I think it is likely due to the Nitrogen fixing capabilities of legumes. I
think it is logical to assume that fresh biochar acts like wood chips and will
absorb N from the soil, making it unavailable to plants until the wood chips
break down. Wood chips can also store the N and prevent it from leaving the
site until they are ready to release it. For this reason, compost made from
wood chips and fresh manure takes longer to mature but retains more N fertilizer
than composted without wood chips.
Legumes counter the initial N restriction and add more N to the soil, which
biochar might then retain for later use by the plants. The biochar won't break
down as readily as the wood chips so the effects should be qualitatively
different over time.
This is actually a quite simple process, C plus N in balanced amounts are
required to break down plant tissues into compost, and the processes continue as
long as there is moisture. So the process will pull in the necessary nutrients
until the process has changed to a new process.
Timing is important as well. N will be released over time without something to
hold it back, either a biological process or a biochar or wood chip additive
should work. Lots of work could be done here to test out different additions to
manure. There is a point where the compost is ready and needs to be applied to
the soil for use by the plants before it evaporates into the atmosphere.
Likewise, we investigate adding N to biochar. Urine, whether human or animal,
is generally sterile and is high in N. The biochar keeps down the smell and
retains the nutrients for use by the plants.
Soil management is key. Undisturbed or lightly disturbed soils with a perennial
cover crop will retain carbon and nutrients that tilled soils will not. A broad
fork, or bio-fork, will loosen soils without damaging soil structure.
Drought is always destructive to soils.
Birgit
--- In biochar@yahoogroups.com, Alex English <english@...> wrote:
>
>
> He wisely expected that legumes might fare best in the first year.
> However the ash components of the char might well be the reason. They
> include some readily available nutrients after all. Likely oxides of
> calcium and potassium top the list, Then there are the immediate
> effects on pH.
rearrange our chars on the deck of the Titanic. I get it, and with so many multiple meanings, our feeble / under-funded / under-understood /
arranging efforts are more like the string quartet playing, If the finality of GW / Sinking is accepted as unavoidable. At least we will go down with style & grace and be able to tell the grand children we did what we could.
Erich
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Alex English <english@...> wrote:
He wisely expected that legumes might fare best in the first year.
However the ash components of the char might well be the reason. They
include some readily available nutrients after all. Likely oxides of
calcium and potassium top the list, Then there are the immediate
effects on pH. We did have soil tests done on the treated and untreated
rows of peas, and no significant difference was quantified except for
copper and one other trace element that escapes, what passes for, my mind.
What I would like to suggest for some future biochar tests is that
rather than compare biochar treated rows with untreated rows, we might
explore splitting a biochar sample and ashing one half, then both
plots/rows would receive the same amount of ash residue with only one
receiving carbon char.
As with anything, there are potential problems with this approach , but
I thought the idea might at least generate some shots across the bow as
we rearrange our chars on the deck of the Titanic.
As the Copenhagen fiasco drew to a close, I was encouraged to write a
couple of letters, and the one to The Independent got
published in full, see URL and headlines below.
Alex (cc 2 lists):
1. Thanks again for good information - this time on soils. The results
for peas was spectacular (more than a doubling); Mr. Ken Allen should be
thanked a lot for doing such nice complete tests. He looks a little hard
to convince, so it will be great to hear his test results next year for
two new crops. I guess he only did two of his three possible rotation
tests (no tomatoes?)
2. While on the Burtgh site, I read your paper for the NE Biochar
conference. Also very nice. Anything else there that we should be reviewing?
3. You referenced Thomas Nussbaumer and I found some very nice material
from him on combustion - almost on pyrolysis. Did you hear his talk in
Canada that you referenced" [Here:
http://www.nyserda.org/Programs/Environment/EMEP/conference_2007/Nussbaumer_Thom\
as.pd
4. In googling, I also found this one:
[http://www.verenum.ch/Publikationen/Biomass-ConfOA6.4.pdf] which looks
good on theory - lots of dimensionless numbers for us to ponder. I am on
my way to the library to follow up on several leads in there. Do you
know of any similar references?
5. The plot of his that you gave at the NE conference and that you
referenced (my [4] above) seems to show conclusively a huge [two order
of magnitude in hydrocarbon release] advantage of a two-stage (primary
and secondary) air supply. Have you seen this plot anywhere else? It
seems to have applicability to the recent discussion of pollutant
release for rocket vs pyrolyzing stoves on the stoves list.
Ron
Alex English wrote:
>
> Dear Biochar users and researchers,
>
> We haven't yet done enough with our char but we did give it to an
> organic gardener with decades of experience. Read some brief pdf accounts;
> http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/450/
> <http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/450/>
> http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/451/
> <http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/451/>
>
> He wisely expected that legumes might fare best in the first year.
> However the ash components of the char might well be the reason. They
> include some readily available nutrients after all. Likely oxides of
> calcium and potassium top the list, Then there are the immediate
> effects on pH. We did have soil tests done on the treated and untreated
> rows of peas, and no significant difference was quantified except for
> copper and one other trace element that escapes, what passes for, my mind.
>
> What I would like to suggest for some future biochar tests is that
> rather than compare biochar treated rows with untreated rows, we might
> explore splitting a biochar sample and ashing one half, then both
> plots/rows would receive the same amount of ash residue with only one
> receiving carbon char.
>
> As with anything, there are potential problems with this approach , but
> I thought the idea might at least generate some shots across the bow as
> we rearrange our chars on the deck of the Titanic.
>
> Alex
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.116/2580 - Release Date: 12/21/09
12:13:00
>
>
Dear all,
I thought you'd like to see a kind note from Dr Pachauri, IPCC chairman,
to acknowledge Peter Read's contribution to the scientific community,
which will be greatly missed. He was tireless in his efforts to explain
and promote biochar techniques, as a form of "carbon stock management"
geoengineering to help the world avoid climate catastrophe [1]. Dr
Pachauri is persuaded that such techniques "to suck [greenhouse] gases
out of the air" may be necessary [2].
But you may not know that Peter was also helping to promote "solar
radiation management" geoengineering [3] to save the Arctic sea ice,
having delivered an open letter to Dr Pachauri [4] at the Climate
Congess in Copenhagen, this March. He was one of a handful of
scientists prepared to admit that our civilisation is in such a
dangerous situation that we have to resort to various geoengineering
techniques as well as emissions cuts. The fact that Dr Pachauri
recognises the danger from Arctic sea ice retreat should give us hope
for appropriate action, with due urgency, in 2010 .
Seasonal greetings,
John
Chiswick, London W4
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/27/biochar
[2] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938298.ece
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management
[4]
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachauri.html
Dear Mr Nissen,
I am very sorry to learn about the passing
away of Mr. Peter Read. This is a big loss to the scientific community.
I do remember receiving a copy of your
open letter from Peter and would certainly give a thought to your suggestion
of setting up a group of scientists, engineers and economists to see what
can be done to save the Artic sea ice.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R. K. Pachauri
***************************************************************
R K Pachauri, Ph.D
Director-General, TERI
Habitat Place, Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: +91 11 24682121 or 2122
Fax: +91 11 24682144 or 2145
www.teriin.org
************************************************************************
John Nissen <jn@...>
12/01/2009 10:04 PM
To
R K Pachauri <pachauri@...>
cc
Stephen Hugh Salter <S.H.Salter@...>,
John Latham <john.latham-2@...>, Oliver Wingenter <oliver.wingenter@...>,
Andrew Lockley <andrew.lockley@...>, John Gorman <gormans@...>,
Sam Carana <sam.carana@...>
Subject
Re: Open letter to Dr Rajendra Pachauri
Dear Dr Pachauri,
It is with great sadness that I must inform you of Peter Read's death last
week. He had been giving a lecture on biochar in the Netherlands.
I had met him only recently and we'd become good friends, sharing many
concerns about the state of the Earth's climate system and agreeing that
a number of parallel actions were needed to prevent absolute disasters
of one kind or another.
As you may remember, Peter handed you a copy of my open letter at the Copenhagen
Climate Congress in March, to which you responded in September (a previous
response having apparently bounced), see appended below. The letter
can be accessed on the web here [1].
Peter was one of the pioneers of biochar as a means of removal of CO2 from
the atmosphere, as well as providing biofuel and soil improvement.
He suggested the term "carbon stock management" for the "Part
B", to cover various approaches to reducing the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere. I am glad to read of your support for such action [2].
However Peter appreciated the need for urgent "Part C" action
to cool the Arctic and save the Arctic sea ice. Monday's Guardian
failed to mention the need for this type of action [3]. So I have
written a letter to them [4], which I hope to have published.
As you say in your September email to me, urgent action is required to
address the threat presented by global warming - but I would say
it is particularly urgent for saving the Arctic sea ice. Do you agree
with that? If so, could you support the setting up a group of top
scientists, engineers and economists to study what can be done, quickly
and safely, to save the Arctic sea ice, as I propose in my letter to the
Guardian?
[4] The letter to the Guardian, I submitted today, is as follows.
The elephant in the room
“We are still in charge of our own destiny” is the hopeful
message from Fred Pearce (“Why Copenhagen Matters”, in the 10-page special,
30th November). Pearce describes how civilisation has
become critically dependent on stable climates and constant sea level,
which the Earth’s climate system has provided for the past 8000 years
or more. The whole system is liable to violent disruption because
of the colossal amount of CO2 that has been put in the atmosphere. Leaders
from many nations are gathered in Copenhagen to agree actions to curb emissions
and stop the amount of CO2 from growing, but (and this point is missed
by most commentators) these actions will not halt the global warming arising
from the existing CO2. Although our destiny in the long term depends on
emissions reduction, it critically depends in the short term on avoiding
certain effects from the existing CO2 – in particular two tipping points:
the release of methane in permafrost, which has the potential to cause
runaway warming, and the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, which
has the potential to produce 7 metres of sea level rise. The dramatic
retreat of Arctic sea ice (with an incredible 40% reduction for the past
three years) could trigger these tipping points, through regional warming,
as reflective ice gives way to sunshine-absorbing open water.
Our leaders seem blissfully unaware of this hazard, because their advisers
have chosen to ignore this “elephant in the room” – effectively a weapon
of mass destruction! Probably the only way to save the Arctic
sea ice, in the short time available, is through the emerging discipline
of geoengineering, for example using stratospheric haze for regional cooling
and marine cloud brightening for cooling the waters entering the Arctic
Ocean. A team of top scientists, engineers and economists needs to
be set up to work out exactly what to do, and how quickly and safely it
can be done. And our leaders need to see that it gets done at top
priority. Otherwise we may lose control of our destiny and Pearce’s
worst nightmares could become reality.
---
R K Pachauri wrote:
This message has been sent again as previous one bounced.
Thank you for your letter. I agree with you that the Copenhagen Conference
of the Parties is a very important conference, and that we must act quickly
to address the threat presented by global warming. I also agree with
you
that carbon stock management, heat transfer and radiation management
present promising prospects. This is why we have included geoengineering
for consideration in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Geoengineering
will be dealt with as a mitigation option.
With kind regards,
R. K. Pachauri
***************************************************************
R K Pachauri, Ph.D
Director-General, TERI
Habitat Place, Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: +91 11 24682121 or 2122
Fax: +91 11 24682144 or 2145 www.teriin.org
************************************************************************
Such a high dose of biochar, added all at once with no fertilizing agent of any kind, might be expected to absorb / adsorb all the available nutrients in the soil solution. Some absorbtion / adsorbtion is good, it is important that carbon is present in the topsoil layer to retain nutrients. Too much of this good thing, all at once, can make nutrients unavailable to plants, at least until the soil solution and biochar come into balance again in regards to nutrient stocks. It is my guess that this may have occurred with your uncle's experiment from your description. Something else could also be the cause. It's hard to tell without analyzing both the char and soil.
One solution is to pre-charge the biochar with nutrients, mixing it with manure or compost for instance. Another is to add "small" doses of biochar incrementally.
Dear List,
What makes some soils work well with biochar and not others?
An uncle of mine from another place used biochar in his vegetable farm
after being convinced how my biochar vegetable farm was very healthy and
good looking with broad leaves. Though with my farm, I had never
used Inorganic
fertilizers like D.A.P, C.A.N before, but I mix charcoal and animal
manure, while with his farm he has used inorganic fertilizers for
quite some years.
He has reported to me, the biochar treated portion, the
vegetables are retarded in growth with small and thin leaves compared with
the untreated portion. He added 45 Kg of charcoal / m2 for a trial
without any fertilizer. Does any body has any experience or explanation on
this?
Peter.
-- Nando M. Breiter The CarbonZero Project CP 234 6934 Bioggio Switzerland +41 91 600 0335 nando@... www.carbonzero.ch
BIOCHAR FEATURED AT HS&T CONFERENCE 13, March 17-19, 2010
Northeastern University, Boston
A biochar session has been added to the program of an international conference
that over the years has fostered many advances and collaborations.
The Humic Science and Technology Conferences cover natural organic matter,
agriculture, water treatment, soil enhancement and C-sequestration. HS&T
Conference 13, to be held March 17-19, 2010 at Northeastern University, Boston
will feature a section on biochar research and applications. This will be a
great opportunity for cross fertilization of ideas on enhancing soil fertility
and C-sequestration.
You are encouraged to submit a paper for oral presentation and register for the
Conference. The deadline for abstracts is January 31, 2010. For full details,
see www.hagroup.neu.edu or call 617-373-2834.
We look forward to seeing you in March!
Geoff Davies and Elham Ghabbour
HS&T Conference Co-Chairs
I think the issue is that there simply has not been the large scale testing done over a prolonged period of time. I personally would never amend large tracts of soil with char in the hopes it would magically make it better. To the best of my limited knowledge this is simply not the way to use char.
However, if used as part of a rotation, with cover crops in several year cycles (as sustainable agriculture should be) then you may have different results. I think the answer lies between simple straight amendment and the more radical style of sustainable agriculture. Like, for instance, using animal waste or compost, mixed with char, allowed to sit for a year or two to capture "stuff" before amendment. Then rather each piece of char acting like sponges they are more like batteries. Releasing rather than capturing.
Keep playing around with it.
In the mean time, if anyone wants to give me a large amount of char I'll be happy to larger scale tests.
> From: peter ongele <peterongele@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Biochar
> To: biochar@yahoo.com
> Cc: biocharfarms@yahoo.com
> Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 5:47 AM
> Following scientific chemical
> behaviour effects of biochar in the soil to the plants,
> according Folkes respond to my previous letter, this
> means its still hard to transcend biochar in large
> scale to farmers for soil fertility enhancement in large
> scale. For the first time in my biochar trial in farmer
> participatory research approach programme, at the early
> stage of maize plants, about one month old- we experienced
> plants withering despite the continual rain which was there,
> but with the continual heavy rains the plants picked
> up and turned to be the best in the yields of the year. What
> neutral advice, guidance or policy which should go to the
> farmers taking care exhausted inorganic and organic soils?
> Depleted, infertile and likely rich soils? Testing soil
> chemistry is very expensive, most farmed farms in Africa
> soil chemistry is not known, how would this be taken care of
> to avoid incorrect biochar applications which might be
> dangerous to the small
> farms? Peter.
>
>
>
>
--- On Tue, 12/22/09, peter ongele <peterongele@...> wrote:
> From: peter ongele <peterongele@...>
> Subject: Biochar
> To: biochar@...
> Cc: biocharfarms@...
> Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 5:47 AM
> Following scientific chemical
> behaviour effects of biochar in the soil to the plants,
> according Folkes respond to my previous letter, this
> means its still hard to transcend biochar in large
> scale to farmers for soil fertility enhancement in large
> scale. For the first time in my biochar trial in farmer
> participatory research approach programme, at the early
> stage of maize plants, about one month old- we experienced
> plants withering despite the continual rain which was there,
> but with the continual heavy rains the plants picked
> up and turned to be the best in the yields of the year. What
> neutral advice, guidance or policy which should go to the
> farmers taking care exhausted inorganic and organic soils?
> Depleted, infertile and likely rich soils? Testing soil
> chemistry is very expensive, most farmed farms in Africa
> soil chemistry is not known, how would this be taken care of
> to avoid incorrect biochar applications which might be
> dangerous to the small
> farms? Peter.
>
>
>
>
Dear Biochar users and researchers,
We haven't yet done enough with our char but we did give it to an
organic gardener with decades of experience. Read some brief pdf accounts;
http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/450/http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/451/
He wisely expected that legumes might fare best in the first year.
However the ash components of the char might well be the reason. They
include some readily available nutrients after all. Likely oxides of
calcium and potassium top the list, Then there are the immediate
effects on pH. We did have soil tests done on the treated and untreated
rows of peas, and no significant difference was quantified except for
copper and one other trace element that escapes, what passes for, my mind.
What I would like to suggest for some future biochar tests is that
rather than compare biochar treated rows with untreated rows, we might
explore splitting a biochar sample and ashing one half, then both
plots/rows would receive the same amount of ash residue with only one
receiving carbon char.
As with anything, there are potential problems with this approach , but
I thought the idea might at least generate some shots across the bow as
we rearrange our chars on the deck of the Titanic.
Alex
I recently had a wee drink with an old
school mate with 40+ years forestry experience, and who had recently returned
from China where he has been advising various Gov agencies on maximising
production of hybrid eucalypts, which sensibly enough were developed in Brazil
not Australia.
There are multiple squillions of hectares
of trees being planted in China.
I can’t recall the exact area of this particular project, but assume
several hundred thousand hectares.
The original aim was to produce high
quality timber for saw logs for use in construction, furniture and ply. The
reality is that the demand and the prices being paid for pulp has resulted in
clear-felling well before the trees have grown to sawlog size. There isn’t
an economic incentive to leave the growth for another 20 years.
This is basic supply and demand stuff. Whatever
the altruism of the original intentions may have been, as far as (a) growing
timber for use as an alternative to high-energy products such as steel and
concrete, and (b) growing trees to lock up carbon, this and other projects have
no such values. The trees go to newspapers and toilet paper.
In an increasingly divided and convoluted debate
it’s obvious that little is really as it first appears. Its equally
obvious that opinions without knowledge are dominant. I enjoyed a comment on
climate change from a well-known politician: “How can I make an informed
comment on changes in climate? I’m not a scientist much less a
Climatologist. I can read their opposing arguments and predictions but apart
from emotion I am not equipped to argue the case one way or another any more
than I can argue Boyle’s Law. Nor is my memory of the climate in the
summer of 1950 any basis for an argument that it is different now. But, again
without any concrete facts, I am sure that there is much jockeying for
positions of power and jockeying for positions of profit dominating debate and
control measures”
M
From:
biochar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ludlow Sent: Tuesday, 22 December 2009
3:30 PM To: biochar@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biochar] Re: Trees!!
Damn them all! NYT 20 Dec 2009
Dear Kevin,
Where were the Biochar/Climate Change advocates in Copenhagen? Working
behind the scenes, I presume. A message of increased soil fertility to the
developing countries may have at least given them some optimism.
Days and days of 9/11? Where are the List Moderators? Where is
Sean Barry? At least there was an interchange of ideas, contentious and
acrimonious though it was.
Now we are neutered; deigned to discuss veganism instead of soil
mechanics. Aargh!
Mark
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009
8:43 PM To: biochar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biochar] Re: Trees!!
Damn them all! NYT 20 Dec 2009
Dear Bob
This is the
Biochar List. It is not the "Save the Trees" List, nor is it the
"Spread the Word about Veganism" List. Nothing wrong with saving
trees or saving the climate, or promoting veganism, as long as it is
done in the relevant forums. It is, in my opinion, an abuse of the prime
purpose of the Biochar List to promote other such topics on it.
Why can't we get
back to trying to find how to use charcoal for a soil benefit, as we were
doing on the Terra Preta List, before the Climate Change Folk took it over?
Subject: [biochar] Re: Trees!! Damn them all! NYT
20 Dec 2009
Geralyn,
I assume you like the taste of cow and won't give it up even to save the human
species and yourself. Are you American by any chance? (Americans are renowned
for eating two pound steaks) (but they are not the only ones).
***
All I am doing is pointing out what we have to do to survive. If you don't like
it then that is your problem.
***
I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
certain that God does not exist.
***
I've just eaten, by pure coincidence, Brussels sprouts.
***
I am not trampling on anything, just writing some good advice for any that will
listen.
***
I am all for a diverse ecosystem, not millions of acres of fields full of cows.
***
The new forests will, along with the contiguous old forests be full of animal
life (which you can go and shoot, club, strangle, slash or electrocute to you
heart's desire)(it's your karma).
***
And by the way, my name is Howes, not Howe.
***
And it hardly matters what I say if my words are ignored by those who put
themselves before all others.
Have a nice life.
Cheers,
Bob
***
--- In biochar@yahoogroups.com,
back40 <back40@...> wrote:
>
> Or, perhaps have mercy on those poor Brussels Sprouts and the endless
> holocaust they endure<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html>
> .
>
> On 12/21/09, Geralyn D <palmtreepathos@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind
=-)
> >
> > but Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > ~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We
do not "need"
> > cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a
mouse
> > tastes nice to a cat.~~~
> >
> > You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob. Some who say that the Bible
shows
> > that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle.
He even
> > made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his
permission
> > to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even
set out
> > laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more
righteous
> > than God, Bob, can you?
> >
> > You trample on the evolutionary view that what has evolved(cattle of
> > various types) in the ecosystem is in fact a vital part of it! Do you
> > advocate that man can safely remove from nature what has EVOLVED?
> >
> > I don't recall you commenting on the very thoughtful article directed
for
> > your attention,
> >
> >
> > http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Grass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.aspx,
> >
> >
> > and very provocative Video from Gary(back40)
on the vital use of cattle
> > and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way. http://vimeo.
> > com/8239427 <http://vimeo.+com/8239427>
> >
> > You really seem to think your view is superior to the other
reasonable
> > posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not
giving YOU
> > enough credence...
> > *
> >
> > Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > *~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we
need
> > to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of
cattle
> > and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647
> >
> > Bob, can you give just a little? Geralyn
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Jones
>
--- On Mon, 12/21/09, peter ongele <peterongele@...> wrote:
From: peter ongele <peterongele@...> Subject: Re: [biochar] Biochar To: "Edward Someus" <edward@...> Date: Monday, December 21, 2009, 11:43 PM
Sorry, the treated farm has been confirmed to me as 10.7m by 10m , which is 107msq.
--- On Mon, 12/21/09, Edward Someus
<edward@...> wrote:
From: Edward Someus <edward@...> Subject: Re: [biochar] Biochar To: "Biochar Farms" <biocharfarms@yahoogroups.com>, peterongele@... Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, December 21, 2009, 9:34 PM
Peter,
45 kg/m2 dose is 450,000 kg/ha, far too high. My specific formulated agrocarbon dose is 450 kg - 1000 kg/ha.
Charcoal for energetic use is not same qty as biochar. Improperly made biochars may inhibit plant growth and be toxic for soil life, which phenomena is less characteristic in the tropical climate due to rapid organic turn over in soil and more in temperate climatic zone.
Dear List, What makes some soils work well with biochar and not others? An uncle of mine from another place used biochar in his vegetable farm after being convinced how my biochar vegetable farm was very healthy and good looking with broad leaves. Though with my farm, I had never used Inorganic fertilizers like D.A.P, C.A.N before, but I mix charcoal and animal manure, while with his farm he has used inorganic fertilizers for quite some years. He has reported to me, the biochar treated portion, the vegetables are retarded in growth with small and thin leaves compared with the untreated portion. He added 45 Kg of charcoal / m2 for a trial without any fertilizer. Does any body has any experience or explanation on this?
Peter.
Your previous use of organic fertilisers improved the amount of mycorrhizal fungi in your soil. When you added char, those fungi flourished and increased the cooperation with the plants , which in turn improved the plant production which in turn improved the myccorizal fungi ... and so on
Your uncle had impoverished the fungal life in his soil by using inorganic fertilizers. (The plants got nutrients without 'paying' for it with sugar from their production). Thus, the fungi population decreased. When he added char, he couldn't get very much effect because the fungi hadn't the chance to react, because they weren't there! Adding compost tea or other sources of fungi, and feeding them with some sugar (20 kg/ha, or 2 grammes per sq.m) would increase the rate of recovery.
45 kg char per sq.m in one instance is very much. Consider, it is like putting 450 tonnes per hectare! Char has a good affinity for nitrogen. This amount of char would probably remove a lot of nitrogen from the soil water solution and 'hide' it for the plants. When the fungal biomass increase, they will probably get it back, but it will take some time (see above)
I think you should ask your uncle not to put more than 5 kg of char per sq.m at the first instance, but to go on adding char the years after, and to add the char to the compost before he adds the charred compost to the soil.
Dear List, What makes some soils work well with biochar and not others? An uncle of mine from another place used biochar in his vegetable farm after being convinced how my biochar vegetable farm was very healthy and good looking with broad leaves. Though with my farm, I had never used Inorganic fertilizers like D.A.P, C.A.N before, but I mix charcoal and animal manure, while with his farm he has used inorganic fertilizers for quite some years.
He has reported to me, the biochar treated portion, the vegetables are retarded in growth with small and thin leaves compared with the untreated portion. He added 45 Kg of charcoal / m2 for a trial without any fertilizer. Does any body has any experience
or explanation on this? Peter.
-- ---------------------------------------- Join the Facebook group Charcoal against Global Warming! ---------------------------------------- Folke Günther Kollegievägen 19
224 73 Lund Sweden Phone: +46 (0)46 141429 Cell: +46 (0)709 710306 Skype:folkegun URL: http://www.holon.se/folke BLOG: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/
I now remember that the protracted discussion of 9/11 was on the
“Gasification†list; not the “Biochar†list. My apologies to the “Biocharâ€
moderators for this error.
Mark
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edward Someus Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 9:35 PM To: Biochar Farms; peterongele@... Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biochar] Biochar
Peter,
45 kg/m2 dose is 450,000 kg/ha, far too
high. My specific formulated agrocarbon dose is 450 kg - 1000 kg/ha.
Charcoal for energetic use is not same qty
as biochar. Improperly made biochars may inhibit plant growth and be
toxic for soil life, which phenomena is less characteristic in the
tropical climate due to rapid organic turn over in soil and more in
temperate climatic zone.
Dear List,
What makes some soils work well with biochar and not others?
An uncle of mine from another place used biochar in his vegetable farm
after being convinced how my biochar vegetable farm was very healthy and
good looking with broad leaves. Though with my farm, I had never
used Inorganic
fertilizers like D.A.P, C.A.N before, but I mix charcoal and animal
manure, while with his farm he has used inorganic fertilizers for
quite some years.
He has reported to me, the biochar treated portion, the
vegetables are retarded in growth with small and thin leaves compared with
the untreated portion. He added 45 Kg of charcoal / m2 for a trial
without any fertilizer. Does any body has any experience or explanation on
this?
Peter.
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edward Someus Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 9:35 PM To: Biochar Farms; peterongele@... Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biochar] Biochar
Peter,
45 kg/m2 dose is 450,000 kg/ha, far too
high. My specific formulated agrocarbon dose is 450 kg - 1000 kg/ha.
Charcoal for energetic use is not same qty
as biochar. Improperly made biochars may inhibit plant growth and be toxic
for soil life, which phenomena is less characteristic in the tropical
climate due to rapid organic turn over in soil and more in
temperate climatic zone.
Dear List,
What makes some soils work well with biochar and not others?
An uncle of mine from another place used biochar in his vegetable farm
after being convinced how my biochar vegetable farm was very healthy and
good looking with broad leaves. Though with my farm, I had never
used Inorganic
fertilizers like D.A.P, C.A.N before, but I mix charcoal and animal
manure, while with his farm he has used inorganic fertilizers for
quite some years.
He has reported to me, the biochar treated portion, the
vegetables are retarded in growth with small and thin leaves compared with
the untreated portion. He added 45 Kg of charcoal / m2 for a trial
without any fertilizer. Does any body has any experience or explanation on
this?
Peter.
45 kg/m2 dose is 450,000 kg/ha, far too high. My specific formulated agrocarbon dose is 450 kg - 1000 kg/ha.
Charcoal for energetic use is not same qty as biochar. Improperly made biochars may inhibit plant growth and be toxic for soil life, which phenomena is less characteristic in the tropical climate due to rapid organic turn over in soil and more in temperate climatic zone.
Dear List, What makes some soils work well with biochar and not others? An uncle of mine from another place used biochar in his vegetable farm after being convinced how my biochar vegetable farm was very healthy and good looking with broad leaves. Though with my farm, I had never used Inorganic fertilizers like D.A.P, C.A.N before, but I mix charcoal and animal manure, while with his farm he has used inorganic fertilizers for quite some years. He has reported to me, the biochar treated portion, the vegetables are retarded in growth with small and thin leaves compared with the untreated portion. He added 45 Kg of charcoal / m2 for a trial without any fertilizer. Does any body has any experience or explanation on this? Peter.
Where were the Biochar/Climate Change advocates in Copenhagen?
Working behind the scenes, I presume. A message of increased soil fertility to
the developing countries may have at least given them some optimism.
Days and days of 9/11? Where are the List Moderators? Where is
Sean Barry? At least there was an interchange of ideas, contentious and
acrimonious though it was.
Now we are neutered; deigned to discuss veganism instead of soil
mechanics. Aargh!
Mark
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:43 PM To: biochar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biochar] Re: Trees!! Damn them all! NYT 20 Dec 2009
Dear
Bob
This
is the Biochar List. It is not the "Save the Trees" List, nor is it
the "Spread the Word about Veganism" List. Nothing wrong with saving
trees or saving the climate, or promoting veganism, as long as it is
done in the relevant forums. It is, in my opinion, an abuse of the prime
purpose of the Biochar List to promote other such topics on it.
Why
can't we get back to trying to find how to use charcoal for a soil
benefit, as we were doing on the Terra Preta List, before the Climate Change
Folk took it over?
Subject: [biochar] Re: Trees!! Damn them all!
NYT 20 Dec 2009
Geralyn,
I assume you like the taste of cow and won't give it up even to save the human
species and yourself. Are you American by any chance? (Americans are renowned
for eating two pound steaks) (but they are not the only ones).
***
All I am doing is pointing out what we have to do to survive. If you don't like
it then that is your problem.
***
I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain that
God does not exist.
***
I've just eaten, by pure coincidence, Brussels sprouts.
***
I am not trampling on anything, just writing some good advice for any that will
listen.
***
I am all for a diverse ecosystem, not millions of acres of fields full of cows.
***
The new forests will, along with the contiguous old forests be full of animal
life (which you can go and shoot, club, strangle, slash or electrocute to you
heart's desire)(it's your karma).
***
And by the way, my name is Howes, not Howe.
***
And it hardly matters what I say if my words are ignored by those who put
themselves before all others.
Have a nice life.
Cheers,
Bob
***
--- In biochar@yahoogroups.com,
back40 <back40@...> wrote:
>
> Or, perhaps have mercy on those poor Brussels Sprouts and the endless
> holocaust they endure<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html>
> .
>
> On 12/21/09, Geralyn D <palmtreepathos@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind
=-)
> >
> > but Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > ~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We
do not "need"
> > cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a
mouse
> > tastes nice to a cat.~~~
> >
> > You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob. Some who say that the Bible
shows
> > that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle.
He even
> > made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his
permission
> > to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even
set out
> > laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more
righteous
> > than God, Bob, can you?
> >
> > You trample on the evolutionary view that what has evolved(cattle of
> > various types) in the ecosystem is in fact a vital part of it! Do you
> > advocate that man can safely remove from nature what has EVOLVED?
> >
> > I don't recall you commenting on the very thoughtful article directed
for
> > your attention,
> >
> >
> > http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Grass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.aspx,
> >
> >
> > and very provocative Video from Gary(back40) on the vital use of
cattle
> > and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way. http://vimeo.
> > com/8239427 <http://vimeo.+com/8239427>
> >
> > You really seem to think your view is superior to the other
reasonable
> > posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not
giving YOU
> > enough credence...
> > *
> >
> > Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > *~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we
need
> > to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of
cattle
> > and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647
> >
> > Bob, can you give just a little? Geralyn
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Jones
>
Dear List, What makes some soils work well with biochar and not others? An uncle of mine from another place used biochar in his vegetable farm after being convinced how my biochar vegetable farm was very healthy and good looking with broad leaves. Though with my farm, I had never used Inorganic fertilizers like D.A.P, C.A.N before, but I mix charcoal and animal manure, while with his farm he has used inorganic fertilizers for quite some years. He has reported to me, the biochar treated portion, the vegetables are retarded in growth with small and thin leaves compared with the untreated portion. He added 45 Kg of charcoal / m2 for a trial without any fertilizer. Does any body has any experience
or explanation on this? Peter.
This is the Biochar List. It is not the "Save the Trees" List, nor is it the "Spread the Word about Veganism" List. Nothing wrong with saving trees or saving the climate, or promoting veganism, as long as it is done in the relevant forums. It is, in my opinion, an abuse of the prime purpose of the Biochar List to promote other such topics on it.
Why can't we get back to trying to find how to use charcoal for a soil benefit, as we were doing on the Terra Preta List, before the Climate Change Folk took it over?
Subject: [biochar] Re: Trees!! Damn them all! NYT 20 Dec 2009
Geralyn,
I assume you like the taste of cow and won't give it up even to save the human species and yourself. Are you American by any chance? (Americans are renowned for eating two pound steaks) (but they are not the only ones). *** All I am doing is pointing out what we have to do to survive. If you don't like it then that is your problem. *** I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain that God does not exist. *** I've just eaten, by pure coincidence, Brussels sprouts. *** I am not trampling on anything, just writing some good advice for any that will listen. *** I am all for a diverse ecosystem, not millions of acres of fields full of cows. *** The new forests will, along with the contiguous old forests be full of animal life (which you can go and shoot, club, strangle, slash or electrocute to you heart's desire)(it's your karma). *** And by the way, my name is Howes, not Howe. *** And it hardly matters what I say if my words are ignored by those who put themselves before all others.
Have a nice life.
Cheers,
Bob ***
--- In biochar@yahoogroups.com, back40 <back40@...> wrote: > > Or, perhaps have mercy on those poor Brussels Sprouts and the endless > holocaust they endure<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html> > . > > On 12/21/09, Geralyn D <palmtreepathos@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind =-) > > > > but Bob Howe(vegan) says... > > > > ~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We do not "need" > > cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a mouse > > tastes nice to a cat.~~~ > > > > You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob. Some who say that the Bible shows > > that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle. He even > > made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his permission > > to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even set out > > laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more righteous > > than God, Bob, can you? > > > > You trample on the evolutionary view that what has evolved(cattle of > > various types) in the ecosystem is in fact a vital part of it! Do you > > advocate that man can safely remove from nature what has EVOLVED? > > > > I don't recall you commenting on the very thoughtful article directed for > > your attention, > > > > > > http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Grass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.aspx, > > > > > > and very provocative Video from Gary(back40) on the vital use of cattle > > and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way. http://vimeo. > > com/8239427 <http://vimeo.+com/8239427> > > > > You really seem to think your view is superior to the other reasonable > > posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not giving YOU > > enough credence... > > * > > > > Bob Howe(vegan) says... > > > > *~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we need > > to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of cattle > > and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647 > > > > Bob, can you give just a little? Geralyn > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Gary Jones >
Geralyn,
I assume you like the taste of cow and won't give it up even to save the human
species and yourself. Are you American by any chance? (Americans are renowned
for eating two pound steaks) (but they are not the only ones).
***
All I am doing is pointing out what we have to do to survive. If you don't like
it then that is your problem.
***
I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain that
God does not exist.
***
I've just eaten, by pure coincidence, Brussels sprouts.
***
I am not trampling on anything, just writing some good advice for any that will
listen.
***
I am all for a diverse ecosystem, not millions of acres of fields full of cows.
***
The new forests will, along with the contiguous old forests be full of animal
life (which you can go and shoot, club, strangle, slash or electrocute to you
heart's desire)(it's your karma).
***
And by the way, my name is Howes, not Howe.
***
And it hardly matters what I say if my words are ignored by those who put
themselves before all others.
Have a nice life.
Cheers,
Bob
***
--- In biochar@yahoogroups.com, back40 <back40@...> wrote:
>
> Or, perhaps have mercy on those poor Brussels Sprouts and the endless
> holocaust they endure<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html>
> .
>
> On 12/21/09, Geralyn D <palmtreepathos@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind =-)
> >
> > but Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > ~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We do not "need"
> > cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a mouse
> > tastes nice to a cat.~~~
> >
> > You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob. Some who say that the Bible shows
> > that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle. He even
> > made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his permission
> > to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even set out
> > laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more righteous
> > than God, Bob, can you?
> >
> > You trample on the evolutionary view that what has evolved(cattle of
> > various types) in the ecosystem is in fact a vital part of it! Do you
> > advocate that man can safely remove from nature what has EVOLVED?
> >
> > I don't recall you commenting on the very thoughtful article directed for
> > your attention,
> >
> >
> >
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Grass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.aspx,
> >
> >
> > and very provocative Video from Gary(back40) on the vital use of cattle
> > and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way.
http://vimeo.
> > com/8239427 <http://vimeo.+com/8239427>
> >
> > You really seem to think your view is superior to the other reasonable
> > posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not giving YOU
> > enough credence...
> > *
> >
> > Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > *~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we need
> > to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of cattle
> > and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647
> >
> > Bob, can you give just a little? Geralyn
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Jones
>
Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind =-)
but Bob Howe(vegan) says...
~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We do not "need" cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a mouse tastes nice to a cat.~~~
You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob. Some who say that the Bible shows that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle. He even made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his permission to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even set out laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more righteous than God, Bob, can you?
You trample on the evolutionary view that what has evolved(cattle of various types) in the ecosystem is in fact a vital part of it! Do you advocate that man can safely remove from nature what has EVOLVED?
I don't recall you commenting on the very thoughtful article directed for your attention,
and very provocative Video from Gary(back40) on the vital use of cattle and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way. http://vimeo. com/8239427
You really seem to think your view is superior to the other reasonable posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not giving YOU enough credence...
Bob Howe(vegan) says...
~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we need to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of cattle and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647
Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind =-)
but Bob Howe(vegan) says...
~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We do not "need" cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a mouse tastes nice to a cat.~~~
You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob. Some who say that the Bible shows that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle. He even made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his permission to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even set out laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more righteous than God, Bob, can you?
You trample on the evolutionary view that what has evolved(cattle of various types) in the ecosystem is in fact a vital part of it! Do you advocate that man can safely remove from nature what has EVOLVED?
I don't recall you commenting on the very thoughtful article directed for your attention,
and very provocative Video from Gary(back40) on the vital use of cattle and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way. http://vimeo. com/8239427
You really seem to think your view is superior to the other reasonable posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not giving YOU enough credence...
Bob Howe(vegan) says...
~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we need to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of cattle and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647
Ron,
The website is clearly an eco tourism site.
The owner is
Dr Peter Schleifenbaum
Haliburton Forest and Wild Life Reserve Limited
RR #1
Haliburton, ON K0M 1S0
Email: halforest@...
I don't know him,yet. He is an adjunct faculty member of the University
of Toronto. My understanding is that 40 some years ago he switched from
the standard forest "management" practice of high grading to low grading
harvest and that only recently are they starting to harvest quality
timber. They have two sawmills and produce log homes. The gasifier (from
India) for power production is being installed and they expect to yield
some char. Student/s? at U of T have begun to work on its role in
silviculture and I have a small role in trying to provide them with
some suitable char made from their maple chips as they wait for their
gasifier to come on line.
I took a trip up last fall with my biologist kin to do their canopy
tour. Basically walking the plank between pine trees half way up. The
story goes that they had a previous tour site that blew down in a
tornado. The local bed and breakfast and other accommodation providers
began to call with concerns about cancellations. Within three weeks they
had an entirely new one built at a new location. No small feet. It gives
you a good idea of the difference between public and private enterprise.
Anyhow it inspired me to build my own version, a rope ladder based on a
sailboats ratlines, to take me up into the canopy for a birds eye view
of my private natural surrounds. My son in law calls it the stairway to
heaven and that makes me, at 225 lbs, the led zeppelin.
Alex
Ron Larson wrote:
>
>
> Alex and list:
>
> I found the Haliburton site but nothing on harvesting, much less
> "gasification and biochar are in their plans". Anything more you can
> add? Any idea of the intended annual yield (per hectare)?
>
> I have had some discussions a year or so ago with the Menominee
> forest in Wisconsin (Native American owned as a mixed species forest
> with a present day standing forest and yield higher than existed more
> than one-hundred years ago. Everything around them has been cut down.
> I have talked Biochar with them. but no idea if they have any plans for
> it. Apparently a beautiful forest that one can barely tell is
> intensively managed for maximum profit (leave the tallest and
> straightest and take out the weakest, I am told - with annual (?)
> measurements and decisions on every tree (in a huge forest). No use of
> clear cutting. One can read more at :
> http://mtewood.com/menominee_forest_background.htm
> <http://mtewood.com/menominee_forest_background.htm>
>
> I think we promoting Biochar need to learn more about these sort of
> successes - and learn as well from Prof. Heinrich. I am sure that we
> can prove that Biochar will help keep these sorts of forests from being
> lost.
>
> Ron
>
> Alex English wrote:
> > Mark,
> > As a former hopelessly selective horse logger and farmer and current
> > nature enthusiast with biologists for children, I am entirely
> > sympathetic to these sentiments. There are a struggling few, like the
> > Haliburton Forest, www.haliburtonforest.com who try to find a
> > comprimise. Among other thing, gasification and biochar are in their
> plans.
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, Prof Heinrich's wife is Rachel Smolker a
> > researcher with Global Justis Ecology Project who are in league with
> > Biofuelwatch. It will be interesting to see how the budding Vermont
> > biochar movement find common cause with the biologists.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > Mark Ludlow wrote:
> >
> >
> >> *OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR*
> >>
> >>
> >> Clear-Cutting the Truth About Trees
> >>
> >> *By BERND HEINRICH*
> >>
> >> Burlington, Vt.
> >>
> >> THE Copenhagen climate-change summit meeting is behind us, and did not
> >> achieve what was hoped for. There was no lack of good intentions, but
> >> they generated conflicts rather than solutions, and the product was a
> >> weak agreement to disagree in the future. Forests were part of the
> >> discussion, and several things were understood: carbon dioxide is a
> >> potentially world-altering lethal pollutant, fossil fuels are the
> >> problem, biofuels are part of the solution. But exactly how to pare
> down
> >> the use of fossil fuels and switch to energy sources derived from plant
> >> material? That is the problem.
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2576 - Release Date:
> 12/19/09 12:40:00
> >
> >
>
>
I agree, there is plenty of biomass just sitting around. Below please find part of one of my letters to the BioFuelWatch people,
I think you'll find it helpful.
cheers
Nat of WorldStove
3.What types of biomass are we (at WorldStove) talking about?Is there enough to have a real effect on CO2?What will be the carbon impact of char production?
The landfills of the world are filling with waste biomass.WorldStove maintains that converting even part of this to biochar would have a major impact on CO2 reduction.
Egypt produces 20 million tons of rice straw every year, 70% of which is burned in the open.
In the USA, landscape debris comprises more than 32 million tons a year, 13 percent of all solid waste.
Globally, crop residues in 2006 were about 5000 million tons of total above-ground residues.( Footnote #3)
In that it is safe to assume a third of the original weight of biomass remains as biochar, and that 80% of biochar is carbon, if we use the above sited figure cited for global availability and converted only a fifth of that to biochar we, as a planet, could sequester 727,075,555 tonnes of CO2 per year with out cutting a single tree.
Is there enough waste biomass to sequester?
BioFuleWatch states “The reality is that there are no large quantities of wastes and residues lying around unclaimed;not on a scale that can supply facilities over time and substantially contribute to energy demands. From Ernsting, A. and Smolker, R. February 2009.Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation: Fact or Fiction? Biocharbriefing Feb 2009.pdf
WorldStove replies
Esawy M., M. Ibrahim, P Robin, N. Akkal-Corfini and Mohamed2009.Rice Straw Composting and Its Effect on Soil Properties Compost Science & Utilization, 17:146-150. 20million tons rice straw per year
Marinelli, Janet, 2008.Greening your fall garden cleanup.National Wildlife; 2008, 46:20-21.Landscape debris comprises more than 13 percent by weight of all solid waste generated in the United States—or an astonishing 32 million tons a year. Perhaps not surprisingly, solid waste landfills are the single largest man-made source of methane in the United States
“Globally, crop residues in 2006 were about 5000 million tons of total above-ground residues.â€
WorldStove adds: Currently, these vast amounts of agricultural biomass decay passively, or are burned or buried.In any case, within a short time, each of these processes will releases all of the bound carbon, much of it as methane.Alternatively, pyrolyzing stoves would provide energy to cook, heat and produce electricity while reducing reliance on fossil fuels and the dependence on trees for cooking fuel.The pyrolysis would also sequester 30% of the carbon, thus reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, and the resultant biochar and nutrients it contains, returned to the soil.Even leaving 80% of cited crop waste to preserve soil and avoid erosion, there is more than enough to have a significant impact on atmospheric carbon if 20% is converted to biochar.
-----Original Message-----
From: leon t <nosatis@...>
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 21, 2009 8:12 am
Subject: [biochar] A truth poll-----
Does anyone not agree that we do a poor job of using biomass waste that is available on a daily basis?
Do you agree that it defeats the purpose to create more biomass by harvesting either trees (forest) or food crops?
Why do we not ask for and get more tax breaks and subsidies like solar and wind to develop the infrastructure for more biomass use?
Do you agree that after we have all the wind and solar we need, we will still need to eat and find a way to use/dispose of biomass?
Anyone willing to put their pocketbook up to match their beliefs?
I have been reading posts for awhile and lately this has become a group dedicated to one upping itself, hence my joining. I would ask that we be more about substance than who is right. Just because your right, doesn't mean you need to say "I told you so".
Does anyone not agree that we do a poor job of using biomass waste that is
available on a daily basis?
Do you agree that it defeats the purpose to create more biomass by harvesting
either trees (forest) or food crops?
Why do we not ask for and get more tax breaks and subsidies like solar and wind
to develop the infrastructure for more biomass use?
Do you agree that after we have all the wind and solar we need, we will still
need to eat and find a way to use/dispose of biomass?
Anyone willing to put their pocketbook up to match their beliefs?
I have been reading posts for awhile and lately this has become a group
dedicated to one upping itself, hence my joining. I would ask that we be more
about substance than who is right. Just because your right, doesn't mean you
need to say "I told you so".
Does anyone not agree that we do a poor job of using biomass waste that is
available on a daily basis?
Do you agree that it defeats the purpose to create more biomass by harvesting
either trees (forest) or food crops?
Why do we not ask for and get more tax breaks and subsidies like solar and wind
to develop the infrastructure for more biomass use?
Do you agree that after we have all the wind and solar we need, we will still
need to eat and find a way to use/dispose of biomass?
Anyone willing to put their pocketbook up to match their beliefs?
I have been reading posts for awhile and lately this has become a group
dedicated to one upping itself, hence my joining. I would ask that we be more
about substance than who is right. Just because your right, doesn't mean you
need to say "I told you so".
Perhaps you’d like to summarize these results in a sentence
or two. I cannot ken what is being said! Does every article concerning soil
char have to begin with Terra Preta? Déjà vu, all over again!
Mark
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Erich Knight Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:39 PM To: biochar@yahoogroups.com; biochar-soils@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biochar] ARS : Biochar: A valuable soil amendment
Submitted
to: University of Idaho Miscellaneous
Publication Publication Type: Popular Publication Publication Acceptance Date: November 18, 2009 Publication Date: December 10, 2009 Citation: Ippolito, J.A., Lentz, R.D., Novak, J.M. 2009. Biochar: A
valuable soil amendment. Nutrient Management Newsletter for Idaho, University
of Idaho Extension. 2(2):1-2. Technical Abstract: Biochar is a
fine-grained, carbon enriched product created when biomass (e.g. wood waste,
manures) is burned at relatively low temperatures (less than 1300oF) and under
an anoxic (lack of oxygen) atmosphere. The benefits of biochar addition to
soils have long since been recognized. Amazonian dark earth soils, also known
as terra preta, are charcoal-enriched soils containing a high nutrient content
from reduced leaching, likely a response of human-induced biochar accumulation.
These soils, dating to between 450 BC and 950 AD, are unique to the Amazon
region as most tropical soils are highly weathered and thus generally
infertile. Scientists are now attempting to reproduce this technology by using
biochar-type products as soils supplements. Research by the newly formed
USDA-Agricultural Research Service¿s National Biochar Initiative is directed at
using biochar in soils across the US. Scientists at the USDA-ARS in Florence,
SC have found that a 2% biochar application (approximately 40 to 44 tons/ac)
can increase soil water holding capacity of silt loam soils (such as those
found in Idaho) as compared to controls. This means that more water is
available to the plant for a longer period of time. Additional benefits such as
reduced nutrient leaching are currently being investigated by ARS scientists
from SC and ID. First-year results from long-term field trials at the Kimberly,
ID ARS location indicated that 10 tons/acre of biochar increased soil carbon
concentrations and available manganese relative to controls, and either had no
effect or decreased emission of greenhouse gases compared to controls. Biochar
also interacted positively with manure to increase availability of soil
nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc. Another long-term study added 1 or 2% biochar
to an eroded calcareous soil to evaluate effects on soil properties and plant
nutrient uptake. Bean was grown during the first year, and biochar effects on
nutrient uptake were minimal. Results of a separate, four-month incubation
study suggested that biochar application (up to 10% by weight) to eroded
calcareous soil can decrease nitrate-nitrogen concentrations and increase
plant-available iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc. Marked increases in soil
organic carbon content was observed, as was expected when applying an organic
carbon source such as biochar.
Thailand could likely provide a significant proportion of its energy needs
by pyrolyzing empty PET water bottles which are ubiquitous, rural and urban.
It's a beautiful country but totally trashed. (3-dozen visits in 12 years).
The King is...well...old! (But rightly admired and respected.)
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Ron Larson
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:26 PM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com; henry buehler
Subject: Re: [biochar] Thai
Henry - can you give us more information on this plant (name, location,
size, etc). After condensation, do we know if and how the exhaust gases
are flared? Do we know if any of the char is being placed in the ground?
Thanks for anything more you can provide.
Ron
henry buehler wrote:
>
> The wood processing plant is a tribute to sustainability, one of King
> Bhumibol's most popular themes. Pieces of wood from trimming the
> trees, dead wood and branches are converted into charcoal in the
> factory kiln. Smoke from the kiln is cooled to collect the condensate,
> which is later distilled into wood vinegar that is used to protect
> trees and plants from insects and to reduce farm smells among other uses.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.116/2578 - Release Date:
12/20/09 12:35:00
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links