[Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal--Hosting microbes

[Mark Ludlow]

Larry and Max and List,

 

I am here to learn a few things. I feel a little sheepish busting in on such
ponderous topics as Rainforest v. Food 

For Yuppies, or logging practices (I get to see enough of both first-hand in
Oregon/Washington).

 

But I do want to gain a better understanding of the physicochemistry of
char, both ancient as well as that which some hope we will be producing to
absolve us of past GHG excesses.

 

I’m not confusing char with activated carbon, but I doubt that there is a
distinct dividing line between the two forms of carbon. Many of the claims
made about char resemble functional qualities claimed by activated carbon,
particularly the ability to adsorb certain molecules. The word adsorbing is
often used with both materials. Under absolutely natural conditions of
creation, (a rainforest burn, while raining) some char is likely to develop
the microporous structure typical of activated carbon, don’t you think?

 

Contributors have also mentioned the large surface area of char as if this
were somehow synonymous to the exceptionally large surface-to-mass ratios of
activated carbon. Recently, a fear was expressed that too much crushing
would somehow affect the “micro” structure of char. There is a structure—the
macrostructure of chunks or particles that we can hold in our hands—but
microstructure is something else altogether. Photomicrographs are taken with
scanning electron microscopes. Good luck trying to alter this very much with
a hammer.

 

It’s reasonable to expect that the physical conformation of char would vary
in accordance with its species of origin. This is observed in activated
carbon (coconut shell AC has a distinctive microstructure as compared with
that from of the more crystalline bamboo, for instance, and there’s really
no reason not to expect similar distinctions with char). But  activation
creates pores, as I understand it; it does not make large pores smaller (I
can’t argue this point very strongly!). Meso-pores allow biological
habitation; micro-pores are far too small in activated carbon and, if the
theories behind the practice of activation are to be considered, not
prevalent in char. (Much effort is being directed toward making AC with
larger pores—able to admit molecules in the nanomeric size range.)

 

Sorry to sound so tedious on this. I’m not claiming any expertise but I’d
like to understand all of the anecdotal reports from a more basic, physical
perspective.

 

Best regards,

Mark

 

 Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:23 PM
To: mark at ludlow.com; 'Larry Williams'
Cc: 'Miles Tom'; 'folke Günther'; 'bakaryjatta'
Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal--Hosting microbes

 

G’day Mark,

 

I think David Yarrow has answered your query. However:

 

a)     “activated” char is an enhanced version of char, usually after a
process involving steam and acid. The aim is to produce many more pores and
pores of smaller size. Coconut shell gives about the best activated char,
probably as a result of its original density and original matrix.

b)    Activated char has different properties to standard char and we
mustn’t confuse the two when looking for results in the soil. 

c)     I can’t find comparative data in a hurry but presumably
“un-activated” char has larger pore sizes

d)    Irrespective, perhaps the sizes you mention are for the smallest
pores, but that there are many of larger size

 

So I’d suggest that amongst the squillions of pores in a piece of char,
there will be a significant proportion of sizes above that required for
bacteria population, plus root hair penetration.

 

Max H

 

  _____  

From: Mark Ludlow [mailto:mark at ludlow.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 22 May 2008 1:42 AM
To: 'MFH'; 'Larry Williams'
Cc: 'Miles Tom'; 'folke Günther'; 'bakaryjatta'
Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal--Hosting microbes

 

Hi Max,

 

When I search for activated carbon specifications, the pore radii are often
expressed as a single-digit nanometer or even in the Angstrom range (similar
to zeolites).

 

It’s very difficult for me to imagine very much life occurring in cavities
so miniscule. 0.22 microns is a cut-off exclusion size for most bacteria.
Perhaps there are mesoporous structures that are more right-sized. Am I
missing something here?

 

Best,

Mark

 

  _____  

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of MFH
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:21 AM
To: 'Larry Williams'
Cc: 'Miles Tom'; 'folke Günther'; 'bakaryjatta'
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal

 

Further on charcoals ability to take up water.

 

Basically, if there is no water uptake then the char will serve little
purpose as there will not be a suitable environment in the passageways for
bacteria and fungal growth, nor for root penetration. So before adding your
home made char to the garden add some to a bucket of water and if it floats
you’ll need to add a surfactant.

 

Max H

 

  _____  

From: Larry Williams [mailto:lwilliams at nas.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 6:58 PM
To: MFH
Cc: folke Günther; Miles Tom; bakaryjatta
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal

 

This photograph
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/2105167898/in/set-72157603621180276/>
, taken by Richard Haard, in a garden situation seems to support the idea
that the critters and the plant roots help to break charcoal apart. The
larger dry piece of charcoal which the knife point is laying on was in the
ground for nearly one year and it does not resemble the smaller piece of
charcoal which had one small white flat worm (the white oval spot) and
apparent plant roots attached to it. The larger dry piece of charcoal
indicates little biological activity.

 

I can only suggest that the dry charcoal was buried just after it was made.
Likely it was a product of last spring's earthen mound kiln with no special
attempt to wet, size, fertilize or inoculate it. Is it possible that pieces
of charcoal can be in the ground for a year and not get saturated? Why?

 

In my gardening activities, I have found a considerable number of charcoal
pieces that, I believe, have been compacted by foot traffic during home
construction. Usually this charcoal is found when draining systems are
installed or repaired. These photographs are examples (here
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110594/sizes/o/> , here
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110588/sizes/o/>  and here
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110592/sizes/o/> ), also taken by
Rich. These specific pieces could have been in the ground since the land was
cleared for construction of the home some ninety years ago and were 4-6"
(10-15 cm) below the surface. This charcoal was 18" (45 cm) from an aged
moss covered brick wall with no  noticeable fire markings suggesting that
the charcoal was buried for a period of time that was closer to the
construction of the home than of recent origin.

 

>From my perspective, the placement of charcoal in the soil needs to meet
certain requirements for it to interact with the soil's biology. I agree
with Max and Folke that the charcoal is broken up by the local biology in
due course. Soil compaction may likely stall the break up of charcoal (till
the next ice age? I live in a location where the last ice age was fifteen
thousand years ago and was a mile... 1600 meters thick ice sheet).

 

Keep your eyes open for there is charcoal in more places than you might
believe, just under your foot-------Larry (in the wet Pacific NW)

 

 

-------------------------------------  

On May 20, 2008, at 3:26 PM, MFH wrote:

 

Worms feed by “sucking” moist particles of organic matter. They have no
teeth. It appears that fine grains of soil or sand or char are ingested to
assist in the breakdown of the organic matter in the worm’s intestines.

 

It seems unlikely that worms could be directly involved in breaking down
large char pieces. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a link. If the
moisture conditions are suitable and there is ample organic matter then
there will be worms, and worms will improve the soil, and improved soil will
mean more plant vigour, which will mean more plant roots. And more plant
roots will mean greater breakdown of charcoal lumps, as the roots penetrate
holes and gaps seeking nutrients and moisture. The forces generated by
expanding roots is considerable, as evidenced domestically by broken
concrete paths and damaged pipes.

 

And there are lots of roots. A mature rye plant has a total of around 600
km. of roots.

 

Max H

 

 

  _____  

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of folke Günther
Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:01 AM
To: Greg and April
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal

 

I don't know what happens if you have very large amounts, but if you add a
reasonable (>a kilo per sq. m) amount of unsorted (up to 4-5 cm pieces) char
to he soil, and wait for a year, then all char will be very soft and easily
split up in smaller pieces. I think the plant roots do most of the on, and
he worms will hunt for bacteria in the char.

2008/5/20 Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net>:

Are you sure about that ?

 

We already have some evidence that when char level get above a certain level
in worm bins, they don't do very well - probably because it's so abrasive.

If you add amounts of char in the worm-bin, the organic material will
disintegrate rather fast, the microbes will be eaten by the worms, an after
some time (faster than you think), almost only the char will be left. It is
evident that the worms don't thrive very well there!

 

If it's abrasive enough to keep worm levels down, what makes you think that
the worms can make big pieces small?

 

I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just pointing out that we may have some
evidence that what you said may not be true.

 

 

Greg H.

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: folke Günther <mailto:folkeg at gmail.com>  

To: May Waddington <mailto:may.waddington at gmail.com>  

Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Roy <mailto:rwlent at gmail.com>  Lent 

Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:17

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal

 

The worms and the plant roots  will do the job. After a year, all pieces are
conveniently small.
FG




-- 
NB :Send your mails to folkeg at gmail.com, not to holon.se
----------------------------------------
Folke Günther
Kollegievägen 19
224 73 Lund
Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)46 141429
Cell: +46 (0)709 710306
URL: http://www.holon.se/folke
BLOG: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/ 

_______________________________________________

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/20080521/9397ea94/attachment.html