Physical activation of biochar and its meaning for soil fertility and nutrient leaching � a greenhouse experiment

Hi Policy ,� Soils & several bcced researchers,

Virtual Special Issue on Biochar;
29 papers Compiled by: Richard Burns, The University of Queensland, Australia and Karl Ritz, Cranfield University, UK

"We hope that collating these publications under one virtual roof will stimulate informed debate and accelerate the arrival at a consensus regarding whether biochar is an important addition to our much-needed agricultural armoury or a passing trend with no lasting value or consequences for environmental management."
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/soil-biology-and-biochemistry/virtual-special-issues/virtual-special-issue-on-biochar/

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

�Biochar Cap and Trade in CA,
�SBI Advocates Cap and Trade Investments in Biochar for Agriculture

In a recent letter to Assemblymembers Perez, Blumenfield, Gordon and Feuntes and Senators Steinberg, Leno, Simitian and Kehoe, initiated by CalCAN, the California Climate and Agriculture Network, the Sonoma Biochar Initiative (SBI) urged that biochar, a climate response tool and a material to benefit agriculture, be considered for investment under the cap-and-trade fee revenue that help meet the objectives of AB 32 climate response law.� SBI strongly supports investing a portion of the fee revenues in agricultural activities that reduce GHG emissions and actively sequester carbon.� Such investments in our communities can create jobs and spur innovation.

http://sonomabiocharinitiative.org/archives/367

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Carbon Footprint Labelling,...

Insight: do customers understand a product's carbon footprint?

A "carbon label", a tag summarising the carbon emissions generated by the full life cycle of a product (sometimes referred to as its carbon footprint), is seen as an effective way to raise awareness of climate change, and so help change lifestyles and consumer behaviour. The UK government launched its carbon-labelling programme in 2007; now more than 1100 everyday products have been carbon-labelled.

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/49256

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Abstract Accepted & Go-in to Sonoma,
Erich

#707

From: Erich Knight <erichjknight@...>
Date: Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:06 am
Subject: San Francisco Bay Big Biochar Experiment,... Steam activation

erich_knight

Hi Policy & Soils,

Engaging citizens in the UK......

�This is the first large-scale experiment on the use of biochar in British allotments and gardens. It aims to gather quantitative data on above- and below-ground productivity, and qualitative data on plant and soil health of widely used fruit and vegetable varieties in Britain. These data, combined with existing information on weather and soil quality, will be used to assess the effects of biochar on the productivity of soils across Britain.
http://www.bigbiocharexperiment.co.uk/

........to engaging Citizen Science around the Bay;

San Francisco Bay Big Biochar Experiment

The 2013 SBI Citizen Science Project will take the learning from the 2012 pilot project that consisted of 50 participants in Sonoma County and expand the program to an on-going effort and expand the reach to the larger San Francisco Bay Area. Grant funds will be used to fund purchase of supplies, develop an effective outreach program and create an interactive website for data collection and display of results.

http://sonomabiocharinitiative.org/projects/citizenscience

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Physical activation of biochar and its meaning for soil fertility and nutrient leaching � a greenhouse experiment

" Steam activation, however, almost doubled the positive effects of biochars in all instances, thus being an interesting option for future biochar applications."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012.00407.x/abstract

Cheers,
Erich

#708

From: Erich Knight <erichjknight@...>
Date: Sat May 5, 2012 5:39 am
Subject: Buckminster Fuller Challenge,.... PermaMatrix; Love the Dirt You�re With!

erich_knight

Hi Policy & Soils,

Eco-Fuel Africa Meets Buckminster Fuller Challenge
May 4, 2012 NEW YORK CITY��The Buckminster Fuller Institute (BFI) is proud to announce the finalists for the 2012 Buckminster Fuller Challenge, each providing a workable solution and whole systems approach to the world's most significant challenges.

The Buckminster Fuller Challenge, named "Socially-Responsible Design's Highest Award" by Metropolis Magazine, is the annual global competition recognizing bold, visionary, tangible initiatives that take a comprehensive, anticipatory, design science approach to radically advance human well being and the health of our planet's ecosystems. Among other criteria, entrants are judged on the feasibility of their initiative, whether it is able to withstand rigorous empirical testing, its ability to not only sustain, but enhance the environment, and its ability to scale and adapt to a broad range of conditions.

2012 Buckminster Fuller Challenge Finalists Are:

Eco-Fuel Africa Limited, a budding enterprise led by a dynamic Ugandan entrepreneur, Sanga Moses, leverages simple technologies to address multiple critical social and environmental problems, boosting rural incomes, combating deforestation, sequestering CO2, reducing indoor air pollution, enhancing the fertility of depleted farming soils, and radically improving overall health and wellbeing of the community.
Future of Fish, applies rigorous design thinking with a comprehensive systems view to the massive crisis of over-harvesting that threatens the world's wild marine fisheries with collapse, and addresses complex systems challenges that have broad applicability.�
The Living Building Challenge, launched by a pioneer in green architecture, is a philosophy, advocacy tool, and performance standard - setting the highest standard of environmental in buildings, reframing how buildings and infrastructure function within ecosystems.
The Water Retention Landscape of Tamera, combines a profound spiritual connection to the land with scientific rigor and a high degree of creativity and innovation to shape a landscape an maximize the retention of rainwater and circulate it in such a way that biodiversity, food production, and human wellbeing are all harmoniously enhanced.

http://challenge.bfi.org/2012Finalist_EcoFuel

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PermaMatrix;
The following are before & after pictures taken of the Portland, Oregon downtown parks landscape remediation effort after the Occupy Portland campers moved off of the property.

http://permamatrix.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/#

Love the Dirt You�re With!

Click here to order some LOVE!

http://permamatrix.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/love-the-dirt-youre-with/?goback=.gde_2446475_member_112012771

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Dirt is for Lovers.............It worked for Virginia,
Erich

#709

From: "ALAN" <gdsmain@...>
Date: Sun May 6, 2012 10:47 pm
Subject: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test

afmo...

We are having similar discussions in the NE regarding how one does testing and
what one calls biochar.  I think that this test is very valuable if for nothing
else it points out the problems with doing large (or even moderate scale) tests
that take a lot of work and / or funds and have significant exposure without
doing bench or rather small scale plot tests with the proposed mixtures in the
soils of the area and the plants that are targets.

There is an unfortunate dichotomy in terminology that this test illustrates, and
I am on the minority side and will submit to being over-ruled if that is the
eventual decision.  My position is that until there is extensive knowledge of
the effects of a charcoal mixture in an area it is not safe to call the
amendment biochar.  Rather the test needs to specify what was done and why and
make no claims about what is expected other than to record hopes.  I believe
that Nicholas Foidl's comments about what he does not know about drought
responses etc. is a good sign that there are reasons to persist in study and use
where small tests have been positive.  There is still a lot we do not know.  Be
careful!
Alan Page, research forester


--- In biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com, rongretlarson@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Biochar-soils list (and others)
>
> This is a request to have comments on a Biochar test report. Its negative
conclusion has come up as a "proof" that Biochar is being oversold.
>
> The background for this request is a long series of exchanges between Kevin
Chisholm and myself. Below I give only item 6 (of 9) in a message I sent last
night to Kevin and the Biochar-policy list. Time being short for me, I will only
here start this new dialog on his test.. Later I will/may include more of
Kevin's comments. This one appeared yesterday as the third "##KC3" entry after a
part of my entry "RWL3v" ( a different part of a very long exchange)
>
> "##KC3: Results with char additions were very discouraging, and I did not
bother with 2nd and 3rd year tests. The tests did prove to me that a poor
African Farmer using biochar alone on a disadvantaged soil would most likely
experience devastating results."
>
> *RWL1a: I have not yet responded to that statement (or anything else received
on the 21st) - but, as elsewhere, find almost nothing to agree with. Re this
statement by Kevin, everything I have read says that biochar will likely have
its most beneficial impact on the most disadvantaged soils - not the least. But
I am a beginner on these sorts of tests. So in order to possibly rebut Kevin, I
need help in analyzing Kevin's test - with what I think may include questionable
techniques and results. See more below - which includes as "*RWL1b", "*RWL1c",
etc.comments on this part 6 (only). If others could similarly number their
responses, it would help a lot in locating them later. The next is what came in
today on this topic, after mine also today. Because of shortage of time, I
probably will not be saying much else for a week at least on this topic.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>
> To: rongretlarson@..., biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: "Nando" <d.nando@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@...>, "Alex English"
<english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel
Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@...>
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:20:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool
Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in
Cameroon
>
> 
> Dear Ron
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rongretlarson@...
> To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com ; Kevin
> Cc: Nando ; Josiah Hunt ; Alex English ; karnask ; Jock Gill ; Nathaniel
Mulcahy ; Kelpie Wilson
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool
Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in
Cameroon
>
>
>
>
> Kevin, List and ccs
>
> 1. This is a response to Kevin's message yesterday, which started last year
and was about 50 pages - with material sent back ........................
>
>
> <blockquote>
>
>
>
> <*RWL1b: snip quite a bit - but almost none related to the test reported by
Kevin. That earlier part of the exchange is all available at "biochar-policy".
Re the test I said: >
> </blockquote>
>
> <blockquote>
>
>
>
> " 6. I would appreciate anyone more skilled than myself in soil science to
comment on Kevin's test, which was attached to his yesterday's message. "
> </blockquote>
>
> <blockquote>
>
>
>
> #KC: I also would welcome, and appreciate, comment on these tests. Such
comments would be very helpful to any Farmer considering the use of biochar, as
well as to me.
>
> In part, I need to spend the next week preparing for a panel at the ETHOS
meeting in Seattle next weekend. After next weekend I might/can return to that
topic - but hope others can jump in first. I still know virtually nothing about
the char Kevin used (source, size, pH, production type and temperature, etc)
> # KC: I made the char from conventional commercially available pellets
intended for use in pellet stoves. I made them in a JXQ-10 Stratified Downdraft
Gasifier, operated in a manner to maximize charcoal production. I did not do a
pH test on the charcoal itself. It would be a "Low Temperature Char."The wood
pellets started at about 6 mm diameter, and after charring, were about 4 mm
diameter (visually estimated) and were applied "as produced", without
pulverization. All ingredients were well mixed in a wheelbarrow, prior to
placement in pots.
> [*RWL1c - I have doubts that this gasifier means of production would be always
be considered low temperature in the Biochar world. Anyone?
>
> </blockquote>
>
>
> <blockquote>
>
>
>
>
> </blockquote>
>
> <blockquote>
>
>
>
>
> . I think it would have been wise to use more than one single (very large)
dose of char. I'd like to know the (Lehmann or Steiner?) reference Kevin cannot
recall. The large amount of seaweed (non-composted?) I have not seen used
before, and so will be tough to find comparison data. I am sorry that he chose
not to see what might have happened in following years in these same "pot"
plots.
> #KC: The intent was to see if biochar was of advantage for use on a
"disadvantaged soil." I used seaweed, to create a "somewhat advantaged soil"
because I was fortunate to have it available at low cost, and I wanted to stay
organic. It was applied directly to the soil, without composting, and without
"pre-washing".
> </blockquote>
> *RWL1d: Seems to me to be competing intentions here.
>
> Anyone else have experience with this use of char with straight seaweed? (I'm
thinking nitrogen competition.)
>
> To further assist newcomers to this dialog, I below include everything from
yesterday by Kevin on this topic (his ##KC3, preceded by my RWL3* type and
similar entries. This starts off with Kevin - from weeks ago):
>
>
>
> # I was criticized for reporting negative results from a competently run
biochar test. :-)
> [RWL2y: Can you cite the specific e-mail(s) where you were criticized? I urge
(as two lines above) more attention to the negative results. No-one should be
discouraging any negative report - and I don't recall any such criticism. This
is not to say it is criticism to ask for how the experiment was run. I look
forward to hearing whether you followed the recommendations from Dr. Majors in
the several IBI papers at the top of the this response. I did read your report
pretty carefully and don't think I responded. But I now vaguely recall that I
couldn't find some key information in what you wrote (pH levels of either char
or soil, the raw material for the char, nitrogen sufficiency). I know you did a
soil test after the fact; not sure if there was one in advance. I'd be glad to
look at your report again, should you care to send it. But I would like to hear
first whether you feel you followed the recommendations of Dr. Major in the
several cites at the top of this response.]
>
> #KC: My Report is on the Biochar Site somewhere, but I could not find it.
Perhaps Erin could find it and post its URL to the List? I would appreciate your
comments on where my test protocol was acceptable, and where it was deficient.
> [RWL3ba: It is your responsibility to find it (not mine) - and I have already
said I would do what you asked.
>
>
> ##KC: I was in contact with Erin, and she has loaded my Test Report at:
> http://biochar.bioenergylists.org/node/1757
> The Protocol I followed was not exactly as Dr. Major outlines, but the
essentials were there. Triplicate, clear objectives, etc. No pH test. Soil
analysis was the analysis of the soil, just prior to the soil blending for
tests. Earth, charcoal and seaweed, as appropriate, was all "uniformly
pre-mixed" in a wheelbarrow. While results were negative, in that they gave
disappointing results for biochar, the information gained was very positive
indeed. The big message I get is that:
> 1: biochar can rob nutrients from a plant in a "disadvantaged soil" and that
the soil should be brought to "somewhat good" or basically good" state for the
benefits of biochar to be positive.
> 2: I am thinking that the poor results for the control soil were as a
consequence of low phos. The corn leaves did not show general chlorosis
(nitrogen was adequate) or inter-dendritic chlorosis (Magnesium was adequate.)
> 3: The good results from the plots with the seaweed additions may have been
from either the mineral content of the seaweed, or possibly also from its
organic content .
> 4: I conclude that in my particular soil circumstances, , ie, a "disadvantaged
soil", I would be better off WITHOUT biochar, and that I would be better off
attending to other gross soil deficiencies first. After the soil was brought to
a "basically good" condition, THEN further biochar tests would be justified, to
see if biochar could make it even better
> *RWL1e: This last portion, being his latest (yesterdays), for consistency,
should have been labeled "##KC3", not "##KC". I am asking "soils" (and other)
list members if these 4 conclusions are ones you would similarly reach.
>
> This next is the start of a similar new thread on BFW , where Kevin and I also
disagree. This continued on only "Biochar-Policy" under new thread "BFW and
Misereor". No value for anyone to comment here on this third new topic . Instead
go to Biochar-policy.
>
>
> <blockquote>
>
>
>
> " 7. Perhaps the main new surprise for me was Kevin's (I think total)
defense/support of BFW anti-biochar material. Of...................."
> </blockquote>
> <another long delete - this dealing with BFW and Kevin's support of their
Biochar analyses (which I consider highly defective - and wish to discuss also -
but not here.)>
>
>
>
> *RWL1f - End for now. Thanks in advance for any comments.
>

#710

From: Nando <d.nando@...>
Date: Mon May 7, 2012 9:35 am
Subject: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test

deva_nando

Ron,

I don't think it is possible, without having access to all materials Kevin used in his experiment, to understand what went "wrong". My only observation from hanging around a few soil scientists here in Switzerland is that biochar does not magically alter other known factors regarding soil fertility. It's a point that Nikolaus Foidl has made repeatedly, and one I have taken to heart. Factors like soil pH, CEC, and mineral balance all have to be within correct ranges for optimal fertility to be expressed. I think all we can say here is that correlation does not imply causation, especially on the back of a single experiment. And especially when that experiment was not followed up on to try and identify why the result was obtained.

The scientific method is arduous, and not many of us have the training, fortitude, patience (or funding!) to resist jumping to conclusions. This may be the point that Kevin thinks he is making. If he can't get it to work without much effort or training in soil science, how can we expect poor African farmers to do the same?

Kind regards,

Nando

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM, <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Biochar-soils list (and others)

    This is a request to have comments on a Biochar test report. Its negative conclusion has come up as a "proof" that Biochar is being oversold.

   The background for this request is a long series of exchanges between Kevin Chisholm and myself. Below I give only item 6 (of 9) in a message I sent last night to Kevin and the Biochar-policy list. Time being short for me, I will only here start this new dialog on his test.. Later I will/may include more of Kevin's comments.   This one appeared yesterday as the third "##KC3" entry after a part of my entry "RWL3v" ( a different part of a very long exchange)

"##KC3: Results with char additions were very discouraging, and I did not bother with 2nd and 3rd year tests. The tests did prove to me that a poor African Farmer using biochar alone on a disadvantaged soil would most likely experience devastating results."

*RWL1a:   I have not yet responded to that statement (or anything else received on the 21st) - but, as elsewhere, find almost nothing to agree with. Re this statement by Kevin, everything I have read says that biochar will likely have its most beneficial impact on the most disadvantaged soils - not the least. But I am a beginner on these sorts of tests. So in order to possibly rebut Kevin, I need help in analyzing Kevin's test - with what I think may include questionable techniques and results. See more below - which includes as "*RWL1b", "*RWL1c", etc.comments on this part 6 (only). If others could similarly number their responses, it would help a lot in locating them later.   The next is what came in today on this topic, after mine also today. Because of shortage of time, I probably will not be saying much else for a week at least on this topic.

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>
To: rongretlarson@..., biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Nando" <d.nando@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@...>, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@...>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:20:02 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Dear Ron

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

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com ; Kevin

Cc: Nando ; Josiah Hunt ; Alex English ; karnask ; Jock Gill ; Nathaniel Mulcahy ; Kelpie Wilson

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:20 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Kevin, List and ccs

   1.   This is a response to Kevin's message yesterday, which started last year and was about 50 pages - with material sent back   ........................

         <*RWL1b:   snip quite a bit - but almost none related to the test reported by Kevin. That earlier part of the exchange is all available at "biochar-policy". Re the test I said: >

   " 6. I would appreciate anyone more skilled than myself in soil science to comment on Kevin's test, which was attached to his yesterday's message. "

#KC: I also would welcome, and appreciate, comment on these tests. Such comments would be very helpful to any Farmer considering the use of biochar, as well as to me.

In part, I need to spend the next week preparing for a panel at the ETHOS meeting in Seattle next weekend. After next weekend I might/can return to that topic - but hope others can jump in first.   I still know virtually nothing about the char Kevin used (source, size, pH, production type and temperature, etc)

# KC: I made the char from conventional commercially available pellets intended for use in pellet stoves. I made them in a JXQ-10 Stratified Downdraft Gasifier, operated in a manner to maximize charcoal production. I did not do a pH test on the charcoal itself. It would be a "Low Temperature Char."The wood pellets started at about 6 mm diameter, and after charring, were about 4 mm diameter (visually estimated) and were applied "as produced", without pulverization. All ingredients were well mixed in a wheelbarrow, prior to placement in pots.

   [*RWL1c - I have doubts that this gasifier means of production would be always be considered low temperature in the Biochar world. Anyone?

.   I think it would have been wise to use more than one single (very large) dose of char. I'd like to know the (Lehmann or Steiner?) reference Kevin cannot recall. The large amount of seaweed (non-composted?) I have not seen used before, and so will be tough to find comparison data. I am sorry that he chose not to see what might have happened in following years in these same "pot" plots.
#KC: The intent was to see if biochar was of advantage for use on a "disadvantaged soil." I used seaweed, to create a "somewhat advantaged soil" because I was fortunate to have it available at low cost, and I wanted to stay organic. It was applied directly to the soil, without composting, and without "pre-washing".
       *RWL1d:    Seems to me to be competing intentions here.

Anyone else have experience with this use of char with straight seaweed? (I'm thinking nitrogen competition.)

          To further assist newcomers to this dialog, I below include everything from yesterday by Kevin on this topic (his ##KC3, preceded by my RWL3* type and similar entries.   This starts off with Kevin - from weeks ago):

# I was criticized for reporting negative results from a competently run biochar test. :-)

    [RWL2y: Can you cite the specific e-mail(s) where you were criticized? I urge (as two lines above) more attention to the negative results. No-one should be discouraging any negative report - and I don't recall any such criticism.   This is not to say it is criticism to ask for how the experiment was run. I look forward to hearing whether you followed the recommendations from Dr. Majors in the several IBI papers at the top of the this response. I did read your report pretty carefully and don't think I responded. But I now vaguely recall that I couldn't find some key information in what you wrote (pH levels of either char or soil, the raw material for the char, nitrogen sufficiency). I know you did a soil test after the fact; not sure if there was one in advance. I'd be glad to look at your report again, should you care to send it. But I would like to hear first whether you feel you followed the recommendations of Dr. Major in the several cites at the top of this response.]

#KC: My Report is on the Biochar Site somewhere, but I could not find it. Perhaps Erin could find it and post its URL to the List? I would appreciate your comments on where my test protocol was acceptable, and where it was deficient.
      [RWL3ba: It is your responsibility to find it (not mine) - and I have already said I would do what you asked.

##KC: I was in contact with Erin, and she has loaded my Test Report at:
http://biochar.bioenergylists.org/node/1757

The Protocol I followed was not exactly as Dr. Major outlines, but the essentials were there. Triplicate, clear objectives, etc. No pH test. Soil analysis was the analysis of the soil, just prior to the soil blending for tests. Earth, charcoal and seaweed, as appropriate, was all "uniformly pre-mixed" in a wheelbarrow. While results were negative, in that they gave disappointing results for biochar, the information gained was very positive indeed. The big message I get is that:

1: biochar can rob nutrients from a plant in a "disadvantaged soil" and that the soil should be brought to "somewhat good" or basically good" state for the benefits of biochar to be positive.

2: I am thinking that the poor results for the control soil were as a consequence of low phos. The corn leaves did not show general chlorosis (nitrogen was adequate) or inter-dendritic chlorosis (Magnesium was adequate.)

3: The good results from the plots with the seaweed additions may have been from either the mineral content of the seaweed, or possibly also from its organic content.

4: I conclude that in my particular soil circumstances, , ie, a "disadvantaged soil", I would be better off WITHOUT biochar, and that I would be better off attending to other gross soil deficiencies first. After the soil was brought to a "basically good" condition, THEN further biochar tests would be justified, to see if biochar could make it even better

   *RWL1e:   This last portion, being his latest (yesterdays), for consistency, should have been labeled "##KC3", not "##KC".   I am asking "soils" (and other) list members if these 4 conclusions are ones you would similarly reach.

     This next is the start of a similar new thread on BFW, where Kevin and I also disagree. This continued on only "Biochar-Policy" under new thread "BFW and Misereor".   No value for anyone to comment here on this third new topic. Instead go to Biochar-policy.

   " 7. Perhaps the main new surprise for me was Kevin's (I think total) defense/support of BFW anti-biochar material. Of...................."
           <another long delete - this dealing with BFW and Kevin's support of their Biochar analyses (which I consider highly defective - and wish to discuss also - but not here.)>

*RWL1f - End for now.   Thanks in advance for any comments.

--
Nando Breiter

Aria Media
via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

#711

From: Erich Knight <erichjknight@...>
Date: Mon May 7, 2012 12:20 pm
Subject: UltraCharTM,... Lead Retention,... Grasslands study from USDA Forest Service,.. Biochar projects in OZ

erich_knight

Hi Soils,
Here's a new biochar product from Colorado, I don't know anything about them;

UltraCharTM

http://hedronrd.com/

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Lead Retention by Broiler Litter Biochars in Small Arms Range Soil: Impact of Pyrolysis Temperature
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf300825n

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Here is another grasslands study from USDA Forest Service;
Potential Use of Biochar as an Amendment to Substrates

We are evaluating the properties of biochar, the by-product of converting biomass to bioenergy via pyrolysis, as a potential amendment to substrates used to grow native plants in containers. We are testing biochar in its original powder form, as well as when pressed into high-density pellets to facilitate handling and reduce nuisance dust. If successful, we could add value to this by-product, thus making pyrolysis more economically efficient, and, decrease nursery production costs by replacing more expensive, currently used amendments, with biochar. In addition, because biochar, which is mostly carbon, becomes part of the root plug, we would sequester carbon below ground at no addition cost when seedlings are outplanted.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/grassland-shrubland-desert/research/projects/biochar/

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

List of successful Biochar projects

DAFF, Department of Ag, Fisheries & Forest of Australia, Climate Change Division� is implementing reforms to Australia's biosecurity system to continue to deliver a modern system that is responsive and targeted, in a changing global trading environment.
http://www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi/biochar/list-of-successful-biochar-projects

#712

From: Brian Holm <peugeots@...>
Date: Mon May 7, 2012 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test

peugeotogo

I am puzzled that we are finding these results surprising. I thought it generally established that raw biochar, not previously charged with in compost tea, urine, or seaweed tea, or the like, tends to absorb nutrients from the soil in the first year, depriving nearby plants of those nutrients. I would have thought it obvious that such pre-charging should be done; but if not then second and third year trials would be most appropriate to see the effect once the char has reached equilibrium. And I would suppose that it is possible, in a really depleted soil, that it might take much longer for raw charcoal to have a beneficial effect, if it can't become sufficiently charged.

I would suggest adding another experimental group consisting of char precharged with seaweed tea. If precharging with something else, two additional groups would be required: charged char, and the charging agent[s] alone.

Brian Holm

At 05:35 AM 5/7/2012, Nando wrote:

Ron,

I don't think it is possible, without having access to all materials Kevin used in his experiment, to understand what went "wrong". My only observation from hanging around a few soil scientists here in Switzerland is that biochar does not� magically alter other known factors regarding soil fertility. It's a point that Nikolaus Foidl has made repeatedly, and one I have taken to heart. Factors like soil pH, CEC, and mineral balance all have to be within correct ranges for optimal fertility to be expressed. I think all we can say here is that correlation does not imply causation, especially on the back of a single experiment. And especially when that experiment was not followed up on to try and identify why the result was obtained.

The scientific method is arduous, and not many of us have the training, fortitude, patience (or funding!) to resist jumping to conclusions. This may be the point that Kevin thinks he is making. If he can't get it to work without much effort or training in soil science, how can we expect poor African farmers to do the same?�

Well, just because Kevin was unsuccessful does not prove that everyone will be unsuccessful. For instance, I have been largely unsuccessful in helping to� realize� the large scale potential of biochar with CarbonZero, but� Mike Cheiky of� Cool Planet Biofuels http://www.coolplanetbiofuels.com/� seems to be making a decent go of it! Mike isn't a poor African farmer, but he has suggested in a talk that the technology he's developing would be appropriate for developing countries.� http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o&context=C354984aADOEgsToPDskLj2-pikvnBvQvKn_uiJX4s

Kind regards,

Nando

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM, < rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Biochar-soils list (and others)

� � � This is a request to have comments on a Biochar test report.� Its negative conclusion has come up as a "proof" that Biochar is being oversold.

� � The background for this request is a long series of exchanges between Kevin Chisholm and myself.� Below I give only item 6 (of 9) in a message I sent last night to Kevin and the Biochar-policy list.� Time being short for me, I will only here start this new dialog on his test..� Later I will/may include more of Kevin's comments.� � This one appeared yesterday as the third "##KC3" entry after a part of my entry "RWL3v" ( a different part of a very long exchange)

"##KC3: Results with char additions were very discouraging, and I did not bother with 2nd and 3rd year tests. The tests did prove to me that a poor African Farmer using biochar alone on a disadvantaged soil would most likely experience devastating results."

� � *RWL1a:� � I have not yet responded to that statement� (or anything else received on the 21st) - but, as elsewhere, find almost nothing to agree with.� Re this statement by Kevin,� everything I have read says that biochar will likely have its most beneficial impact on the most disadvantaged soils - not the least.� But I am a beginner on these sorts of tests. � So in order to possibly rebut Kevin,� I need help in analyzing Kevin's test - with what I think may include questionable techniques and results.� See more below - which includes as "*RWL1b", "*RWL1c", etc.comments on this part 6 (only).� If others could similarly number their responses, it would help a lot in locating them later.� � The next is what came in today on this topic, after mine also today.� Because of shortage of time, I probably will not be saying much else for a week at least on this topic.

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@... >

To: rongretlarson@..., biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Cc: "Nando" <d.nando@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@... >, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@... >

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:20:02 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Dear Ron

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

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com ; Kevin

Cc: Nando ; Josiah Hunt ; Alex English ; karnask ; Jock Gill ; Nathaniel Mulcahy ; Kelpie Wilson

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:20 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Kevin,� List and ccs

� � 1.� � This is a response to Kevin's message yesterday, which started last year and was about 50 pages - with material sent back� � ........................ �

� � � � � � � <*RWL1b:� � snip quite a bit - but almost none related to the test reported by Kevin.� That earlier part of the exchange is all available at "biochar-policy".� Re the test I said:� >

� � " 6.� I would appreciate anyone more skilled than myself in soil science to comment on Kevin's test, which was attached to his yesterday's message. "

#KC: I also would welcome, and appreciate,� comment on these tests. Such comments would be very helpful to any Farmer considering the use of biochar, as well as to� me.

�

In part, I need to spend the next week preparing for a panel at the ETHOS meeting in Seattle next weekend.� After next weekend I might/can return to that topic - but hope others can jump in first.� � I still know virtually nothing about the char Kevin used (source, size, pH, production type and temperature, etc)�

# KC: I made the char from conventional commercially available pellets intended for use in pellet stoves. I made them in a JXQ-10� Stratified Downdraft Gasifier, operated in a manner to maximize charcoal production. I did not do a pH test on the charcoal itself. It would be a "Low Temperature Char."The wood pellets started at about 6 mm diameter, and after charring, were about 4 mm diameter (visually estimated) and were applied "as produced",� without pulverization. All ingredients were well mixed in a wheelbarrow, prior to placement in pots.

� � � [*RWL1c - � I have doubts that this gasifier means of production would be always be considered low temperature in the Biochar world.� Anyone?

.� � I think it would have been wise to use more than one single (very large) dose of char. � I'd� like to know the (Lehmann or Steiner?) reference Kevin cannot recall. � The large amount of seaweed (non-composted?) I have not seen used before, and so will be tough to find comparison data.� I am sorry that he chose not to see what might have happened in following years in these same "pot" plots.

#KC: The intent was to see if biochar was of advantage for use on a "disadvantaged soil." I used seaweed, to create a "somewhat advantaged soil" because I was fortunate to have it available at low cost, and I wanted to stay organic. It was applied directly to the soil, without composting, and without "pre-washing".� � �

� � � � � � *RWL1d:� � � Seems to me to be competing intentions here.

� � � � � Anyone else have experience with this use of char with straight seaweed?� (I'm thinking nitrogen competition.)

� � � � � � � � � To further assist newcomers to this dialog,� I below include everything from yesterday by Kevin on this topic� (his ##KC3, preceded by my RWL3* type and similar entries.� � This starts off with Kevin - from weeks ago):

�

# I was criticized for reporting negative results from a competently run biochar test. :-)

� � � [RWL2y:� Can you cite the specific e-mail(s) where you were criticized?� I urge (as two lines above) more attention to the negative results.� No-one should be discouraging any negative report - and I don't recall any such criticism.� � This is not to say it is criticism to ask for how the experiment was run.� I look forward to hearing whether you followed the recommendations from Dr. Majors in the several IBI papers at the top of the this response.� I did read your report pretty carefully and don't think I responded.� But I now vaguely recall that I couldn't find some key information in what you wrote� (pH levels of either char or soil, the raw material for the char, nitrogen sufficiency).� I know you did a soil test after the fact; not sure if there was one in advance.� I'd be glad to look at your report again, should you care to send it.� But I would like to hear first whether you feel you followed the recommendations of Dr. Major in the several cites at the top of this response.]

�

#KC: My Report is on the Biochar Site somewhere, but I could not find it. Perhaps Erin could find it and post its URL to the List? I would appreciate your comments on where my test protocol was acceptable, and where it was deficient.

� � � � � [RWL3ba:� It is your responsibility to find� it (not mine) - and I have already said I would do what you asked.

�

##KC: I was in contact with Erin, and she has loaded my Test Report at:

http://biochar.bioenergylists.org/node/1757

The Protocol I followed was not exactly as Dr. Major outlines, but the essentials were there. Triplicate, clear objectives, etc. No pH test. Soil analysis was the analysis of the soil, just prior to the soil blending for tests. Earth, charcoal and seaweed, as appropriate, was all "uniformly pre-mixed" in a wheelbarrow. While results were negative, in that they gave disappointing results for biochar, the information gained was very positive indeed. The big message I get is that:

1: � biochar can rob nutrients from a plant in a "disadvantaged soil" and that the soil should be brought to "somewhat good" or basically good" state for the benefits of biochar to be positive.

2: I am thinking that the poor results for the control soil were as a consequence of low phos. The corn leaves did not show general chlorosis (nitrogen was adequate) or inter-dendritic chlorosis (Magnesium was adequate.)

3: The good results from the plots with the seaweed additions may have been from either the mineral content of the seaweed, or possibly also from� its organic content.�

4: I conclude that in my particular soil circumstances, , ie, a "disadvantaged soil", I would be better off WITHOUT biochar, and that I would be better off attending to other gross soil deficiencies first. After the soil was brought to a "basically good" condition, THEN further biochar tests would be justified, to see if biochar could make it even better

� � *RWL1e:� � This last portion, being his latest (yesterdays), for consistency, should have been labeled "##KC3", not "##KC".� � I am asking "soils" (and other) list members if these 4 conclusions are ones you would similarly reach.� �

� � � �

� � � � This next is the start of a similar new thread on BFW, where Kevin and I also disagree.� This continued on only "Biochar-Policy" under new thread "BFW and Misereor".� � No value for anyone to comment here on this third new topic.� Instead go to Biochar-policy.

� � " 7.� Perhaps the main new surprise for me was Kevin's (I think total) defense/support of BFW anti-biochar material.� Of...................."

� � � � � � � � � � <another long delete - this dealing with BFW and Kevin's support of their Biochar analyses (which I consider highly defective - and wish to discuss also - but not here.)>

� *RWL1f � -� End for now.� � Thanks in advance for any comments.

--
Nando Breiter

Aria Media
via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12

#713

From: Brian Holm <peugeots@...>
Date: Mon May 7, 2012 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test

peugeotogo

Ron,

I don't think it is possible, without having access to all materials Kevin used in his experiment, to understand what went "wrong". My only observation from hanging around a few soil scientists here in Switzerland is that biochar does not� magically alter other known factors regarding soil fertility. It's a point that Nikolaus Foidl has made repeatedly, and one I have taken to heart. Factors like soil pH, CEC, and mineral balance all have to be within correct ranges for optimal fertility to be expressed. I think all we can say here is that correlation does not imply causation, especially on the back of a single experiment. And especially when that experiment was not followed up on to try and identify why the result was obtained.

The scientific method is arduous, and not many of us have the training, fortitude, patience (or funding!) to resist jumping to conclusions. This may be the point that Kevin thinks he is making. If he can't get it to work without much effort or training in soil science, how can we expect poor African farmers to do the same?�

Well, just because Kevin was unsuccessful does not prove that everyone will be unsuccessful. For instance, I have been largely unsuccessful in helping to� realize� the large scale potential of biochar with CarbonZero, but� Mike Cheiky of� Cool Planet Biofuels http://www.coolplanetbiofuels.com/� seems to be making a decent go of it! Mike isn't a poor African farmer, but he has suggested in a talk that the technology he's developing would be appropriate for developing countries.� http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o&context=C354984aADOEgsToPDskLj2-pikvnBvQvKn_uiJX4s

Kind regards,

Nando

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM, < rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Biochar-soils list (and others)

� � � This is a request to have comments on a Biochar test report.� Its negative conclusion has come up as a "proof" that Biochar is being oversold.

� � The background for this request is a long series of exchanges between Kevin Chisholm and myself.� Below I give only item 6 (of 9) in a message I sent last night to Kevin and the Biochar-policy list.� Time being short for me, I will only here start this new dialog on his test..� Later I will/may include more of Kevin's comments.� � This one appeared yesterday as the third "##KC3" entry after a part of my entry "RWL3v" ( a different part of a very long exchange)

"##KC3: Results with char additions were very discouraging, and I did not bother with 2nd and 3rd year tests. The tests did prove to me that a poor African Farmer using biochar alone on a disadvantaged soil would most likely experience devastating results."

� � *RWL1a:� � I have not yet responded to that statement� (or anything else received on the 21st) - but, as elsewhere, find almost nothing to agree with.� Re this statement by Kevin,� everything I have read says that biochar will likely have its most beneficial impact on the most disadvantaged soils - not the least.� But I am a beginner on these sorts of tests. � So in order to possibly rebut Kevin,� I need help in analyzing Kevin's test - with what I think may include questionable techniques and results.� See more below - which includes as "*RWL1b", "*RWL1c", etc.comments on this part 6 (only).� If others could similarly number their responses, it would help a lot in locating them later.� � The next is what came in today on this topic, after mine also today.� Because of shortage of time, I probably will not be saying much else for a week at least on this topic.

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@... >

To: rongretlarson@..., biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Cc: "Nando" <d.nando@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@... >, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@... >

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:20:02 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Dear Ron

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

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com ; Kevin

Cc: Nando ; Josiah Hunt ; Alex English ; karnask ; Jock Gill ; Nathaniel Mulcahy ; Kelpie Wilson

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:20 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Kevin,� List and ccs

� � 1.� � This is a response to Kevin's message yesterday, which started last year and was about 50 pages - with material sent back� � ........................ �

� � � � � � � <*RWL1b:� � snip quite a bit - but almost none related to the test reported by Kevin.� That earlier part of the exchange is all available at "biochar-policy".� Re the test I said:� >

� � " 6.� I would appreciate anyone more skilled than myself in soil science to comment on Kevin's test, which was attached to his yesterday's message. "

#KC: I also would welcome, and appreciate,� comment on these tests. Such comments would be very helpful to any Farmer considering the use of biochar, as well as to� me.

�

In part, I need to spend the next week preparing for a panel at the ETHOS meeting in Seattle next weekend.� After next weekend I might/can return to that topic - but hope others can jump in first.� � I still know virtually nothing about the char Kevin used (source, size, pH, production type and temperature, etc)�

# KC: I made the char from conventional commercially available pellets intended for use in pellet stoves. I made them in a JXQ-10� Stratified Downdraft Gasifier, operated in a manner to maximize charcoal production. I did not do a pH test on the charcoal itself. It would be a "Low Temperature Char."The wood pellets started at about 6 mm diameter, and after charring, were about 4 mm diameter (visually estimated) and were applied "as produced",� without pulverization. All ingredients were well mixed in a wheelbarrow, prior to placement in pots.

� � � [*RWL1c - � I have doubts that this gasifier means of production would be always be considered low temperature in the Biochar world.� Anyone?

.� � I think it would have been wise to use more than one single (very large) dose of char. � I'd� like to know the (Lehmann or Steiner?) reference Kevin cannot recall. � The large amount of seaweed (non-composted?) I have not seen used before, and so will be tough to find comparison data.� I am sorry that he chose not to see what might have happened in following years in these same "pot" plots.

#KC: The intent was to see if biochar was of advantage for use on a "disadvantaged soil." I used seaweed, to create a "somewhat advantaged soil" because I was fortunate to have it available at low cost, and I wanted to stay organic. It was applied directly to the soil, without composting, and without "pre-washing".� � �

� � � � � � *RWL1d:� � � Seems to me to be competing intentions here.

� � � � � Anyone else have experience with this use of char with straight seaweed?� (I'm thinking nitrogen competition.)

� � � � � � � � � To further assist newcomers to this dialog,� I below include everything from yesterday by Kevin on this topic� (his ##KC3, preceded by my RWL3* type and similar entries.� � This starts off with Kevin - from weeks ago):

�

# I was criticized for reporting negative results from a competently run biochar test. :-)

� � � [RWL2y:� Can you cite the specific e-mail(s) where you were criticized?� I urge (as two lines above) more attention to the negative results.� No-one should be discouraging any negative report - and I don't recall any such criticism.� � This is not to say it is criticism to ask for how the experiment was run.� I look forward to hearing whether you followed the recommendations from Dr. Majors in the several IBI papers at the top of the this response.� I did read your report pretty carefully and don't think I responded.� But I now vaguely recall that I couldn't find some key information in what you wrote� (pH levels of either char or soil, the raw material for the char, nitrogen sufficiency).� I know you did a soil test after the fact; not sure if there was one in advance.� I'd be glad to look at your report again, should you care to send it.� But I would like to hear first whether you feel you followed the recommendations of Dr. Major in the several cites at the top of this response.]

�

#KC: My Report is on the Biochar Site somewhere, but I could not find it. Perhaps Erin could find it and post its URL to the List? I would appreciate your comments on where my test protocol was acceptable, and where it was deficient.

� � � � � [RWL3ba:� It is your responsibility to find� it (not mine) - and I have already said I would do what you asked.

�

##KC: I was in contact with Erin, and she has loaded my Test Report at:

http://biochar.bioenergylists.org/node/1757

The Protocol I followed was not exactly as Dr. Major outlines, but the essentials were there. Triplicate, clear objectives, etc. No pH test. Soil analysis was the analysis of the soil, just prior to the soil blending for tests. Earth, charcoal and seaweed, as appropriate, was all "uniformly pre-mixed" in a wheelbarrow. While results were negative, in that they gave disappointing results for biochar, the information gained was very positive indeed. The big message I get is that:

1: � biochar can rob nutrients from a plant in a "disadvantaged soil" and that the soil should be brought to "somewhat good" or basically good" state for the benefits of biochar to be positive.

2: I am thinking that the poor results for the control soil were as a consequence of low phos. The corn leaves did not show general chlorosis (nitrogen was adequate) or inter-dendritic chlorosis (Magnesium was adequate.)

3: The good results from the plots with the seaweed additions may have been from either the mineral content of the seaweed, or possibly also from� its organic content.�

4: I conclude that in my particular soil circumstances, , ie, a "disadvantaged soil", I would be better off WITHOUT biochar, and that I would be better off attending to other gross soil deficiencies first. After the soil was brought to a "basically good" condition, THEN further biochar tests would be justified, to see if biochar could make it even better

� � *RWL1e:� � This last portion, being his latest (yesterdays), for consistency, should have been labeled "##KC3", not "##KC".� � I am asking "soils" (and other) list members if these 4 conclusions are ones you would similarly reach.� �

� � � �

� � � � This next is the start of a similar new thread on BFW, where Kevin and I also disagree.� This continued on only "Biochar-Policy" under new thread "BFW and Misereor".� � No value for anyone to comment here on this third new topic.� Instead go to Biochar-policy.

� � " 7.� Perhaps the main new surprise for me was Kevin's (I think total) defense/support of BFW anti-biochar material.� Of...................."

� � � � � � � � � � <another long delete - this dealing with BFW and Kevin's support of their Biochar analyses (which I consider highly defective - and wish to discuss also - but not here.)>

� *RWL1f � -� End for now.� � Thanks in advance for any comments.

--
Nando Breiter

Aria Media
via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12

#714

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>
Date: Mon May 7, 2012 11:53 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test

kchisholm@...

Dear Brian

Your comments are generally more valid now. However, when I did the tests several years ago, the general view was "Put Biochar in the Soil and Magic Happens."

All too many "Biochar Test Reports" were deviously and dishonestly misleading, in an overly optimistic manner. The typical format of such reports was:

"Biochar Tests show a 200% (pick any impressive number) increase in Yield compared to Control Soil."

When the fine print is read, it usually turns out that the "Control Soil" was the existing soil where weeds would probably have a tough time, but the "Biochar Soil" happened to use charcoal made from pyrolyzed poultry litter, with additions of compost, manure, and fertilizer, etc. However, "Biochar" was given full credit for the improvement in growth. Many tests did not include a " Biochar Only" test set, or did not include a "Everything else except Biochar" test.

Biochar has been promoted repeatedly as a panacea. The fact of the matter is that biochar additions to the soil are absolutely useless, unless they bring to the soil a feature in which the soil is deficient, and which is necessary to improve plant growth. Biochar economics seem to be a closely guarded secret. It is little wonder that Real World Farmers seem to be very cautious about using biochar.

Pyrolyzed chicken manure, or feedlot manure, is a very different biochar than is the unburned fuel from a TLUD Stove, yet they are both "Biochar." Charcoal added to the soil of a shooting range to tie up lead is also called "Biochar." "Biochar" pre-charged with compost tea, manure tea, seaweed tea, urine, etc, is a very different "Biochar" from "TLUD Biochar".

It seems that the "Biochar Success Stories" are in two areas:

1: Where biochar is used as "nursery substrate" instead of perlite

2: Where biochar is "precharged" with nutrients or mixed with compost, for sale as a "specialty additive" or to the Landscaping Industry.

What seems to be lacking are reports by "real world Farmers" who have added charcoal to their soil and actually made money from the investment. If it could be shown clearly that "Biochar Makes Money for the Farmer" biochar application would increase. A Farmer I knew of had a very simple question that he asked of a proposed activity:

"Does "Biochar" spell I-N-C-O-M-E?" If the answer was "Yes", he would use Biochar.

Best wishes,

Kevin

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

From: Brian Holm

To: biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com ; rongretlarson@...

Cc: biochar-soils ; biochar-policy ; Kevin ; Josiah Hunt ; Alex English ; karnask ; Jock Gill ; Nathaniel Mulcahy ; Kelpie Wilson ; David Yarrow

Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:35 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-soils] Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test

I am puzzled that we are finding these results surprising. I thought it generally established that raw biochar, not previously charged with in compost tea, urine, or seaweed tea, or the like, tends to absorb nutrients from the soil in the first year, depriving nearby plants of those nutrients. I would have thought it obvious that such pre-charging should be done; but if not then second and third year trials would be most appropriate to see the effect once the char has reached equilibrium. And I would suppose that it is possible, in a really depleted soil, that it might take much longer for raw charcoal to have a beneficial effect, if it can't become sufficiently charged.

I would suggest adding another experimental group consisting of char precharged with seaweed tea. If precharging with something else, two additional groups would be required: charged char, and the charging agent[s] alone.

Brian Holm

At 05:35 AM 5/7/2012, Nando wrote:

Ron,

I don't think it is possible, without having access to all materials Kevin used in his experiment, to understand what went "wrong". My only observation from hanging around a few soil scientists here in Switzerland is that biochar does not� magically alter other known factors regarding soil fertility. It's a point that Nikolaus Foidl has made repeatedly, and one I have taken to heart. Factors like soil pH, CEC, and mineral balance all have to be within correct ranges for optimal fertility to be expressed. I think all we can say here is that correlation does not imply causation, especially on the back of a single experiment. And especially when that experiment was not followed up on to try and identify why the result was obtained.

The scientific method is arduous, and not many of us have the training, fortitude, patience (or funding!) to resist jumping to conclusions. This may be the point that Kevin thinks he is making. If he can't get it to work without much effort or training in soil science, how can we expect poor African farmers to do the same?�

Well, just because Kevin was unsuccessful does not prove that everyone will be unsuccessful. For instance, I have been largely unsuccessful in helping to� realize� the large scale potential of biochar with CarbonZero, but� Mike Cheiky of� Cool Planet Biofuels http://www.coolplanetbiofuels.com/� seems to be making a decent go of it! Mike isn't a poor African farmer, but he has suggested in a talk that the technology he's developing would be appropriate for developing countries.� http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o&context=C354984aADOEgsToPDskLj2-pikvnBvQvKn_uiJX4s

Kind regards,

Nando

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM, < rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Biochar-soils list (and others)

� � � This is a request to have comments on a Biochar test report.� Its negative conclusion has come up as a "proof" that Biochar is being oversold.

� � The background for this request is a long series of exchanges between Kevin Chisholm and myself.� Below I give only item 6 (of 9) in a message I sent last night to Kevin and the Biochar-policy list.� Time being short for me, I will only here start this new dialog on his test..� Later I will/may include more of Kevin's comments.� � This one appeared yesterday as the third "##KC3" entry after a part of my entry "RWL3v" ( a different part of a very long exchange)

"##KC3: Results with char additions were very discouraging, and I did not bother with 2nd and 3rd year tests. The tests did prove to me that a poor African Farmer using biochar alone on a disadvantaged soil would most likely experience devastating results."

� � *RWL1a:� � I have not yet responded to that statement� (or anything else received on the 21st) - but, as elsewhere, find almost nothing to agree with.� Re this statement by Kevin,� everything I have read says that biochar will likely have its most beneficial impact on the most disadvantaged soils - not the least.� But I am a beginner on these sorts of tests. � So in order to possibly rebut Kevin,� I need help in analyzing Kevin's test - with what I think may include questionable techniques and results.� See more below - which includes as "*RWL1b", "*RWL1c", etc.comments on this part 6 (only).� If others could similarly number their responses, it would help a lot in locating them later.� � The next is what came in today on this topic, after mine also today.� Because of shortage of time, I probably will not be saying much else for a week at least on this topic.

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@... >

To: rongretlarson@..., biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Cc: "Nando" <d.nando@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@... >, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@... >

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:20:02 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Dear Ron

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

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com ; Kevin

Cc: Nando ; Josiah Hunt ; Alex English ; karnask ; Jock Gill ; Nathaniel Mulcahy ; Kelpie Wilson

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:20 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Kevin,� List and ccs

� � 1.� � This is a response to Kevin's message yesterday, which started last year and was about 50 pages - with material sent back� � ........................ �

� � � � � � � <*RWL1b:� � snip quite a bit - but almost none related to the test reported by Kevin.� That earlier part of the exchange is all available at "biochar-policy".� Re the test I said:� >

� � " 6.� I would appreciate anyone more skilled than myself in soil science to comment on Kevin's test, which was attached to his yesterday's message. "

#KC: I also would welcome, and appreciate,� comment on these tests. Such comments would be very helpful to any Farmer considering the use of biochar, as well as to� me.

�

In part, I need to spend the next week preparing for a panel at the ETHOS meeting in Seattle next weekend.� After next weekend I might/can return to that topic - but hope others can jump in first.� � I still know virtually nothing about the char Kevin used (source, size, pH, production type and temperature, etc)�

# KC: I made the char from conventional commercially available pellets intended for use in pellet stoves. I made them in a JXQ-10� Stratified Downdraft Gasifier, operated in a manner to maximize charcoal production. I did not do a pH test on the charcoal itself. It would be a "Low Temperature Char."The wood pellets started at about 6 mm diameter, and after charring, were about 4 mm diameter (visually estimated) and were applied "as produced",� without pulverization. All ingredients were well mixed in a wheelbarrow, prior to placement in pots.

� � � [*RWL1c - � I have doubts that this gasifier means of production would be always be considered low temperature in the Biochar world.� Anyone?

.� � I think it would have been wise to use more than one single (very large) dose of char. � I'd� like to know the (Lehmann or Steiner?) reference Kevin cannot recall. � The large amount of seaweed (non-composted?) I have not seen used before, and so will be tough to find comparison data.� I am sorry that he chose not to see what might have happened in following years in these same "pot" plots.

#KC: The intent was to see if biochar was of advantage for use on a "disadvantaged soil." I used seaweed, to create a "somewhat advantaged soil" because I was fortunate to have it available at low cost, and I wanted to stay organic. It was applied directly to the soil, without composting, and without "pre-washing".� � �

� � � � � � *RWL1d:� � � Seems to me to be competing intentions here.

� � � � � Anyone else have experience with this use of char with straight seaweed?� (I'm thinking nitrogen competition.)

� � � � � � � � � To further assist newcomers to this dialog,� I below include everything from yesterday by Kevin on this topic� (his ##KC3, preceded by my RWL3* type and similar entries.� � This starts off with Kevin - from weeks ago):

�

# I was criticized for reporting negative results from a competently run biochar test. :-)

� � � [RWL2y:� Can you cite the specific e-mail(s) where you were criticized?� I urge (as two lines above) more attention to the negative results.� No-one should be discouraging any negative report - and I don't recall any such criticism.� � This is not to say it is criticism to ask for how the experiment was run.� I look forward to hearing whether you followed the recommendations from Dr. Majors in the several IBI papers at the top of the this response.� I did read your report pretty carefully and don't think I responded.� But I now vaguely recall that I couldn't find some key information in what you wrote� (pH levels of either char or soil, the raw material for the char, nitrogen sufficiency).� I know you did a soil test after the fact; not sure if there was one in advance.� I'd be glad to look at your report again, should you care to send it.� But I would like to hear first whether you feel you followed the recommendations of Dr. Major in the several cites at the top of this response.]

�

#KC: My Report is on the Biochar Site somewhere, but I could not find it. Perhaps Erin could find it and post its URL to the List? I would appreciate your comments on where my test protocol was acceptable, and where it was deficient.

� � � � � [RWL3ba:� It is your responsibility to find� it (not mine) - and I have already said I would do what you asked.

�

##KC: I was in contact with Erin, and she has loaded my Test Report at:

http://biochar.bioenergylists.org/node/1757

The Protocol I followed was not exactly as Dr. Major outlines, but the essentials were there. Triplicate, clear objectives, etc. No pH test. Soil analysis was the analysis of the soil, just prior to the soil blending for tests. Earth, charcoal and seaweed, as appropriate, was all "uniformly pre-mixed" in a wheelbarrow. While results were negative, in that they gave disappointing results for biochar, the information gained was very positive indeed. The big message I get is that:

1: � biochar can rob nutrients from a plant in a "disadvantaged soil" and that the soil should be brought to "somewhat good" or basically good" state for the benefits of biochar to be positive.

2: I am thinking that the poor results for the control soil were as a consequence of low phos. The corn leaves did not show general chlorosis (nitrogen was adequate) or inter-dendritic chlorosis (Magnesium was adequate.)

3: The good results from the plots with the seaweed additions may have been from either the mineral content of the seaweed, or possibly also from� its organic content.�

4: I conclude that in my particular soil circumstances, , ie, a "disadvantaged soil", I would be better off WITHOUT biochar, and that I would be better off attending to other gross soil deficiencies first. After the soil was brought to a "basically good" condition, THEN further biochar tests would be justified, to see if biochar could make it even better

� � *RWL1e:� � This last portion, being his latest (yesterdays), for consistency, should have been labeled "##KC3", not "##KC".� � I am asking "soils" (and other) list members if these 4 conclusions are ones you would similarly reach.� �

� � � �

� � � � This next is the start of a similar new thread on BFW, where Kevin and I also disagree.� This continued on only "Biochar-Policy" under new thread "BFW and Misereor".� � No value for anyone to comment here on this third new topic.� Instead go to Biochar-policy.

� � " 7.� Perhaps the main new surprise for me was Kevin's (I think total) defense/support of BFW anti-biochar material.� Of...................."

� � � � � � � � � � <another long delete - this dealing with BFW and Kevin's support of their Biochar analyses (which I consider highly defective - and wish to discuss also - but not here.)>

� *RWL1f � -� End for now.� � Thanks in advance for any comments.

--
Nando Breiter

Aria Media
via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12

#715

From: rongretlarson@...
Date: Tue May 8, 2012 6:11 pm
Subject: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

rongretlarson@...

Nando, list and ccs:

I am limiting this response mainly to your last paragraph in a different thread - on the Biofuels/Biochar company "Cool Planet". I have followed them a little bit - but your video cite below was new to me- and quite important to Biochar projections, I believe. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As usual, notes inserted below.

Well, just because Kevin was unsuccessful does not prove that everyone will be unsuccessful. For instance, I have been largely unsuccessful in helping to realize the large scale potential of biochar with CarbonZero, but Mike Cheiky of Cool Planet Biofuels http://www.coolplanetbiofuels.com/ seems to be making a decent go of it! [RWL3: This seems an understatement. They now have big money from some really big players (several oil companies, GE, but especially Google!) I am unaware of any Biochar company that is doing so well in terms of existing financing! This above corporate website now leads one to some new claims, including the one you give below. ]

Mike isn't a poor African farmer, but he has suggested in a talk that the technology he's developing would be appropriate for developing countries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o&context=C354984aADOEgsToPDskLj2-pikvnBvQvKn_uiJX4s [RWL4: This video can also be obtained via just the first part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o . Your lead has occupied me a lot - as I tried to understand the very optimistic statements given by Chieky. I know I have made some very large claims; his are even larger than mine - so this is mainly to explore and critique his numbers!

[RWL5: a. The first part of this (14 + minute) video will be familiar to most on this list. Just before the 7 minute mark, he says that Wikipedia reports that C4 plants (such as corn, sugar cane, miscanthus, etc) are 10 times more photosynthetically productive than (the much more common) C3 plants (soy, etc). I have seen lots of references to C4 being more efficient than C3 - but this is the first time I have seen the number 10 - and so far have not found it confirmed anywhere else. Anyone?   His statement about being 100 times more photosynthetically productive than old forests is also a number I have not seen before.

b. At about the 9 minute mark he talks of a fungal-protein treatment of the char, which makes it much (?) better in a matter of weeks (and he references (critiques?, boasts?) of IBI talking of years). Is this perhaps a real breakthrough?

c. Near the 10 minute mark, he talks of 2000 large production facilities being installed by them soon. Size = 50 million gallons per year - and he says that is 100 quads per year (roughly the US energy consumption or 25% of global total energy consumption).   But my (Google-recommended) conversion calculator says 100 billion gallons equates to only 12.5 quads. Anyone able to confirm one or the other?   This could be a major glitch in his story.
    To check further, using 42 gallons per barrel and changing per year to per day, then (100 billion gallons/day ) / (42*365) = 6.5 million barrels per day - well under today's roughly 80 million barrels per day (and going up).

   d. He then, at the 11 minute mark, brings in the possibility (crediting the idea to Google) of an additional 100,000 smaller plants at 1 million gallons per year and says each would cost $1 million with a payback of 2-3 years. This sounds OK if the net profit per gallon is about $1. He gives no land or collection area for each small plant. The total investment for the smaller plants leads to a total of $100 billion.

   e. Assuming no economies of scale, then the 2000 larger plants would require an additional investment of $100 billion. Doubling this to include both the larger and smaller facilities gives about a total of $200 billion - pretty small compared to the global GDP in 2010 (about $63 trillion) being more than 300 times larger. And they aren't all going in in a single year.
     But, if I am right on his arithmetic error, he needs a good many more plants - maybe up by a factor of 4. See more computations below.

    f.   At the 11:30 mark he notes the potential for getting 8x income improvement for the roughly 1000 villagers needed at the 100,000 smaller plants. Not here or anywhere has he expressed any of the negatives found by BFW, ETC or similar groups. Of course I think he is correct on the likelihood of these being locally popular and globally beneficial.

    g.   At 12 minutes he brings in land area for the first time. He says that 1 % of global land area (this would be about 130 Mha) would supply all of the world's 2 billion cars. These are obviously plug in hybrids getting 125 mpg and traveling 6000 miles per year - so each consuming only about 45 gallons per year. (I have a Chevy Volt and can affirm these are reasonable estimates.) With 2 billion cars this is about 90 billion gallons - close to the above computed 100 billion gallons per year. Dividing by 130 million hectares we get about 700-800 gallons per ha - much less than the amount he uses at the company web site of 4000 gallons/ha. So here he seems to be conservative - maybe partly because he is here getting char?
    Since 1 gallon of gas contains about 2.4 kg of carbon, then 100 billion gallons contains about 240 million tons C - only about 5% of today's release of more than 5 gT C/yr. Dividing by 130 million ha gives less than 2 tons C/ha (double this for both gasoline and char) - conservative given his other numbers. I think he has made a mistake in here.

    h. The second example is with twice as much land where he says he can match all fossil fuel (but this amount not stated) use by 2030.   We might assume that fossil fuel consumption (all types - not just gasoline) is about what it is today or about 5 Gt C/yr. So with 260 million ha, and doubling to include both carbon neutral and carbon negative contributions we find he must be assuming about 2* 5000/250 = 40 t C/ha-yr. This is high (much higher than above) but consistent with his other statements.

   i.   The 3% land area case says that over 40 years, his system can sequester 100 ppm or 1.4 E14 kg C (this "14" is in very fine print - but, using a magnifying glass, I am quite sure of his exponent). Assuming that 100 ppm (and using 1 ppm CO2 = 2 tons C) requires a doubling to account for CO2 coming out of the ocean, then 100 ppm equates to about 100*2*2 = 400 gT C. If done all at the same annual rate, then this is 10 Gt C/yr (sequestered; must double the carbon when accounting for neutral carbon). Dividing by almost 400 million ha gives a required annual productivity of (2 * 10,000 Mt C/yr) / (400 M ha) = 50 t C/ha-yr.   Allowing that the several factors of 2 were approximate, then this 50 could easily be 40 t C/ha-yr - and again is in line with his other comments about assumed C4 plant productivity.

   j. I conclude that he made a math error in the first (1% land area) case - and can do about 10x more sequestration than is implied with his 2 billion car example. That factor of ten brings him up to sequestration values used by Lehmann and Lenton - 10 gT C/yr - but with less land requirement, because he is so optimistic about C4 plants. Note he is doing little to nothing with ag residues.

   k. As another test, he says at the corporate website that he can get 4000 gallons gasoline per acre-yr. I can't determine if this is with char or without.    With 2.4 kg C per gallon, no char involved, and converting acres to hectares (factor of 2.47), this is approaching 4000*2.4*2.47= 24 tons C per ha-yr. It could approach 50 tons/ha-yr if the 4000 gallon figure also includes char.

6. Some other topics he used in his PPt:
Methane hazard; ocean rise - 1 Billion people; 5 year warning estimate by IEA ,apparently given on Nov 9, 2011
Wikipedia: C4 is 10 x better than C3 plants - 100x better than mature forest.
20 feet tall miscanthus vs 2 foot soy
crop biomass refuse used at 50%-70% rate
positive feedback - is "truly marvelous idea'
4-8 year replication cycle on land improvement
catalysts nanometer quantum wells   -   get octane of 109
claim of few weeks not years for soil improvement
"week ago"   experimentally exceeded long-term yield from miscanthus

7.   The Cool Planet website has a news story at:
   http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cool-planet-biofuels-announces-a-major-advance-in-renewable-cellulosic-gasoline-2012-02-22

Referring to the 4000 gallons/acre-yr:
"    this is about twelve times more yield than current corn ethanol production levels"

"The total process time from biomass to fuel is under one hour. Total energy and biomass feedstock cost using today's commodity pricing is under 60 cents/gallon. "

     (This is much better than anything in biofuels being supported by DoE)

End of RWL additions to Nando's find.

Ron

Kind regards,

Nando

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM, <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Biochar-soils list (and others)

This is a request to have comments on a Biochar test report. Its negative conclusion has come up as a "proof" that Biochar is being oversold.--

<RWL May7 - delete so as to keep emphasis on Google and CoolPlanet>

Nando Breiter

Aria Media
via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

#716

From: rongretlarson@...
Date: Tue May 8, 2012 6:15 pm
Subject: More on Google conference

rongretlarson@...

Nando and ccs

     This is to add to what I learned from the lead Nando gave (below) to the Google-sponsored small conference in February.   In a separate message today, I commented on details of one 14 minute talk given by Mike Cheiky of Cool Planet Biofuels. My impression was that Mike might have been the only one at the conference already funded by Google - and also the one one directly addressing two of the biggest global problems (climate and global poor).   Obviously I am impressed by the fact that Biochar (through Cool Planet) had these several unique roles - and I strongly recommend his talk.

   But here I want to comment only on the nature and format of the conference itself - and to recommend a few others of the 15 other presenters - all invited by Google. Apparently there were were no invitation turn-downs.   I am impr4essed that Google sponsored such a conference

   There are a few talks by Google folk - stating what they hoped to accomplish (the first short overview one , plus ones by "Megan", Eric Schmdt, and Sergey).    But after those overviews, you might start with these several leads - if you are into 15 minute videos.

a. Daphne Preuss on Ag productivity     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBJku04ma0E&feature=relmfu

b. David Berry on nutrition:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri5dssUsYyA&feature=channel&list=UL

c. Rob McGinnis on water availability     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R63zYZZuRvQ&feature=relmfu
       (Biochar processes apt to have some spare thermal energy - all that he needs)

The following are not as directly related to Biochar but contain some ideas that could help move Biochar more rapidly   I recommend them mainly because I think Google had their choice of the best in solving big problems - and chose the following.   This is not to downgrade the other eight - just that they weren't close to Biochar, climate, food

d.   Adrien Treuille on collaboration   http://www.youtubecom/watch?v=A-CCEy3u2WM&feature=relmfu
     has a way of paying for far-flung individuals helping solve problems

e. Neal Stephenson on getting big stuff done    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=TE0n_5qPmRM

f.    Michael Crow on higher education     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYXPPX24WY&feature=channel&list=UL

g. Nicholas Negroponte on self-learning using computers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNRaM2GgQuA&feature=channel&list=UL

h.   Juan Enriquez on synthetic genetics (and regulation)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzSXTWhBUD0&feature=channel&list=UL

    There are others - but not so closely allied to Biochar as these eight. Anyone see other ways to exploit this connection of Biochar to Google and any other big potential support?

Ron

From: "Nando" <d.nando@...>
To: rongretlarson@...
Cc: "biochar-soils" <biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com>, "biochar-policy" <biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com>, "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@...>, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@...>, "David Yarrow" <dyarrow@...>
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 3:35:57 AM
Subject: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test

Ron,

<snip>

...........but Mike Cheiky of Cool Planet Biofuels http://www.coolplanetbiofuels.com/ seems to be making a decent go of it! Mike isn't a poor African farmer, but he has suggested in a talk that the technology he's developing would be appropriate for developing countries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o&context=C354984aADOEgsToPDskLj2-pikvnBvQvKn_uiJX4s

Kind regards,

Nando

<snip>

#717

From: Nando <d.nando@...>
Date: Wed May 9, 2012 9:31 am
Subject: Re: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

deva_nando

Ron,

Impressive response! I have no opinion regarding the projections made in the video. I only assume they will run into challenges along the way. The main point to me seems to be that they have managed to attain significant�momentum, settling on a business model, developing a technology for it, and�raising capital - hopefully enough momentum to work through the kinks as they deploy their system. I'm happy to see that.

Nando

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:11 PM, <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Nando, list and ccs:

�� I am limiting this response mainly to your last paragraph in a different thread -� on the Biofuels/Biochar company "Cool Planet".� I have followed them a little bit - but your video cite below was new� to me-� and quite important to Biochar projections, I believe.� Thanks for bringing this to our attention.� As usual, notes inserted below.

From: "Nando" <d.nando@...>
To: rongretlarson@...
Cc: "biochar-soils" <biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com>, "biochar-policy" <biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com>, "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@...>, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@...>, "David Yarrow" <dyarrow@...>
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 3:35:57 AM
Subject: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test

Ron,

I don't think it is possible, without having access to all materials Kevin used in his experiment, to understand what went "wrong". My only observation from hanging around a few soil scientists here in Switzerland is that biochar does not�magically alter other known factors regarding soil fertility. It's a point that Nikolaus Foidl has made repeatedly, and one I have taken to heart. Factors like soil pH, CEC, and mineral balance all have to be within correct ranges for optimal fertility to be expressed. I think all we can say here is that correlation does not imply causation, especially on the back of a single experiment. And especially when that experiment was not followed up on to try and identify why the result was obtained.�� [RWL1:� No disagreement.]

The scientific method is arduous, and not many of us have the training, fortitude, patience (or funding!) to resist jumping to conclusions. This may be the point that Kevin thinks he is making. If he can't get it to work without much effort or training in soil science, how can we expect poor African farmers to do the same?�� [RWL2:� Maybe - but Kevin has seemed more positive about Biochar recently.]

Well, just because Kevin was unsuccessful does not prove that everyone will be unsuccessful. For instance, I have been largely unsuccessful in helping to�realize�the large scale potential of biochar with CarbonZero, but�Mike Cheiky of�Cool Planet Biofuels http://www.coolplanetbiofuels.com/�seems to be making a decent go of it!�� [RWL3:� This seems an understatement.� They now have big money from some really big players (several oil companies, GE, but especially Google!) �� I am unaware of any Biochar company that is doing so well in terms of existing financing!�� This above corporate website now leads one to some new claims, including the one you give below.� ]

Mike isn't a poor African farmer, but he has suggested in a talk that the technology he's developing would be appropriate for developing countries.�http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o&context=C354984aADOEgsToPDskLj2-pikvnBvQvKn_uiJX4s�� [RWL4:�� This video can also be obtained via just the first part:�� http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o� . � Your lead has occupied me a lot� - as I tried to understand the very optimistic statements given by Chieky.�� I know I have made some very large claims;� his are even larger than mine - so this is mainly to explore and critique his numbers!

��
[RWL5:� a. � The first part of this (14 + minute) video will be familiar to most on this list.� Just before the 7 minute mark, he says that Wikipedia reports that C4 plants (such as corn, sugar cane, miscanthus, etc) are 10 times more photosynthetically productive than (the much more common) C3 plants (soy, etc).� I have seen lots of references to C4 being more efficient� than C3 - but this is the first time I have seen the number 10 - and so far have not found it confirmed anywhere else.� Anyone?�� His statement about being 100 times more photosynthetically productive than old forests is also a number I have not seen before.
��
� b.� At about the 9 minute mark he talks of a fungal-protein treatment of the char, which makes it much (?)� better in a matter of weeks (and he references (critiques?,� boasts?) of IBI talking of years).� Is this perhaps a real breakthrough?
��
� c.� Near the 10 minute mark, he talks of 2000 large production facilities being installed by them soon.� Size = 50 million gallons per year - and he says that is 100 quads per year (roughly the US energy consumption or 25% of global total energy consumption).�� But my (Google-recommended) conversion calculator says 100 billion gallons equates to only 12.5 quads.� Anyone able to confirm one or the other?�� This could be a major glitch in his story.
�� To check further, using 42 gallons per barrel and changing per year to per day, then (100 billion gallons/day ) / (42*365) = 6.5 million barrels per day - well under today's roughly 80 million barrels per day (and going up).
��
�� d.� He then, at the 11 minute mark, brings in the possibility (crediting the idea to Google) of an additional 100,000 smaller plants at 1 million gallons per year� and says each would cost $1 million with a payback of 2-3 years.� This sounds OK if the net profit per gallon is about $1.� He gives no land or collection area for each small plant.� The total investment for the smaller plants leads to a total of $100 billion.

�� e.� Assuming no economies of scale, then the 2000 larger plants� would require an additional investment of $100 billion.� Doubling this to include both the larger and smaller facilities gives about a total of $200 billion - pretty small compared to the global GDP in 2010 (about $63 trillion) being more than 300 times larger.� And they aren't all going in in a single year.
�� But, if I am right on his arithmetic error,� he needs a good many more plants - maybe up by a factor of 4.� See more computations below.

�� f.�� At the 11:30 mark he notes the potential for getting 8x income improvement for the roughly 1000 villagers needed at the 100,000 smaller plants.� Not here or anywhere has he expressed any of the negatives found by BFW, ETC or similar groups.� Of course I think he is correct on the likelihood of these being locally popular and globally beneficial.

�� g.�� At 12 minutes he brings in land area for the first time.� He says that 1 % of global land area (this would be about 130 Mha) would supply all of the world's 2 billion cars.� These are obviously plug in hybrids getting 125 mpg and traveling 6000 miles per year - so each consuming only about 45 gallons per year. (I have a Chevy Volt and can affirm these are reasonable estimates.)� With 2 billion cars this is about 90 billion gallons - close to the above computed 100 billion gallons per year.� Dividing by 130 million hectares we get about 700-800 gallons per ha - much less than the amount he uses at the company web site of 4000 gallons/ha.� So here he seems to be conservative - maybe partly because he is here getting char?
�� Since 1 gallon of gas contains about 2.4 kg of carbon, then 100 billion gallons contains about 240 million tons C - only about 5% of today's release of more than 5 gT C/yr.� Dividing by 130 million ha gives less than 2 tons C/ha� (double this for both gasoline and char) -� conservative given his other numbers.� I think he has made a mistake in here.

�� h.� The second example is with twice as much land where he says he can match all fossil fuel (but this amount not stated) use by 2030.�� We might assume that fossil fuel consumption (all types - not just gasoline) is about what it is today or about 5 Gt C/yr.� So with 260 million ha, and doubling to include both carbon neutral and carbon negative contributions we find he must be assuming about 2* 5000/250 = 40 t C/ha-yr.� This is high (much higher than above) but consistent with his other statements.

�� i.�� The 3% land area case says that over 40 years, his system can sequester 100 ppm or 1.4 E14 kg C� (this� "14" is in very fine print - but, using a magnifying glass,� I am quite sure of his exponent).� Assuming that 100 ppm (and using 1 ppm CO2 = 2 tons C) requires a doubling to account for CO2 coming out of the ocean, then 100 ppm equates to about 100*2*2 = 400 gT C.� If done all at the same annual rate, then this is 10 Gt C/yr (sequestered;� must double the carbon when accounting for neutral carbon).� Dividing by almost 400 million ha gives a required annual productivity of (2 * 10,000 Mt C/yr) / (400 M ha) = 50 t C/ha-yr.�� Allowing that the several factors of 2 were approximate, then this 50 could easily be 40 t C/ha-yr - and again is in line with his other comments about assumed C4 plant productivity.�

�� j.� I conclude that he made a math error in the first (1% land area) case - and can do about 10x more sequestration than is implied with his 2 billion car example.� That factor of ten brings him up to sequestration values used by Lehmann and Lenton - 10 gT C/yr - but with less land requirement, because he is so optimistic about C4 plants.� Note he is doing little to nothing with ag residues.

�� k. � As another test, he says at the corporate website that he can get 4000 gallons gasoline per acre-yr.� I can't determine if this is with char or without. �� With 2.4 kg C per gallon, no char involved, and converting acres to hectares (factor of 2.47), this is approaching� 4000*2.4*2.47= 24 tons C per ha-yr.� It could approach 50 tons/ha-yr if the 4000 gallon figure also includes char.

6.� Some other topics he used in his PPt:
Methane hazard;� ocean rise - 1 Billion people;� 5 year warning estimate by IEA ,apparently given on Nov 9, 2011
Wikipedia:� C4 is 10 x better than C3 plants - 100x better than mature forest.
20 feet tall miscanthus vs 2 foot soy
crop biomass refuse used at 50%-70% rate
positive feedback� -� is "truly marvelous idea'
4-8 year replication cycle on land improvement
catalysts� nanometer quantum wells�� -�� get octane of 109
claim of few weeks not years for soil improvement
"week ago"�� experimentally exceeded long-term yield from miscanthus

7.�� The Cool Planet website has a news story at:
�� http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cool-planet-biofuels-announces-a-major-advance-in-renewable-cellulosic-gasoline-2012-02-22

Referring to the 4000 gallons/acre-yr:
� " �� this is about twelve times more yield than current corn ethanol production levels"

"The total process time from biomass to fuel is under one hour. Total energy and biomass feedstock cost using today's commodity pricing is under 60 cents/gallon. "

�� (This is much better than anything in biofuels being supported by DoE)

End of RWL additions to Nando's find.

Ron

Kind regards,

Nando

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM, <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Biochar-soils list (and others)

�� This is a request to have comments on a Biochar test report.� Its negative conclusion has come up as a "proof" that Biochar is being oversold.--

�� <RWL May7 - delete so as to keep emphasis on Google and CoolPlanet>

Nando Breiter

Aria Media
via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

--
Nando Breiter

Aria Media
via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

#718

From: "thurx" <thurx@...>
Date: Wed May 9, 2012 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

thurx

Wow, yes, definitely an impressive response. Especially the scope of the Cool
Planet plan.

When I start to imagine something of that scale, utilizing 1% of the earth's
surface or 1% of the earth's biomass, at least in an initial guesstimate (and
with financial feasibility, it could expand well beyond that) I start to think
about how long such a system can continue before it causes new problems.

Does anyone have projections (as would be done in a feasibility study of Cool
Planet's plans, were they studied as just one large system dropped onto our
whole-earth-ecosystem) as to what happens to the somewhat fixed areas of land
that produce the "feed" biomass. In terms of those lands, whether or not any of
the biomass is returned as biochar, what is the effect, over time, from the loss
of the minerals that go up into the atmosphere in pyrolysis? Biofuels and
biochar are being captured, but the remaining minerals are being distributed,
world-wide, and not returned to the zone from which they were derived. I admit
this is an "after the fact" consideration, when we as a species think we need a
replacement for petroleum tomorrow, but still, I'm pondering it. Too many times
before we've discovered that we've raped the land to make some quick money.

Small scale, this type of bio-energy is attractive. Is it still attractive
environmentally, when activated world-wide and long-term? Anyone?

--- In biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com, rongretlarson@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Nando, list and ccs:
>
> I am limiting this response mainly to your last paragraph in a different
thread - on the Biofuels/Biochar company "Cool Planet". I have followed them a
little bit - but your video cite below was new to me- and quite important to
Biochar projections, I believe. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As
usual, notes inserted below.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nando" <d.nando@...>
> To: rongretlarson@...
> Cc: "biochar-soils" <biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com>, "biochar-policy"
<biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com>, "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>, "Josiah Hunt"
<josiah.hunt54@...>, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>,
"Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson"
<kelpie@...>, "David Yarrow" <dyarrow@...>
> Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 3:35:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test
>
> Ron,
>
>
> I don't think it is possible,....

#719

From: Nando <d.nando@...>
Date: Wed May 9, 2012 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

deva_nando

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/peak-potassium-the-next-resource-war/

Simple reply - peak potassium and peak phosphorus may be difficult to get around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus

"We will not actually run out of potassium�it�s fairly plentiful.�� What we will run out of are deposits that are sufficiently concentrated that they can be mined efficiently."

It should be said that as we begin to run out of known reserves, mining companies might look harder for other sources, and might indeed be successful.�

I don't remember the temperatures for various minerals, or data on bioavailability, or where I've stashed this resource years ago, but very relatively speaking, lower temperature pyrolysis preserves minerals, while higher temperature pyrolysis vaporizes them. �Some digging on Google should be able to locate these figures. The thresholds are different for different minerals. It would be interesting to know the process temperature Cool Planet's technology operates at.

Water is of course another resource�challenge.�

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, thurx <thurx@...> wrote:

�

Wow, yes, definitely an impressive response. Especially the scope of the Cool Planet plan.

When I start to imagine something of that scale, utilizing 1% of the earth's surface or 1% of the earth's biomass, at least in an initial guesstimate (and with financial feasibility, it could expand well beyond that) I start to think about how long such a system can continue before it causes new problems.

Does anyone have projections (as would be done in a feasibility study of Cool Planet's plans, were they studied as just one large system dropped onto our whole-earth-ecosystem) as to what happens to the somewhat fixed areas of land that produce the "feed" biomass. In terms of those lands, whether or not any of the biomass is returned as biochar, what is the effect, over time, from the loss of the minerals that go up into the atmosphere in pyrolysis? Biofuels and biochar are being captured, but the remaining minerals are being distributed, world-wide, and not returned to the zone from which they were derived. I admit this is an "after the fact" consideration, when we as a species think we need a replacement for petroleum tomorrow, but still, I'm pondering it. Too many times before we've discovered that we've raped the land to make some quick money.

Small scale, this type of bio-energy is attractive. Is it still attractive environmentally, when activated world-wide and long-term? Anyone?

--- In biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com, rongretlarson@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Nando, list and ccs:
>
> I am limiting this response mainly to your last paragraph in a different thread - on the Biofuels/Biochar company "Cool Planet". I have followed them a little bit - but your video cite below was new to me- and quite important to Biochar projections, I believe. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As usual, notes inserted below.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nando" <d.nando@...>
> To: rongretlarson@...
> Cc: "biochar-soils" <biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com>, "biochar-policy" <biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com>, "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@...>, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@...>, "David Yarrow" <dyarrow@...>
> Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 3:35:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test
>
> Ron,
>
>
> I don't think it is possible,....

--
Nando Breiter

Aria Media
via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

#720

From: rongretlarson@...
Date: Wed May 9, 2012 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

rongretlarson@...

Nando and ccs:

See few inserts below.

Impressive response! I have no opinion regarding the projections made in the video. I only assume they will run into challenges along the way. The main point to me seems to be that they have managed to attain significant momentum, settling on a business model, developing a technology for it, and raising capital - hopefully enough momentum to work through the kinks as they deploy their system. I'm happy to see that.

[RWL:    1. Re projections - I am a little unhappy - and will do more checking and report back. But my concerns are not huge. Mostly it is not knowing their input assumptions.

    b. Re challenges - No doubt - but they seem to be pretty well along - and moving quite fast.

    c. Agree on momentum, etc.

     d. One main new thing I learned from this conference was the likely depth of investigation that Google, GE, and the 4 oil companies probably put into this fundamentally different approach to making Biochar. Their description of the technology makes it seem highly patentable. If there is prior similar art - I am not aware of it.   No/little output CO2 and a drop-in fuel with char left over!

     e. I think it very unlikely that we will here have another scam like Mantria.   Also, it will be hard (but not impossible) for BFW to slam this one - with the name of Google involved and a substantial emphasis on developing countries, rural income up by 8x, and talking about food and reclaimed land. I will expand on this in next reply.

Ron

Nando

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:11 PM, <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Nando, list and ccs:

I am limiting this response mainly to your last paragraph in a different thread - on the Biofuels/Biochar company "Cool Planet". I have

#721

From: rongretlarson@...
Date: Wed May 9, 2012 11:28 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

rongretlarson@...

Thurx, Biochar-soils, and adding biochar-policy:

See few insert comments below

From: "thurx" <thurx@...>
To: biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 7:52:44 AM
Subject: [biochar-soils] Re: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

Wow, yes, definitely an impressive response. Especially the scope of the Cool Planet plan.

When I start to imagine something of that scale, utilizing 1% of the earth's surface or 1% of the earth's biomass, at least in an initial guesstimate (and with financial feasibility, it could expand well beyond that) I start to think about how long such a system can continue before it causes new problems.

[RWL1: But also potentially solving some problems.]

Does anyone have projections (as would be done in a feasibility study of Cool Planet's plans, were they studied as just one large system dropped onto our whole-earth-ecosystem) as to what happens to the somewhat fixed areas of land that produce the "feed" biomass.

[RWL2: I am sure their claim will be that the new "Biochar" land will be much improved. The standard response on where new biofuel/Biochar land will come from depends on whether one is pro- or anti-biochar. The latter swear it will all come from cutting down old virgin forests. Advocates (like me) say it will be mostly from existing pasture land - about 30% (I recall ?) of the global total But when you are talking a land-use number as small as 3%, and talking of improving ag productivity, there are many other sources for the land.

In terms of those lands, whether or not any of the biomass is returned as biochar,

[RWL3: Their diagrams show approximately half of the initial carbon (or about one-quarter of the initial biomass weight) returning as Biochar. This is to both the initial land and to presently unproductive land. There are some other Biochar companies thinking biofuels - but not many.]

what is the effect, over time, from the loss of the minerals that go up into the atmosphere in pyrolysis? Biofuels and biochar are being captured, but the remaining minerals are being distributed, world-wide, and not returned to the zone from which they were derived.

[RWL4: I can't be sure of this, but their talk of a pressurized system indicates they may be able to capture all of the nutrients. This is far from the normal pyrolysis approach. Also they are talking of leaving a large portion (half of the carbon) of the biomass on site for soil protection. The biofuel seller has no interest in the nutrients that you (appropriately) are concerned about. There could well be some sales of Biochar out of the producing region - but negative effects on the producing land can be minimized through carbon credit regulations.]

I admit this is an "after the fact" consideration, when we as a species think we need a replacement for petroleum tomorrow, but still, I'm pondering it. Too many times before we've discovered that we've raped the land to make some quick money.

[RWL5: Most (all?) of us in the Biochar world believe the land producing the raw materials will be better off with Biochar production than without. Cool Planet has put a lot of its sales pitch into Biochar - not just the biofuels co-product. This is NOT a biofuels-only operation - as near as I can tell (but probably it can be). Also, we need to compare this with the other proposed approaches to biofuels - none (?) of which have such claimed low cost, high photosynthetic efficiency (as good or better than algae), as well as biochar output.

Small scale, this type of bio-energy is attractive. Is it still attractive environmentally, when activated world-wide and long-term? Anyone?

[RWL6: They are proposing both "large" and small scale - but even the larger scale is not huge at 50 million gallons per year each. If we convert to the preferred unit in refinery circles we get (50 E6) / 42 / 365 = 3300 barrels per day. EIA says

[http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_refining#tab4]

that there are 138 larger refineries in the US (and only 3 smaller). The largest is 172 x larger.

I have no problem saying one plant is likely to be " attractive environmentally" - when comparing to any fossil alternative and global warming.

But you are asking about a world full of such plants. I believe the answer is still positive - and hope we can have more discussion on this.

Aside - (since I don't have much of a feel for refinery sizes) - I live near Coor's Brewery in Golden Colorado - said to be the largest in the world, which produces 25 million barrels of beer per year (36 gallon, not 42 gallon, barrel). In tiny Golden, this is a big plant, but because of the beer-aging process, it seems it is many dozens of times larger than the Cool Planet "large" plant - although having a smaller annual output and (probably) a similar biomass input. The point is that Cool Planet moves product through fast (as do all pyrolysis systems).

Ron

--- In biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com, rongretlarson@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Nando, list and ccs:
>
> I am limiting this response mainly to your last paragraph in a different thread - on the Biofuels/Biochar company "Cool Planet". I have followed them a little bit - but your video cite below was new to me- and quite important to Biochar projections, I believe. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As usual, notes inserted below.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nando" <d.nando@...>
> To: rongretlarson@...
> Cc: "biochar-soils" <biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com>, "biochar-policy" <biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com>, "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>, "Josiah Hunt" <josiah.hunt54@...>, "Alex English" <english@...>, "karnask" <karnask@...>, "Jock Gill" <jg45@...>, "Nathaniel Mulcahy" <worldstove@...>, "Kelpie Wilson" <kelpie@...>, "David Yarrow" <dyarrow@...>
> Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 3:35:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Request for comment on a specific Biochar test
>
> Ron,
>
>
> I don't think it is possible,....

#722

From: CaptonZap@...
Date: Thu May 10, 2012 12:51 am
Subject: Re: Re: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

captonzap

In a message dated 5/9/2012 5:28:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rongretlarson@... writes:

Aside - (since I don't have much of a feel for refinery sizes) - I live near Coor's Brewery in Golden Colorado - said to be the largest in the world, which produces 25 million barrels of beer per year (36 gallon, not 42 gallon, barrel). In tiny Golden, this is a big plant, but because of the beer-aging process, it seems it is many dozens of times larger than the Cool Planet "large" plant - although having a smaller annual output and (probably) a similar biomass input. The point is that Cool Planet moves product through fast (as do all pyrolysis systems).

Ron

Do you know a guy named Cliff, that lives SE of Coors? We made a batch of char on his place last year, and there is still a lot of wood left, but we were afraid the neighbors might get irate, since, until the process gets going, there is some smoke produced.. CZ

#723

From: Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Date: Thu May 10, 2012 1:55 am
Subject: Re: Re: Comments on Cool Planet Talk

rongretlarson@...

Caption-

Nope. Doesn't ring a bell. Hope we can talk further about any results of tests.

Ron

On May 9, 2012, at 6:51 PM, CaptonZap@... wrote:

In a message dated 5/9/2012 5:28:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rongretlarson@... writes:

Aside - (since I don't have much of a feel for refinery sizes) - I live near Coor's Brewery in Golden Colorado - said to be the largest in the world, which produces 25 million barrels of beer per year (36 gallon, not 42 gallon, barrel). In tiny Golden, this is a big plant, but because of the beer-aging process, it seems it is many dozens of times larger than the Cool Planet "large" plant - although having a smaller annual output and (probably) a similar biomass input. The point is that Cool Planet moves product through fast (as do all pyrolysis systems).

Ron

Do you know a guy named Cliff, that lives SE of Coors? We made a batch of char on his place last year, and there is still a lot of wood left, but we were afraid the neighbors might get irate, since, until the process gets going, there is some smoke produced.. CZ

#724

From: Erich Knight <erichjknight@...>
Date: Wed May 30, 2012 5:33 am
Subject: Enteric CH4 Remediation;,...Luzon Loves Biochar,

erich_knight

Dear soils,

Char MasterCooke sent this paper which features an Electron Micrograph his Biocharproject.org produced.
The final paragraph of the discussion section is most encouraging.
The in vitro limitations of this study, as the authors remind us several times, speaking of the consortia-O-bacteria and biofilms, may explain the increased percentage of methane reductions I have seen in the In Vivo, animal studies. I guess these guys didn't do a full search of previous work.

Whether Hoof, paw, claw or fin Carbon Print, char as a feedstuff can significantly reduce the imprint, while simultaneously enhancing other metrics for successful animal husbandry.

Enteric CH4 Remediation;,...

Biochar lowers net methane production from rumen fluid in vitro

"The preliminary and speculative nature of the present report is acknowledged but the importance of this observation to atmospheric methane accumulation if repeatable in other situations is so immense that� �bringing the finding to the attention of other research scientists is warranted and this early publication is to put the information in the public domain as it is felt that any attempt to patent a process using biochar to mitigate enteric methane production from all animals is not in the interests of people in general. If these results are repeated when animals are fed biochar in their diet, then there would be good reason to suggest that enteric methane production maybe lowered from all animals including humans by extremely small amounts of dietary biochar whether fermentation sacs precede or follow digestion in the intestines. The exception will be where acetogenesis replaces methanogenesis in the fermentation areas of the tract as in the kangaroo that produce little methane (Kempton et al 1976). A major point here is that if the results are applicable to animals under domesticated conditions the small amounts likely to be needed would probably indicate this is a very or the least expensive methodology for mitigating methane production"

http://www.lrrd.org/public-lrrd/proofs/lrrd2406/sang24103.htm

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Luzon Loves Biochar,

Feature: Botolan-based irrigators-federations in CL rise despite tragedies
Biochar farm integrations are validated and certified by a three-member network who issues serialized master certificates for every 1.1 tons of biochar used indicating the farm and farmer involved and the integration date. PBiA audits these integration records.

PBiA issues carbon offset credits represented by carbon negative stickers on these master certificates which are sold to raise funds for the local biochar networks to finance their biochar production and soil integration.

http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=561338129109

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Cheers,
Erich

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

#725

From: Erich Knight <erichjknight@...>
Date: Fri Jun 1, 2012 11:19 pm
Subject: RFS2 Lobby NOW,....Angus Enjoy Algae

erich_knight

Dear Policy,

Lobby NOW,...
Or forever hold your peace, soil sequestered biochar pieces that is.....

"In Washington, staff members working for least eight US Senators will join a study group aimed at a �seed-to-wheel examination of the US Renewable Fuel Standard,

Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Ben Cardin, D-Md.; John Thune, R-S.D.; Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska have indicated an interest in participation. In addition, the Digest has learned that Maria Cantwell, D-Wash; John Boozman, R-Ark, Max Baucus, D-Mont; and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa are also possible group participants.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/05/30/us-senate-group-starts-up-seed-to-wheel-review-of-us-renewable-fuel-standard/

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Angus Enjoy Algae
Angus steers enjoyed eating algae biofuel byproduct
Black Angus steers seem to enjoy algae byproducts, I imagine they will go hog wild for it with a little black Biochar condiment.
That is the short version of what I plan to send to the researchers in this article.

http://www.thevindicator.com/news/article_c2219bec-a8cb-11e1-9c09-0019bb2963f4.html

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

There are so many avenues, so many applications, so many rat-holes to wander down that I have purposely set blinders on myself concerning lactic acid fermentation. In Europe they have a specialty Biochar product to amend silage, they also formulate, or charge their Biochar products in fermentation processes. The advantages and/or disadvantages compared to composting or compost tea, I have no clue. I find myself up to my neck trying to understand the complicated soil interactions, plant chemical signaling interactions and other soil synergies.
Same goes for the heavy metal remediation applications, I have my fingers in so many pies already, I hesitate to jump into more.

So many Biochar rat-holes, so few fellow rats,
Erich

#726

From: rongretlarson@...
Date: Wed Jun 6, 2012 7:01 pm
Subject: Fwd: Urgent Need to Support Sponsors and Exhibitors at Sonoma

rongretlarson@...

Biochar lists

Apologies for considerable redundancy. This from Ray Baltar seems the only way to get to everyone with a Biochar list involvement.

This looks likely to be our best conference - in a great location. If not yet committed, please do so

Ron

From: "Raymond Baltar" <raymond@...>
To: "    (Names deleted to protect the innocent)
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 12:10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Urgent Need to Support Sponsors and Exhibitors at Sonoma

Re: Urgent Need to Support Sponsors and Exhibitors at Sonoma       <SNIP>

We do need to have all speakers registered by June 15th AT THE LATEST if we are going to give Jeff the time he needs to put the program together without having to make major changes. Please put the word out on your networks that speakers need to register for the conference (at the special Speaker Rate) by this date. I personally sent out a reminder about 10 days ago to these people and I will be sending another on the 10th or 11th to all those still lagging. But hearing it from all of you will help as well.

Our pitch has primarily been that this is the one and only national conference focused on biochar, that there is a lot of pent up interest in the subject because it will have been two years since the last US conference, and that anyone in the industry who is not going to participate is missing a huge opportunity to learn, network, and sell. Plus, the conference is being held in one of the most beautiful places on Earth—close to beautiful coastline vistas, Redwood forests, Muir Woods, wine country scenes, the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, the Russian River—and I’m just getting started. We have literally hundreds of wineries and craft breweries in Sonoma and Napa counties, incredible cheesemakers, sustainable local farms (be sure to sign up for the FarmOut tours while you still can—they are limited and going fast), spas, and a hundred other things for you and/or your families to do in the area while you attend the conference or before or after.

   <SNIP>

Raymond Baltar
Director
Sonoma Biochar Initiative
www.sonomabiocharinitiative.org
707 291-3240

On 6/6/12 7:06 AM, "Tom Miles" <tmiles@...> wrote:

Kelpie,
Right! This would be very useful.
I was thinking about how one looks at the program and learns quickly how to find information and presentations about specific markets – turf, erosion control, remediation, hort, ag – and applications – compost, growing media, filtration. An online or factsheet guide to the show would be useful. Other conferences have done this by highlighting major topics in different colors in the program..
What areas are of common interest to biochar producers? How can we highlight those?
What pitch has been used by Biochar 2012 to “Sell” exhibitors or sponsors? If we knew that we could approach folks from different angles.
Let’s get the most out of this that we can and help the organizers at the same time.
Tom
KW>a better approach would be to have a one day rate and then create a page or a flyer for each day that describes what a home gardener, a small farmer, an educator or other newly interested person could glean from that day's events.

.

#727

From: Erich Knight <erichjknight@...>
Date: Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:09 am
Subject: Re: [biochar] Working Paper: Biochar increases maize yields and smallholder profitability: Evidence from Western Kenya

erich_knight

Dear Andrew,

Tip of the hat to you,

You set the stage wonderfully, like opening a window to the on the ground conditions encountered by local farmers, much like what the Biochar fund did for my understanding of subsistence farmers in Cameroon.
361 Biochar using households, soil samples, it looks like you have done the most with what you had to work with.
Your cravat on Labor allocation seems perfectly foiled by your reports of the repeat Biochar offenders, and observation of;� Why repeat if it doesn't work?

30 to 40% is certainly expanding the edges of the envelope,
Plateauing in the fourth or fifth season, I guess even the best soil microcosm party stabilizes some point, with a new set of limits to growth.

I wait with anticipation your next installment, will the word of mouth have an exponential curve as biological systems tend to have?

I'm sure that Jason will be citing this work at Sonoma, hopefully with big color 3D graphics, or animated video with all the bells and whistles.

Regards,
Erich

On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Andrew Crane-Droesch <andrewcd@...> wrote:

�

Dear All,

I'd like to share a draft of my working paper (joint with Abigail Clare) on the impact of biochar on maize yields and farm-level profitability in Western Kenya.� In sum, biochar adoption increased yields and profitability substantially.� The paper is available on my (still-modest) website:

http://andrewcd.berkeley.edu

Abstract: Soil degradation threatens agricultural productivity throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa, and strategies to restore or maintain soil fertility are a critical component of broader approaches toward agricultural development in the region. Soil amendment with biochar, the product of incomplete combustion of plant biomass, has been the object of increasing scientific attention as a means of durably improving soil fertility while sequestering carbon in soil. We report the results of an observational study on the impact of biochar on maize yields, farm-level fertilizer expenditure, and farm profitability in Western Kenya. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we estimate that biochar increased crop yields between 20 and 40%, while reducing fertilizer expenditure and increasing farm-level profitability by 25%. In addition, we find suggestive evidence that biochar's benefit extends beyond the first season after application, with substantial increases in maize yield and profitability over time. While we find strong yield and profitability increases among early adopters, biochar's potential for impact at scale remains to be demonstrated.

Best,
Andrew
--
Andrew Crane-Droesch

Energy and Resources Group
UC Berkeley
+1 215 435 2644
andrewcd@...
skype: andrew.crane-droesch
http://andrewcd.berkeley.edu

#728

From: Erich Knight <erichjknight@...>
Date: Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:23 am
Subject: Happiness is; a Clean Cook Stove,.. Rice Char as Carrier of Herbicides,.. BRAF,... Genghis Khan; CO2 Saint?

erich_knight

Hi Policy & Soils,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

New Health Metric for Clean Cook Stoves
To cover the confounding variable that liquid petroleum gas users suffer less depression because of their better economic circumstances, an NGO should supply half the women in the biomass stove group and half the women in the LPG control group, with pyrolytic gasifying stoves, then repeat the questionnaire.

Biomass cooking stoves linked to depression

The study covered 952 women, between 25 and 46 years of age, from 15 villages in West Bengal state, who cooked with wood, dung cakes, crop residues and other biomass for five to six hours daily. Depression was greater among these women when compared to a control group of 804 women who used cleaner liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking, scientists at the Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (CNCI), Kolkata, found. The study published online in Social Science & Medicine in May,

http://www.scidev.net/en/south-asia/news/biomass-cooking-stoves-linked-to-depression.html

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Rice Char as Carrier of Herbicides,..

The sustained release of the herbicides acetochlor and 2,4-D was obtained by rice char. Acetochlor is a pre-emergence application for corn, it inhibits part of the gibberellin pathway. It carries high risks of environmental contamination and is a replacement for atrazine.

Using Rice Straw Biochar Simultaneously as the Sustained Release Carrier of Herbicides and Soil Amendment for Their Reduced Leaching
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf3009734

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

�Biochar Risk Assessment Framework (BRAF)
The Biochar Risk Assessment Framework (BRAF) which started in January this year, is a project supported by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation (75%) with a contribution from the UK Biochar Research Centre (25%) and developed in collaboration with the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), the National Farmers Union (NFU), Newcastle University, Rothamsted Research, the Biochar Foundation and a wide group of UK scientists and academics.�Most of the work will be performed by the UK Biochar Research Centre based at Edinburgh University in cooperation with the organisations mentioned above. Steering group meetings are being convened to decide key aspects of the project.

https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/negative-emission-technologies/articles/-/blogs/biochar-risk-assessment-framework-braf;jsessionid=6A66054259548D1AB04B978A98A5FE89.ColsAnobron7

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Genghis Khan; CO2 Saint?
Here is a e-mail I just sent to paleoclimatologist and anthropologist I've been corresponding with. Concerning a Jan 20, 2011,� article on Genghis Khan's CO2 sainthood.

Dear Jeremy, and all,
Just a note to reinforce your great, Jan 20, 2011,� article on Genghis Khan's CO2 sainthood. Your take on the research by Julia Pongratz of the Carnegie Institute
http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0120-hance_mongols.html

The Unintended, Heavy-handed, forest conservation ties in with the research I have been following in this e-mail train. I venture to say, that Dr. Dull's work with lake sediment cores also nominates Christopher Columbus for sainthood. His nomination is weighted with 2 to 5 billion tons versus Mr Khan's 700 million tons;
The Columbian encounter led to terrestrial biospheric carbon sequestration on the order of 2 to 5 GtC Climate Forcing.
The Columbian Encounter and the Little Ice Age: Abrupt Land Use Change, Fire, and Greenhouse Forcing - Annals of the Association of American Geographers
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/00045608.2010.50243

The Legacy of 17.5 million Y-chromosome male decendants takes some wind from Genghis' nomination, while the new genetic work that corroborates the loss of 50% of the pre-Columbian New World population, with the Spanish records of the populations' rebound, leaves Christopher in a stronger position for unintended CO2 sainthood.

The relevance of afforestation as a climate tool should please Dr. Hansen with his latest plans for 100 GtC of Forest;
"The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future".
�http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf

My take and interest;
The Paleoclimate Record shows agricultural-geo-engineering is responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases.� The unintended consequence, the flowering of our civilization. Our science has now realized these consequences and has developed a more encompassing wisdom.� Wise land management,� afforestation and� the thermal conversion of biomass can build back our soil carbon.� Pyrolysis, Gasification� and Hydro-Thermal Carbonization are known biofuel technologies,� What is new are the concomitant benefits of biochars for Soil Carbon Sequestration; building soil biodiversity & nitrogen efficiency, for in situ remediation of toxic agents, and, as a feed supplement cutting the carbon foot print of livestock.� Modern systems are closed-loop with no significant emissions. The general life cycle analysis is: every 1 ton of biomass yields 1/3 ton Biochar equal to 1 ton CO2e, plus biofuels equal to 1MWh exported electricity, so each energy cycle is 1/3 carbon negative.

Cheers,
Erich

#729

From: frank michael <mushroom@...>
Date: Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:53 pm
Subject: charging biochar with urine

solarsmith1

Howdy,

I'm a new member in this group.

I have a small Third-World style experimental garden, where I try to
use only local materials (no industrial chemicals or truck trips for
manure) to make compost and build up a rather poor soil.
Over the last few years I noticed that adding diluted urine to the
compost pile greatly improved the yield and quality of my veggies.
The only other "fertilizer" I use is wood ashes from a wood stove,
whose high pH eventually balances out the tannic acid in the mulched
dry oak leaves making up the bulk of the compost pile. When it gets
too alkaline, I use diluted white vinegar to bring down the pH.

I figure that urine provides free NPK plus all the trace elements
needed by the animal kingdom, while the wood ashes have CaPK plus the
trace elements the vegetal kingdom requires.

However, I'm concerned about the possibility of a buildup of NaCl
from the urine in the soil. So once in a while I flush out the grow
beds with water, hoping that the beneficial stuff in the urine are
taken up and embodied in non-soluble form by the mycorrhyzal fungi
and bacteria in the soil. So far, the results are good.

A few days ago I made a small smokeless biochar stove. Its first test
was spectacularly successful, with a biochar yield very close to the
theoretical maximum for 15% moisture content wood.

I have a couple of questions for the chemists in this group:

1. Will soaking biochar in human urine make good garden biochar?
I worry it may be too concentrated for colonization by mycorrhyzae.

2. Will the Na+ ions from NaCl in urine take up too much surface area
or otherwise poison the biochar for the garden? How labile are those
ions adsorbed in biochar anyway? Can they be washed away with water
once the biochar is in the soil?

3. Comments would be  appreciated on the conjecture that soluble
nutrients are quickly taken up by (insoluble) microorganisms in the
soil, which don't get flushed away by heavy rains or a hosing-down.

Thank you,
Frank Michael

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#730

From: Lloyd Helferty <lhelferty@...>
Date: Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:58 am
Subject: Special Announcement from Biochar Ontario: DON'T MISS the 1st Urban Agriculture Summit in Toronto!

lloyd_helferty

http://www.urbanagsummit.org


Around the world, people are growing food in cities!
Learn more and register now at www.urbanagsummit.org

Contact Info:

Website

From August 15th -August 18th 2012,
Biochar Ontario is a Promotional Partner in the first Urban Agriculture Summit in Toronto!

The 2012 Urban Agriculture Summit will bring together a diversity of people that are making it happen - design professionals, community groups, social housing advocates, tenants and developers, educators, planners, homeowners, urban growers and others - to share what is working, and to discover what is possible.

The Summit will be action-oriented: attendees will learn new tools to advance urban agriculture in their own communities.
Together participants will explore urban agriculture's current role and future potential in 21st century city-building.

See: http://www.facebook.com/UrbanAgSummit

Tweet to UrbanAg Summit:

https://twitter.com/urbanagsummit

Regards,

 Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
www.biochar-consulting.ca
48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
905-707-8754
CELL: 647-886-8754
Skype: lloyd.helferty
Steering Committee coordinator
Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475
Advisory Committee Member, IBI
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675
http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/
http://www.biocharontario.ca
www.biochar.ca
A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

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

Subject:	DON'T MISS the 1st Urban Agriculture Summit
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:49:24 -0400
From:	Green Roofs for Healthy Cities <conference@...>

Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
Education Program

DON'T MISS the 1st Urban Agriculture Summit

Bringing together leaders in design, planning, development and integration for city-based food production

Toronto, ON
August 15 - 18, 2012

Featuring inspiring experts:

Will Allen, Founder & CEO of Growing Power and author of ‘The Good Food Revolution’
Paul Lightfoot, CEO of BrightFarms hydroponic greenhouse farms and supply chain expert
Joe Lobko, Principal of duToit Allsopp Hillier, interdisciplinary architect, landscape architect and urban designer
PLUS over 75 session presenters who are leaders in the fields of community and commercial development, policy, research, and design.

Only $199 (non profit) / $349 (for profit) for a full delegate pass. Includes plenaries, sessions, trade show, networking receptions, and meals.

REGISTER NOW

The Urban Agriculture Summit will also feature:

Professional development courses and training / skills workshops, several of which are approved for continuing education / professional development hours.
And half-day tours and full-day tours of exceptional and inspiring urban agriculture projects and producers across the Greater Toronto Area.

Coming from out of town? Affordable rooms are available at Ryerson University Residence from $59 - book your room early to avoid disappointment. Don't delay ... space and registration is limited. Register today!

Having trouble viewing the flyer? Simply copy and paste the entire address listed below into your web browser:
http://www.greenroofs.org/resources/UrbanAg_june21.html

#731

From: "DougC" <dnclayton@...>
Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:23 am
Subject: Re: charging biochar with urine

dnclayton48

Frank,

Like many others I've been experimenting with urine soaked biochar for a while
now with great results and have been using urine on compost and garden for
decades with no ill effects that I am aware of.  I think in my part of the world
(New England) regular rains take care of any potential salt problem.

If you're interested email me directly and I'll send some recent analysis of my
urine-biochar compost.  Not sure UMass has a clue how to evaluate the stuff but
it tests great and works as a superior potting mix as well.  A particular number
you might be interested in was "soluble salts" at 0.93 dS/M (what ever that
means) but they say a very good number for any compost.

Worms, night crawlers and red wigglers are another healthy indicator and I've
seen one particular finished urine-biochar compost (that happened to be boosted
with molasses) fill with mycelia.  It reminds me that I need to get some more
molasses.

Doug



--- In biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com, frank michael <mushroom@...> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I'm a new member in this group.
>
> I have a small Third-World style experimental garden, where I try to
> use only local materials (no industrial chemicals or truck trips for
> manure) to make compost and build up a rather poor soil.
> Over the last few years I noticed that adding diluted urine to the
> compost pile greatly improved the yield and quality of my veggies.
> The only other "fertilizer" I use is wood ashes from a wood stove,
> whose high pH eventually balances out the tannic acid in the mulched
> dry oak leaves making up the bulk of the compost pile. When it gets
> too alkaline, I use diluted white vinegar to bring down the pH.
>
> I figure that urine provides free NPK plus all the trace elements
> needed by the animal kingdom, while the wood ashes have CaPK plus the
> trace elements the vegetal kingdom requires.
>
> However, I'm concerned about the possibility of a buildup of NaCl
> from the urine in the soil. So once in a while I flush out the grow
> beds with water, hoping that the beneficial stuff in the urine are
> taken up and embodied in non-soluble form by the mycorrhyzal fungi
> and bacteria in the soil. So far, the results are good.
>
> A few days ago I made a small smokeless biochar stove. Its first test
> was spectacularly successful, with a biochar yield very close to the
> theoretical maximum for 15% moisture content wood.
>
> I have a couple of questions for the chemists in this group:
>
> 1. Will soaking biochar in human urine make good garden biochar?
> I worry it may be too concentrated for colonization by mycorrhyzae.
>
> 2. Will the Na+ ions from NaCl in urine take up too much surface area
> or otherwise poison the biochar for the garden? How labile are those
> ions adsorbed in biochar anyway? Can they be washed away with water
> once the biochar is in the soil?
>
> 3. Comments would be  appreciated on the conjecture that soluble
> nutrients are quickly taken up by (insoluble) microorganisms in the
> soil, which don't get flushed away by heavy rains or a hosing-down.
>
> Thank you,
> Frank Michael
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#732

From: frank michael <mushroom@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:45 am
Subject: peechar

solarsmith1

Hi Doug,

Pardon the contraction in the subject field; it does sound like some exotic item from India, doesn't it?.

The Sumerians and other old civilizations perished from the accumulation of salt in their poorly-drained fields.

I am concerned about both the effect and the lifetime of NaCl in biochar. Will the Na+ displace useful ions like Ca++, K+ ? Would too much NaCl from urine poison the biochar by reducing its cation exchange ability and / or damage the biota trying to move into their char microniches?

In Tennessee we have occasional droughts; we can't depend on regular heavy rains to wash away salt concentrations.

So I wonder how fast are the urine NPKCa taken up by the soil microflora and directly by the plants. This would determine how often we can flush off the NaCl without washing away too many nutrients.

I am very glad to hear that you have used urine in your biochar for decades with no ill effects to your garden. That piece of information is a bottom line that sums up tons of chemistry and biology.

So maybe how often to flush is not so critical. Maybe every couple of months, and refertilize with "peechar" or diluted urine within a few days.

Thank you for your offer to send me UMass' analysis of your compost. If they don't specify what soluble salts they analyze, their list will not answer questions of NaCl since "salts" include some of the NPKCa compounds that plants need too.

Thank you,

Frank Michael

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#733

From: "Norm Baker" <ntbakerphd@...>
Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:18 am
Subject: Re: charging biochar with urine

oly_hems

Doug;

Why not post your results here on the biochar-soils? I think there are probably many of us that are interested in the topic – like most organic gardeners.

Norm

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#734

From: Erich Knight <erichjknight@...>
Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:48 pm
Subject: Terra Preta (soil) Technology in Berlin,... "They Taken Our Carbons",... The Fungus Among Us

erich_knight

Hi policy

Terra Preta (soil) Technology in Berlin,
A couple years back the Smithsonian Institution did the display on Terra Preta soils, from the pictures I saw, nothing like this, "No Waste in Nature: Terra Preta � An Opportunity for Sustainability" put on by the Geoecology Group at the Department of Earth Sciences, and the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin.
" terra preta technology" , I like their wording, although I've always inserted TP "Soil" Technology. The interactive elements, getting people's hands dirty in Terra Preta precursors and process, just wonderful. They say it will be on tour, some angel should book it for the US. "Terra Preta Nova", "Berlin Black Earth" , now that has a ring to it.

"Eighteen panels with images and text portray the origin of the terra preta technology and its potential to improve soil fertility, close wastewater and water cycles, and conserve resources. Two research projects in progress are depicted: TerraBoGa and LaTerra. The TerraBoGa project was started in September 2010 in the Botanic Garden of Freie Universit�t Berlin. A slide show gives a very vivid impression of the work being done in this project. Interactive elements invite visitors to get involved: they can touch and compare raw materials such as vegetable waste, crushed rock, vegetable carbon, or the carbon substrate produced in the context of the TerraBoGa research project. A toilet bowl demonstrates that human waste can also be recycled using terra preta technology. Compost worms living in a terrarium can be watched "at work." "

No Waste in Nature: Terra Preta � An Opportunity for Sustainability
http://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/fup/2012/fup_12_152/index.html

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

To paraphrase a popular US comedy, "South Park" in an� episode where they parody arguments against immigration with characters saying; "They taken our jobs" repetitively;

"They Taken Our Carbons"� @ $165 per metric ton,

Or to paraphrase Dr. Seuss, in "The Lorax";

I am the Charist� I speak for the Carbon�
I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues. and cannot express.... what they do with their lungs
Fix all the carbons in lignins and more� Which we Charistas.... can recalcitrantly store
Thermal conversion is what biomass needs� To bring down the World-temps...a couple degrees
It can heat up our pots� And drive us alots� With no eco-system giving up what it's gots
I am the Charist, and I'll yell and I'll shout for the fine things on earth that are on their way out!�
Externalized cost I will shout at the most.... For it's value in soils is easy to boast,
I speak for the humus, the fungus, the bugs.... for the structure char give them..... they just loves
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,.... nothing is going to get better...... It's not......

By 2020, Europe may annually import as much as 40 million metric tons of pellets from all sources, Of course, I would have no problem if by then this 40 million tons were destined for carbonization. let me put it this way, if that 40,000,000 tons were processed via CoolPlanet biofuels' technology,� that would be 120 million barrels of carbon negative bio-gasoline. Europe uses about 4 million barrels of gasoline per day, so in 2020, that would be a one-month supply. In the US a 15 day supply.
I have read reports that the potential for sustainable US biomass production is one billion tons+, so to follow this rosy scenario I paint, that would be 3 billion barrels of bio-gasoline, or about a 300 day supply.

US Biomass: Where Do All the Wood Pellets Go?
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/where-do-all-the-wood-pellets-go?cmpid=WNL-Friday-June15-2012

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The Fungus Among Us
The fungus among us we're getting to know.... including the types that makes the trees grow.
the various enzyme's they came to express� Brought to the world a big rotting mess
When they learned how to pull off this decay.... The Carboniferous period ended that way
(OK,... ok,...I'll stop now)

The rise of white rot fungi and the close of the Carboniferous period was no coincidence.

Study On Fungi Helps Explain Coal Formation and May Advance Future Biofuels Production
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120628181723.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2FkPEe+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+News%29

How an Ancestral Fungus May Have Influenced Coal Formation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120628181721.htm

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Your Seussian Charista,
Erich

#735

From: frank michael <mushroom@...>
Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: peechar

solarsmith1