Humans are adding over eight billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year from the burning of fossil fuels (natural gas, coal and oil)!  (3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide is equivalent to 1 tonne of solid carbon.)

This is why the Global atmosphere is warming, polar ice caps are melting, and we are at such a critical point with respect to the biological equilibrium that keeps us all alive.

If I may, I'd like to add my perspective to the mix.  It may help to clarify the difference between soil organic matter and bio-char.

 

Soil organic matter (humus) is made up of a mixture of complex organic compounds, including hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements in forms that are either retained in the soil (stable organic forms) or cycled through the various soil biota.  Bio-char, in contrast, is nearly pure carbon, and is not readily used as a food source for soil organisms.  This is where the relative stability of char in the soil comes into play.  The Terra preta soils in the Amazon rainforest are unique because they contain a significant portion of carbon, in the form of char, where organic matter is very quickly used up and leached away in most soils.  The value of the char is not, if you like, the carbon itself, but the fact that it provides the physical and chemical conditions to be a habitat for a thriving soil biota, and acts to hold on to nutrients that would otherwise wash away. 

 

The opportunities for bio-char in temperate soils are probably greatest in the area of carbon sequestration, because it does hold the carbon in a relatively stable form.  It is unknown, so far, if it will provide the same productivity boost to plants growing in the char amended soil that occurs in the highly degraded soils of the rain forest.  We should probably be looking on bio-char as a companion to conventional practices for increasing soil organic matter, rather than as a replacement.

Even in soils in northern temperate areas (as Sweden) the effects on plant growh are profound due to the increase in soil metabolism, (as well as other), caused by the presence of charcoal. However, the addition of organic material shouldn't be overlooked because the increased decomposition rate associated with charcoal.
As you have two (or more) non-interfering benign effects, it is hard to decide which is the most important.
FG

 

Keith Reid

Soil Fertility Specialist

 

Phone:  519 271-9269

 

---

From: biochar-ontario@googlegroups.com [mailto:biochar-ontario@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd Helferty
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:53 AM
To: 'Jeff Berg'; 'Cameron Smith'
Cc: 'Bruce Darrell'; 'Douglas Prest'; biochar-ontario@googlegroups.com; 'terra pretta group'
Subject: RE: re Cameron Smith has some questions

 

Jeff, Cameron,

 

  Sorry for the late reply, but I just wanted to come back to this message.

  I'm going to forward this to a new grouping of people in Ontario who have come together to talk 'Biochar'.  We are calling ourselves "Biochar-Ontario".

I am also copying the folks on the TerraPreta BioEnergy List for discussion there. (I can forward you a compendium of their responses at a later date if you would like.)

 

  My own response would be as follows:

 

You say that "Taking carbon out of circulation may not be a good idea."  This statement actually astounds me. Humans are adding over eight billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year from the burning of fossil fuels (natural gas, coal and oil)!  (3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide is equivalent to 1 tonne of solid carbon.)

This is why the Global atmosphere is warming, polar ice caps are melting, and we are at such a critical point with respect to the biological equilibrium that keeps us all alive.

 

You correctly point out that all living things are part of the carbon cycle and that carbon is continually turned over during the natural progression through birth, growth, death, decomposition and re-birth. It is always in a state of flux, moving between plants, animals, soils, microbial biomass, the atmosphere, rivers and oceans. Some of the carbon atoms in our bodies at this moment have in the past been constituents of the plants, animals and soils present on earth many millions of years ago. People are around 18% carbon, wood around 50% and the organic matter component of soils are around 58% carbon.

Importantly, the processes that build new topsoil require that more carbon be stored in soil than is lost to the atmosphere!

In a healthy ecosystem, vibrant, living soils are one of the most important and dynamic parts of the carbon cycle. The carbon compounds added to soil (usually naturally, as exudates from active plant roots and the decomposition of plant and animal residues), are the 'fuel' for all of the biological processes that improve soil structure, which in turn increases oxygen and moisture retention and creates better conditions for more life.  Deliberately adding additional carbon to soils is intended to leverage this natural process.

82% of the carbon in the terrestrial biosphere is already in the soil -- not in the living biomass above the soil.  For instance, healthy grasslands may contain over 100 times more carbon in the soil than on it.

The world's soils hold three times as much carbon as the atmosphere and over four times as much carbon as all of the vegetation combined. Soil therefore represents the largest carbon sink over which we have control.

 

Up to 80% of the carbon has already been lost from the topsoil in many farmed soils, often as a direct result of the loss of the soil itself. Even today, most farming businesses continue to lose soil carbon - their most valuable asset!

As a result, landholders invest a great deal of time and effort in forcing 'dead' soils to be productive ~ using ever increasing quantities of natural and chemical "fertilizers".

 

Soils under healthy perennial pasture may contain up to 350 tonnes of carbon per hectare and sustain high levels of microbial activity. Conversely, there is very little organic carbon left to lose from the surface horizons of many farmed soils.

 

Increasing soil carbon levels will result in improved soil structure, lower bulk density, greater porosity, higher infiltration rates, more effective use of rainfall, enhanced water quality, higher cation exchange capacity, greater sequestration of nitrogen and sulphur, enhanced availability of phosphorus and trace elements, reduced costs, reduced inputs, improved biodiversity and increased productivity.

These positive outcomes are all linked to what should be the core business of EVERY farm business – the sequestration of atmospheric carbon!

 

For every 2.7 tonnes of carbon that can be sequestered into soil, this represents 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere.  Humans would have to bury over 2 Billion tons of Biochar every year to make up for what we are adding to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.  We won't be able to do it alone.

 

Our intention is to put the Biochar back into the soils and use the Biochar as a type of 'catalyst' to assist and accelerate nature's own processes to create ever more life so that nature herself can do the job of sequestering all of that excess atmospheric carbon for us.

 

Biochar doesn't just "fix nitrogen".  Biochar can potentially benefits the soil horizon by:

    * Enhancing plant growth
    * Suppressing methane emission
    * Reducing nitrous oxide emission (by up to 50%)
         -- Nitrous Oxide is a major greenhouse gas. The atmospheric concentration of nitrous oxide has grown by about 15% since the mid-1700's. It has 310 times more impact on global warming per mass unit of carbon dioxide (CO2).
    * Reducing fertilizer requirements (by at least 10% in already depleted soils)
    * Reducing the leaching of nutrients
    * Lowering soil acidity
    * Lowering aluminium toxicity
    * Increasing soil aggregation due to increased fungal hyphae
    * Improving soil water handling characteristics
    * Increasing soil levels of available Ca, Mg, P, and K (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and potassium -- all of which are essential for plant growth)
    * Increasing soil microbial respiration
    * Increasing soil microbial biomass
    * Stimulating symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legumes
    * Increasing arbuscular mycorrhyzal fungi
    * Increasing cation exchange capacity

 

  And, most importantly, for storing carbon in a long term stable sink.

 

But it won't be just Biochar alone that will be able to do this.  It will require substantial changes in a multitude of human 'systems' -- including the restoration of vast expanses of agricultural lands that have now been so degraded as to be nearly unusable without their chemical inputs. (This can be done through the use of organic methods of farming, i.e. Permaculture, without having to sacrifice the production of food ~ although food production would become more labour intensive and thus more expensive.  But we are seeing the latter anyway, especially with the rising prices of oil & natural gas.)

Basically, it will require that we (humanity) work to re-establish and re-establish (re-naturalize) what we have effectively depleted; the most important resource we have: the natural ecosystems of this Earth.

 

As Jeff has so correctly pointed out, Biochar is "The Mother of All Wedges".

 

    Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist

    Thornhill, ON

    905-707-8754

    647-886-8754

 

 

---

From: Jeff Berg [mailto:jeffberg@...]
Sent: June 17, 2008 9:07 PM
To: Bruce Darrell; Douglas Prest; Lloyd Helferty
Cc: Cameron Smith
Subject: re Cameron Smith has some questions
Importance: High

Gentleman I present to you Mr. Cameron Smith, Mr. Smith meet what I call the burgeoning biochar brain trust.

 

Lloyd Helferty: GPO Research and Innovation Candidate and an energy technologist.

Douglas Prest: (if I remember correctly) Is a professionally trained engineer and working with Lloyd on a business model for biochar.  

Bruce Darrel: Is a trained architect and FEASTA researcher where he has worked with Richard Douthewaite for the last couple of years.

 

Cameron as most of you will probably already know is a writer and thinker of some renown, writes articles for the Toronto Star, and is a man who has been on the right side of the ecological ledger for many decades now. 

 

Gentlemen below you will find a few questions by Senor Cameron on biochar. (Or what I like to call 'The Mother of All Wedges":-)

 

ton confrere,

 

J.F. Berg
www.postcarbontoronto.org
www.pledgeTOgreen.ca 
   

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

From: Cameron Smith

To: Jeff Berg

Cc: Wayne Roberts ; Tyler Hamilton ; Adria Vasil

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:56 PM

Subject: Re: Biochar/Gassification Experimentation Kit

 

Jeff, 

 

Thanks for sending me this material on the experimenter's kit.

 

I have a concern that I haven't yet been able to resolve. As I read it, biochar is like coke. It takes carbon out of circulation for a long period of time. I've been searching, so far without success, for a life cycle analysis of the carbon that is being sequestered. What would it have been doing in the specific environment in question if it had been dealt with in other ways? For instance, the compost you get from biodigesters can be returned to the soil in ways that allow carbon to ensure the availability of minerals and nutrients. As we know, carbon operates in a zillion way to create a healthy soil, and good and abundant food comes only from healthy soils. I keep seeing assertions that biochar is a good fertilizer, because it fixes nitrogen. But carbon's role in ecosystems goes way beyond that.

 

Globally, we've lost 20 per cent of topsoil within the past 50 years. I don't have an equivalent figure for soil degradation, but it also is a major concern. Taking carbon out of circulation may not be a good idea. I keep running into technological proposals all the time where there hasn't been a thorough examination of ecological effects, and so I keep trying to go back to basic ecological principles. 

 

Can you help with this?

 

Cameron

 

On 11-Jun-08, at 1:27 AM, Jeff Berg wrote:

 

 

 
Gasification Experimenter's Kit

Jeremy Faludi
May 29, 2008 10:27 PM

 

Want to make your own carbon-negative fuel at home? You may soon be able to. We wrote last fall about gasification and biochar being a way to burn agricultural waste or other organic matter in a special way that (theoretically) sequesters more carbon in the resulting charcoal than it emits into the atmosphere while burning... 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biochar Ontario" group.
To post to this group, send email to biochar-ontario@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to biochar-ontario-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

 

<snip> Charcoal fines could be desactivate chemicals and going to pond. I couldn't understand the above meaning.

Ponds and carbon

New research from the USA suggests that ponds can trap as much carbon
as the ocean.

The work led by Professor John Downing from Iowa State University,
estimated how fast sediment accumulated in constructed farm ponds and
reservoirs (impoundments) to see how much carbon they trapped.

The ponds and reservoirs were all in intensively farmed agricultural
areas so were usually very nutrient-rich (due to fertilisers running
off the land) with a lot of algal growth.

It was found that the smaller, pond-sized, waterbodies accumulated
sediment, and therefore carbon, most rapidly but in all waterbodies
the rate at which carbon was taken up was surprisingly high, up to 500
times faster than lakes in more natural environments.

Scaling-up, the high rate of carbon uptake measured here, combined
with the large numbers of small waterbodies globally (more than 250
million worldwide), suggests that ponds could be burying as much
carbon as the world's oceans.

This research has very exciting implications. It may be that ponds
will be the modern equivalent of the swamps that formed coal in the
past. If the rate of carbon uptake in ponds in Europe is the same as
that found in the USA study, we may well have discovered an important
new natural way of trapping carbon.

We are currently doing some preliminary research to investigate the
rate of carbon uptake by ponds in the UK.