that will ever happen - there are to many natural sources for it to ever work.

      The largest increases in N2O emissions come from agriculture, mostly animal feed lots.   Natural sources and uptakes of CO2 are also much larger than human sourced emissions.   But it is the increase in emissions, above the natural ability of the Earth to absorb these increases, which is causing the problems with increased concentrations of these two GHGs: CO2 and N2O.  This is exactly like saying the oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.   This does not matter, because CO2 emissions by humans into the atmosphere ARE INCREASING CO2 CONCENTRATIONS in the atmosphere, regardless of how much the ocean naturally holds, absorbs, or emits.  The "natural system" of the ocean absorbing and emitting CO2 had reached an equilibrium balance long before humans changed that.

      Last year, I saw a episode of WiredScience, and they talked about the greenhouse gasses, and some experiments as a scientific station.    Basically they installed pipes along the ground, and released N2O and CO2 at concentrations that were estimated for the year 2030.    They found that all the plants in the area had increased rates of growth, and this was even more so near nitrogen fixing plants that were in the testing areas. 

      The next 20 yrs are going to be interesting.    I don't doubt that some negative things will occur, but I also believe that there will be positive things that will also occur.    That's why I can't get all worked up about climate change.    Many atmospheric scientists believe that for most of the history of man, the climate has been stuck in neutral gear when compared to the geological history of the earth and that may be starting to change.

      Personally I would like a growing season longer than the current 90 odd days.




      Greg H.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080519/924925d5/attachment-0001.html