Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] Putting the carbon back: Black is the new green

From: Dale Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:55:14 -0700

Hi Bob, Karl, Heide and John,

Bob wrote:
>>> When you add carbon in any form to the soil, add water and mix
>>> it up with cultivation, the carbon quickly converts to CO2 and
>>> evaporates back into the atmosphere. Untilled sod or forest
>>> can store a lot of carbon when undisturbed. All cultivated
>>> soils attain a natural carbon equlibrium beyond which adding
>>> more will have only a temporary benifit.

I don't think this is completely true in the case of pyrolyzed organic
matter.  Heat can change the molecular structure of carbon so that it
is less biodegradable.

Heide wrote:
>> I've never seen charcoal degraded, but would love to see the
>> research to show that it actually does degrade.  Charring is a
>> preservation method for untreated wood coming contact with soil.
>> I still see the charcoal on perfectly preserved tree stumps that
>> burned decades ago.

John wrote:

> Exactly, I use the method of charring fence stakes myself to
> preserve them and that in itself makes me very suspicious of
> those that say that it is a fertilizer or that it can help
> restore degraded soils.

I think we need to keep an open mind.  Pyrolyzed OM is not necessarily
pure charcoal.  I was hunting around on the web about this and found a
paper that provide background on value as soil additives of
incompletely pyrolyzed OM.

http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2006am/techprogram/P24705.HTM

Karl wrote:
>>>> This is some relevance to the Cornell/Ithaca community near
>>>> my farm because Cornell scientists have weighed in on the
>>>> question. Johannes Lehman has said: "This is the only way to
>>>> make a fuel that is actually carbon negative"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442624a.html

Eprida's (and I guess Lehman's) claim (if I understand them correctly)
that one can obtain both net carbon sequestration and hydrogen, from
the same piece of biomass isn't credible.  It just doesn't make sense
stoichiometrically.  Photosynthesis takes hydrogen that has been split
from water using light energy, and combines it with carbon dioxide to
make sugar (and cellulose, etc).  Now, when you take that sugar apart
(thermally or otherwise) you can get hydrogen and carbon dioxide OR you
can get water and carbon.  But you can't get both reduced carbon and
hydrogen, there just are not enough reducing equivalents.

That doesn't mean that they can't make a business out of selling both
hydrogen and soil amendments derived from biomass, it just means that
biomass *energy* is a zero-sum game in terms of carbon sequestration. 
Of course, you could pyrolyze OM and plow it into the soil, but that
reduced carbon is had at the expense of hydrogen you could otherwise
sell. 

Maybe I am really missing something here.  But if so, could someone
please explain Eprida's stoichiometry?

Dale

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <[email-masked]> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.

---

From: Dale Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:59:19 -0700

Elaine,

> Charcoal addition, WITHOUT ANY organisms, nutrient, or water
> addition with it, was what was being discussed.  If you wish to
> add in other factors, along with the charcoal,  then the 
> discussion will be very different.

Part of the discussion is the indeterminacy of the term "charcoal." 
This subject is already "very different" because things other than pure
thermogenic carbon are present in "char."

> If you want to add all the other things besides charcoal that
> are in Terra Preta, i.e., if you want to add bacteria, fungi,
> protozoa, nematodes, microarthropods, humus, fulvics, proteins,
> sugars. etc then we aren't talking  about just charcoal anymore.

That is part of the point of this discussion.  The "char" being
discussed is a complex material.
  
> How long has it been since "black earth" was anaerobic?  It
> does not has a sickening, stinky smell to it as it has been
> described to me.  It is not low in oxygen.  It is not hot.
> Terra Preta is not charcoal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
"Because of their elevated charcoal content, it is now widely accepted
that these soils are a product of indigenous soil management involving
a labor intensive technique termed slash-and-char. The technique is
differentiated from slash and burn by a lower temperature burn and in
being a tool for soil improvement. Amending soil with low temperature
charcoal produced from a mix of wood and leafy biomass (termed
bio-char) has been observed to increase the activity of arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi."

> Recalcitrance of any organic matter is relative, and I'll agree
> with Lutzow et all absolutely on that statement.  If you have no
> fungi in the "mix", the wider C:N materials are going to have a
> hard time breaking down.  If the fungi that can use that wide
> C:N material are present, those "recalcitrant" materials can
> disappear pretty quickly.

The other part of this discussion, is the possibility that by thermally
processing organic matter in the right way, it might be possible to
very greatly increase the recalcitrance of the organic matter, while
retaining soil-building value (beyond the value of ordinary charcoal). 
This seems to be what happened to these Terra Preta soils.  Thermal
processing might be a valuable way to make microbiologically stable OM
amendments.
  
> If organic matter has been sterilized, or does not contain the
> organisms capable of breaking down the bonds in the material,
> then that material will appear "recalcitrant".

We are not talking about sterile systems.  Sure, the biomass being
thermally processed would be rendered sterile, but after you put it in
the soil it will be colonized by the native flora and fauna.
  
> Restrict the information being considered to just what I was
> talking about, and do NOT add in all sorts of other things.
> Please don't muddy the conversation that was being held.

Elaine, it it too late!  This was a murky, confusing, impure thread
from it's inception.  I would urge you to keep an open mind.  I don't
think this is mainly about "charcoal" in the usual sense of the word.

Dale

---

From: Elaine Ingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:46:06 EDT

Perhaps there was a thread was about Terre Pieta, but my specific comment  
was about charcoal.  I believe I clearly indicated my response as being  about 
charcoal.  
 
Charcoal by definition is wood held at high temperature (175 to 180  C) with 
low oxygen (doesn't burn but essentially crystallizes).  This  can be done 
mechanically, or can be done by biology.  
 
If someone wants to develop a new term, for example "char", then a clear  
definition is required.  Conditions for production of that material need to  be 
defined.  
 
When people compost using woody materials, such as oak, pine, cedar,  
eucalyptus, or other wide C:N bark, heartwood or sapwood, with other materials  
(green plant material and high N containing material) on which the bacteria and  
fungi grow rapidly, use up oxygen, and generate high heat (above 170 C), then  
conditions are correct to produce charcoal.  
 
Compost is NOT sterile at 175 C.  Just because none of the  organisms growing 
at those temperatures will grow on any lab culture plate, does  not mean 
those organisms do not exist.  
 
But many conventional microbiology-based people make that  mistake.  There 
are a huge number of species and high numbers of  individuals at high 
temperatures.  Take a look at deep sea vents.   Check out the number of species in a ml 
of seawater, regardless of whether that  water is from deep ocean vents or 
from near-shore, or mid-depth.  
 
The reason that compost piles heat is through the heat released at the  
organisms grow.  No organisms, no heat in a compost pile.  If you  have heat, you 
have growing organisms.  
 
In Terre Pieta, there are a huge number of organisms.  Which is more  likely 
to be more important to the production of the fertility of this  soil?  
Charcoal, the charred organic matter, or the organisms? 
 
----------
 
If you have a material that is compacted, it often lacks  oxygen.  
Mycorrhizal fungi are strict aerobes, and cannot grow  when oxygen is lacking.  If 
material that structurally helps  oxygen move more easily into the material is 
added, the mycorrhizal fungi will  be seen to grow more readily as the conditions 
restricting their growth are  alleviated.  
 
Did the structural material supply carbon?  mineral  nutrients?  or allow 
oxygen to move into the material?  
 
What is the real explanation for the benefit of charcoal for mycorrhizal  
growth?
 
Elaine Ingham

 

In a message dated 9/13/2006 3:59:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[email-masked] writes:

Elaine,

Dale

Elaine R.  Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port  Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb  Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan,  Mexico
Soil Foodweb South Africa, Polokwane, SA
Soil Foodweb Canada,  Vulcan, Alberta, Canada
Soil Foodweb United Kingdom, Laverstoke Park,  UK
Coming soon -a second lab in Canada, one in Kenya, and in  Japan!