[Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal--Hosting microbes

[Robert Klein]

Hi Mark

Thanks for your excellent post.  the observation that different biochar sources deliver product with different micropore structures suggests that it will be possible to determine plant source for the terra preta.  Right now all we have is the crop pollen signature of corn and cassava.

I think we all get confused expecting that a specific effect is the result of a specific temperature.  That is technically true.  The difference is that a biochar burn will have a distribution of hot spots more than capable of creating local effects.  I think that our experimentation should explore emulation of this phenomena.

I do not think that any harm is done if a little pyroligneous acid ends up in the mix as well as plenty of unburned material.  But we should know.  I suspect that the original earthen kilns produced a blend of material of which the extant carbon is the residue.

arclein


----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Ludlow <mark at ludlow.com>
To: MFH <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>; Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com>
Cc: Miles Tom <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>; folke Günther <folkeg at gmail.com>; bakaryjatta <bakaryj at gamtel.gm>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:43:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal--Hosting microbes

 
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:
 
Wormsfeed 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://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080523/6f2148ea/attachment.html