[malcolmf]

Originally Posted by RBlack

...almost all the TP studies are done on tropical, acidic, highly leached/weatherd soils and I wonder what the difference may be when we apply them to temperate, alkaline, non-leached soils? ...
I firmly believe that once we start getting data on Terra Preta soil creation and use in temperate climates we will find lots of good exciting things happen, some negative things, and quite a bit of unexpected things!!

Insightful point RB. This seems like the key research question whose answer will determine TP's contribution to the world. Will big money see it as a benefit to them, or just to whom they see as unimportant people in unimportant countries? They still don't get the idea that global warming will destroy them too.

If I only have good soil in my vicinity and don't want to transport biomass, then maybe the agricultural benefits to me are not significant. OK, but I could still help an organisation in a part of my country that does have bad soil, and if I'm a policy maker that is where I concentrate my resources. England, for example, stands to lose a lot of its prime agricultural land to sea level rise. But it has plenty of second rate acidic land in the highlands that will be high and dry, and warmer than it is now. Australia I believe has a lot of land exhausted by the early settlers that would be absolutely ripe for reclamation. And so on. Every country, nay, every field, is different. We need LOCAL research.

M

[malcolmf]

Originally Posted by RBlack

Depends on what you use. Mostly no, but you do have a heavy metal problem with some sewage sludges. There is a lot of other organic waste out there before we tackle sewage.

Yes there is a lot of other waste, but it might still be better to bring sewage into the TP tent (phew) along with the other main contaminated source "municipal organic waste", of which there is a greater quantity than sewage in my country. The reason is that these are problems needing solutions, and pyrolysis technology is a good answer, and anything that advances this technology advances TP.

Municipal pyrolysis is creditable under Kyoto for energy generation from the non-carbon fractions of the biomass. The carbon + contaminant residue is low-level hazardous waste.

However, the original stuff is haz waste too. Contaminated sewage residue gets spread on sillier farmers' land now; making terra preta from it is no different to that. It might be better: a postgraduate study at Montana Uni shows that glomalin sequesters copper in soil, rendering it less available to plants. Municipal waste goes to landfill, which is running out in Europe. Better to dispose of haz waste in a very compacted and controllable form, saving significant costs there too. People are also wondering whether, once in that form, any valuable heavy metals could be economically recovered.

To repeat, whatever advances pyrolysis advances terra preta.

M

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by RBlack

To Michaelangelica;


I would like to see your list of plants tha don't respond well to Terra Preta (charcoal/biochar), and see if fruit trees and some types or root crops are on there.

In the L. German study the farmers also mention that a drawback to Terra Preta soils are that they grow too many weeds.

I don't know if I have a 'LIST' but have seen comments that some plant families do not respond as well as others. But then if many/most food crops respond 200-400% better - who is worried?

I agree temperate soil studies are much needed.
I often wonder if tropical Terra preta works because of the daily rain in the tropics dissolving atmospheric nitrogen which in turn is "held-on-to" by charcoal.

I will try and get together a "list" for you

In OZ farmers are asking for carbon credits for growing weeds/grasses with large root systems!
"Weeds are just carbon credits by another name"?

[malcolmf]

Originally Posted by RBlack

I would like to know what critics are saying about Terra Preta, why it doesn't work, why its not good excettra.

Like the others I have seen little or no criticism of TP as such. But it isn't the criticism that kills a technology. It's the failure to win trials of strength with alternatives and the status quo. (I teach technology management.)

Perhaps the hardest hitting trial goes something like "You want me to make charcoal AND THEN BURY IT??!!!" The counter to that would be economic benefits of greater value than char as fuel, and the only two I know are (a) the Eprida ECOSS process much discussed in this thread and (b) the value of reclaimed land to its owner including the discounted value of future increases in crop yields.

As for the alternatives, we are talking about uses of land and biomass with big arguments behind them. Food production (gets my vote). A return to wood building (also gets my vote because it very likely sequesters more carbon than TP). Biofuel production, which we know is a disaster from a carbon viewpoint but is the only thing that the motor and energy security people can think about.

So, what we are looking for are locations in which the alternatives are not in play against TP (but could be with it) and preferably in which one or both of the counters can operate. How about the waste biomass immediately surrounding a power station being attacked for its CO2 emissions, in an area with poor land that could be made richer with the carbon and more productive with the ECOSS fertiliser? Or how about the marginal land around a remote forest, using both its own and forest waste to bootstrap it into fuller production? These are the kinds of niche to be looking for and trialing TP outside Amazonia.

M

Deary me, haven't I reached 10 posts yet so I can provide links?

[malcolmf]

I have a paper copy of Susanna Hecht & Darrell Posey's Preliminary results on soil management techniques of the Kayapo Indians. from Advances in Economic Botany, 7: 174-188, 1989, New York Botanic Garden.

The extract below is at the limit of what I can do. Please don't ask for more because you would ask me to infringe copyright.

The Kayapo are not making terra preta this way, but probably the related terra mulata. However you should get a flavour of the incredible sophistication of land management among indigenous people, of the supreme importance of using fire in several ways, and of the very different agriculture structure of shifting, multi-crop plots as opposed to the large, often monocrop, fields that we associate with agriculture in the West. Hecht & Posey's overall message should fill us with optimism: the condition of a soil is extremely malleable. We can create it in the most unpromising places, as well as destroy it.

...in this section we outline the means by which the Kayapo manipulate and modify soil properties. These include burning, mulching, direct nutrient additions, and fallowing. These management techniques create a pattern of soil microdiversity which is an important factor in Kayapo cropping patterns both in space and time.
The first and most powerful tool the Kayapo have available for modifying soil properties is fire. The Kayapo use fire in a variety of ways in their land management ranging from burning savanna, for forming the swidden plot, and as a means of soil management within the swidden plot. This phenomenon, what we call "in-field burning," involves setting small localized fires in the swidden plot throughout the cultivation cycle for roughly the first three years of agricultural production. The control of the volume of biomass, seasonal timing, diurnal timing, and the temperature of the burn can be manipulated, and this influences the release, solubility, quantity, and timing of the release of nutrients. The species burned can further affect the fertility characteristics of the burn. How important ash is to the range of land-management techniques is suggested by the numerous descriptors that exist for ash, and the large body of songs pertaining to burning. Ash also has important ritual and medicinal functions, and shamans who specialize in burning methods.
While burning is a critical factor in creating in-field microdiversity within Kayapo swidden fields, mulching is also an important activity in crop-soil management. Favored mulches include the leaves of the inaja palm (Maximiliana maripa Corr. Serr., Palmae), banana leaves, urucu husks (Bixa orellana L., Bixaceae), and some crop residues such as rice straw, bean vines, sweet potato vines, and chopped weeds. Some of the mulch materials, mainly the crop residues are derived from the agricultural field itself. The larger-leaved mulches, such as the palm fronds and banana leaves, often come from outside the field and thus represent a net nutrient input which can compensate for, or exceed, nutrient losses that result when crops are consumed away from the garden. Mulches protect the soil from raindrop compaction, reduce weed germination, reduce the soil temperatures, and also provide slow release of nutrients.
Direct nutrient additions applied to particular crops or mixed into the planting medium of particular trees are also used by the Kayapo. These direct nutrient additions tend to be applied to longer-lived species, such as the various Musa, long-lived yams, Marantaceae, urucu (Bixa orellana), genipap (Genipa americana, Rubiaceae), pineapple {Ananas sp., Bromeliaceae), and other minor crops that are planted at the perimeter of the swidden garden. The sources of nutrients range from ashes of particular species applied to plants, termite nests, bones, Azteca ant nests, and shredded leaf-mulches.
The manipulation of fallows by indigenous groups is well-documented (Alcorn, 1983; Denevan et al., 1984). This manipulation includes the addition of perennial plants to the annual cropping system and protection of particular plants when weeding in the earlier stages of the swidden.

Some societies might be able to adapt such methods. Mine would not. We have to get back to the principles and reinvent our own.

M

[malcolmf]

Effects of Smoke Emissions from a Charcoal Kiln on the Functioning of Forest Soil Systems: A Microcosm Study

Author: Uvarov A.V.

Source: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 60, Number 3, February 2000, pp. 337-357(21)
Abstract:

Long-term charcoal production in small private charcoal kilns (CK) in Eastern Bieszczady Mts. (SE Poland) can cause local smoke contamination of the ambient forest environment. Responses of model soil systems, contaminated or not contaminated by CK smoke, to contrasting combinations of hydrothermic regimes were compared in laboratory microcosms (respiration of soil community, decomposition rate of soil organic matter and cotton stripes, herb seeds germination were studied). The majority of the obtained data show a markedly higher level of soil biological activity in the CK versus the control series. In some cases CK and control soil systems show different patterns of reactions to the tested combinations of microclimate regime. These phenomena should at least partly be attributed to the effects of CK pollution.

It fits with Rondon et al's observation that minor quantities of charcoal produced significant reductions in CH4 and N2O emissions from soil. I wonder therefore how thinly one might spread charcoal dust and still have beneficial (though not sequestration) effects. Note also that the contaminant was never tilled into the soil, though I suppose the soil was disturbed when samples were collected and there is no way of telling how long before it was observed the "markedly higher level of biological activity" actually began.

M

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by malcolmf

I wonder therefore how thinly one might spread charcoal dust and still have beneficial (though not sequestration) effects.
M

Have a closer look at the Japanese study on Tea trees. They were using 100g charcoal (5mm average particle size) per sq.meter- not very much and bigish bits.
While they did do this over a 10 year period they might have some yearly measurements of growth you could look at.
They are still doing the research. You may be able to contact them

Wouldn't methane only be produced where vegetable matter was decomposing in an anaerobic environment?

What is the significance of "significant reductions in . . . N2O emissions from soil"
pls

[Michaelangelica]

[quote]

Originally Posted by malcolmf

"You want me to make charcoal AND THEN BURY IT??!!!" The counter to that would be economic benefits of greater value than char as fuel, and the only two I know are (a) the Eprida ECOSS process much discussed in this thread and (b) the value of reclaimed land to its owner including the discounted value of future increases in crop yields.
A return to wood building (also gets my vote because it very likely sequesters more carbon than TP). Biofuel production, which we know is a disaster from a carbon viewpoint but is the only thing that the motor and energy security people can think about.

So, what we are looking for are locations in which the alternatives are not in play against TP

Stop thinking wood and tree waste and just think WASTE -anything organic can be made into carbon and electricity by Best Energies' Pyrolysis plant (Will post more about that later)

Building in wood has been the preferred way to go in Oz for along time now However with the ban on Chlordane the termites are getting the upper hand So, many are turning to steel framed buildings. Some, rarely, occasionally, use adobe.
Industrial buildings seem to be made out of concrete Lego blocks ( a bit bigger and thinner- Lego should have been banned years ago for the disastrous impact it has had on the minds of young architects!) Bloody ugly boxes of buildings with little natural light.
A building might last 50-100 years? Carbon will last in the soil 10,000 years or more. Farmers might also be able to claim carbon credits.

In a country water-starved like Oz ,something that can save you 18% water on your farm, you would think would be jumped at - no matter what else it did - even if it danced and played the bagpipes.

Deary me, haven't I reached 10 posts yet so I can provide links?

Don't you know any good jokes? see "Quality (sic)Jokes and Humour" ( lousy Yank spell checker! 'Humor' - more imperialism!)

[malcolmf]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Stop thinking wood and tree waste and just think WASTE -anything organic can be made into carbon and electricity by Best Energies' Pyrolysis plant

Could not agree more, Michael. But if you want to put the carbon into terra preta, the feedstock must not include contaminants. Treated wood, unsorted household or business refuse, etc are no-nos. Poison in, poison out.
Which reminds me, here we are happily discussing making charcoal, but have you seen what is in the by-products? RB asked:

I would like to know what critics are saying about Terra Preta, why it doesn't work, why its not good excettra.

I forgot when replying to him that I was once YELLED AT in a bioenergy forum for suggesting pyrolysis, by a guy who equated it with incineration. He said it produces just as many dioxins and furans, which you don't want near your family. I've just checked, and found a really not nice list of by-products from charcoal kilns in US EPA studies.
Chapter 10: Wood Products Industry, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I section 10.7 suggests that the global warming potential is at least 1500 kg CO2 equivalent per tonne of charcoal output, primarily due to the high methane content. Meanwhile Table 1 in Emissions of Air Toxics from a Simulated Charcoal Kiln Equipped with an Afterburner contains one furan but no obvious dioxins, but I have little knowledge of what the other items listed actually are.

So I'm thinking that there should be a code for terra preta makers and one of the items in it should be
I will not operate a charring process near habitation if it produces significant uncontained emissions of exhaust gases.
Which puts a bit of a downer on many of the DIY techniques we have looked at, recalling the photos of smoke plumes, though not, I think, on the retort with gas feedback (Making Charcoal) or higher tech commercial equipment like your Best Energies.

M

[erich]

For many years I've used composted bio-solids from my local waste treatment plant. Early on I was concerned about heavy metals, but this compost was tested every four months and the amounts of lead and other toxic's were 1% of the EPA limit for application on eatable crops! The sewage plant operator explained to me that my concerns were valid years ago , but now most all these problem chemicals have been taken out of products (no lead in hair dye any more) and therefor taken out of the waste stream.

Solid waste are now segregated at the land fills into what can be burned and what needs to be buried or buried in specially built land fills.

If a proper protocol is developed specifically for Char, I see no problems.


P.S. There is nothing more satisfying to me as a gardener than hauling rich people's sh*t back to them and charging them for it.