[Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal--Hosting microbes
Larry Williams
lwilliams at nas.com
Thu May 22 04:21:49 CDT 2008
Mark-------The question about micropores in the making of activated
charcoal is way over my head and it isn't the question that
clarifies the use of nutrient ions by microbes in a piece of
charcoal. this list, for the most part, has been saying that that
there is a transfer of nutrients from the microbes to the fungal
roots. I was recently corrected in saying that the carbon atoms in
the structure of charcoal do not bind with ions except in a minor way.
This raised the question what is happening in the charcoal's pore
spaces to facilitate the two way path of nutrient fluids to and from
the plant leaves, fungus and the microbes. In a conversations with a
oil refinery chemist over a beer this evening on the properties of
charcoal, he made several comments that i am still trying to understand.
My non-chemical knowledge may not have fully appreciated his
comments. With this caution I ask members of this list to translate
your knowledge to the points I am about to make.
First, there are four forms of carbon atoms that are related,
charcoal, soot, diamonds and fullerenes.
Second, carbon atoms are not reactive at all. They are chemically
neutral
Third point, the structure of charcoal is sufficiently complex to
capture or hold organic molecules in it's matrix. A function used in
the refinery. I assume that this means that the much smaller nutrient
ions can be held within the charcoal's matrix also.
Is this structure, the property of charcoal that gives charcoal it's
functionality with volatile organics, nutrients ions and
microbes?--------Larry
------------------------------
On May 21, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Mark Ludlow wrote:
> 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, 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, here and here), 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
> To: May Waddington
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Roy 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://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080522/7bde23f8/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list