Quote:
Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
|
Yes, this has been briefly discussed somewhere here at Hypography before.
...but not right before the election. 
"They found that when charcoal was mixed into humus...."
Well of course, if you're gonna be using soils already high in Carbon!
Quote:
"Therefore, while it is true that charcoal represents a long term sink of carbon because of its persistence, this effect is at least partially offset by the capacity of charcoal to greatly promote the loss of that carbon already present in the soil."
"The study finds that the supposed benefits of biochar in increasing ecosystem carbon storage may be overstated, at least for boreal forest soils. The effect of biochar on the loss of carbon already in the soil needs to be better understood...."
|
See, this is all about forest soils. These soils are already fairly mature, high-carbon soils. Biochar would disrupt these soils if not used in some very specific way (to be determined).
Marginal Soils should be the focus for application of Biochar.
Restoring desertified lands, maintaining arable lands without the need for petro-fertilizers and herb/insecticides, and processing wastes while growing soil to soak up CO2 should be the focus.
This Swedish forestry experiment only serves to show that managing the microbiome is the key to the soil Carbon balance.
As they say, "...carbon already in the soil needs to be better understood...."
But they don't quite get the total significance of char:
"...charcoal represents a long term sink of carbon because of its persistence...."
Yes, but also....
Though the char contributes, it is the new microbiome that is sustained by biochar that is the key to sequestration, not the char itself.
~
p.s. Thanks for the bump!
