[Terrapreta] negative effects of charcoal, no instantaneousness, and

[francoise precy]

Hi Ruy, Sean, Kevin, Lou and all,

googling *charcoal negative effects on plant growth*, find loads. Ex.:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC3-4CC7W6R-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=91e5dd3a50a8ef16a2d3d278727a5710: 
*Effects of charcoal with pyroligneous acid and barnyard manure on bedding plants: ... mixture of charcoal with barnyard manure (MCB) to improve the medium for bedding plants was evaluated. ... (with) MCP ... the plant height of French marigold decreased, and the plant height and plant spread of scarlet sage decreased with the 30% treatment. ....* (otherwise generally positive)

http://www.slu.se/?ID=704&Nyheter_id=8497
*Limitations of charcoal as an effective carbon sink: ...when charcoal was mixed into humus, there was a substantial increase in soil microorganisms (bacteria and fungi). These microbes carry out decomposition of organic matter (carbon) in the soil, and consistent with this, they found that charcoal caused greatly increased losses of native soil organic matter, and soil carbon, for each of the three forest stands. Much of this lost soil carbon would be released as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Therefore, while it is true that charcoal represents a long term sink of carbon because of its persistence, this effect is at least partially offset by the capacity of charcoal to greatly promote the loss of that carbon already present in the soil.*
etc

Re. carbon offset: despite noting the persistency aspect there's still a suggestion that charcoal be seen at par with humous, therefore that the benefits *can be totally offset* by the losses; which looks a bit like short-sightedness to me.
Re. positive-negative effects: the soil in my garden near the house is heaviest in clayish subsoil (from house fundations). That's where adding charcoal has brought most improvement. On the other hand the richest plot is, as I discovered this spring, right above a loose stash of old broken pottery shards, it's buried from about 50 to 70cms. More generally, small bits of bricks have richer surrounding soil than stones / pebbles; the soil structure is better too, more aerated. Whole bricks buried are a misery, but I often find that a plant with spreading roots (not tap roots) has wrapped most of its roots around the darn thing (which makes it harder to pull it off too). Why most of its roots? suspicion they do it on purpose but why. The thin layer of soil immediately around it is also usually of better structure and often seemingly richer. These bricks are 150 yrs old, with large pores. The roots do not behave the same around new bricks. 

Somehow I think of what said Sean: *effect could be made to happen overnight or in a single growing season with one application of the "right stuff", too. Who knows?* indeed who knows, but it feels that the impatience is too dismissive of the other as a living organism – emphasis on 'living'. This *right stuff* is suggestive of 'mere' matter while giving no inkling of the 'living' / evolving interelations. Can't have instantaneousness before having understood what rythms to coordinate and how – no trying to bargain with that (even Sean :-), it's entirely uneconomical all over.
Since we are in irrationality, here's a piece: In a *do-nothing* agronomy, timing is essential and is not a fixed term. Plus, the timelines of the main factors are different but very much interdependant. Lastly no-one seems to have caught up on the several if not numerous similarities between biofilms and micro-organisms as yet, can't find any study in that sense. But I think somewhere along the line it'll be found that the micro-organisms' population dynamics abide (also) by some principle based on 'quorum sensing' = *a type of decision-making process used by decentralized groups (such as bacteria colonies) to coordinate behavior... according to the local density of their population*, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_sensing. 

I agree with Sean that TP soils are mostly man-made – for the same reason for which I disagree with him about instantaneousness: timing. Soil life is not on the same timelife-scale as carbon, doesn't ring right to insist that it be directly linked. If anything, natural TP seems to me more likely to happen thru forest fires. But can't count on that to build up a soil, I think... TP is harvested from previously built-up sites (built-up as TP soil, that means). Lou's got funny ways of talking for some things, and he's graced with near-impervious shield against sarcasms b/c it's not in his mind so best not take it personally. *vegetation that falls into depressions and low lying areas is converted to TP for harvesting about 20 years later*: that doesn't say if the soil had been prepared or not, and it's very unlikely that it was not. Else there'd be TP all over the world wherever there's been a pile of compost. 

Greetings to all
FP
_________________________________________________________________
Great deals on almost anything at eBay.co.uk. Search, bid, find and win on eBay today!
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000004ukm/direct/01/