[Taildragerdriver]

RBlack:

I have been working on a project that could answer your three questions and hope we are on track to start doing so in a scientifically supportable way.

I haven't had time recently to be involved in any of the threads I had been in. I have been working with Los Alamos National Lab to develop a proposal to get a grant to test Terra Preta in two situations.

One is an operational test on 7.5 acres of farmland where we would take forest excess fuels from the Wildland Urban Interface and make about 100 tons of charcoal and put that charcoal on this farmland and document the inputs and measure the outputs.

Also Texas A&M would be funded to do a greenhouse study to test similar concepts on a variety of soils and treatments.

The goal of this study if funded it to create a soil computer program that would describe how to modify a soil for a farmer to get the maximum benefit from adding charcoal,etc.

The goal is to make the use of charcoal attractive to large numbers of farmers to create a large demand so the large amounts of sequestration could go forward in this country and throughout the world. Taking advantage of all the benefits of Terra Preta is the desired result.

It is understood that we need to move the science forward before we can take advantage of this technology. The computer program will not be perfect after these initial studies but the foundation of information will be put in place and will continue to improve as more and more work is done by entities such as the various state Agricultural Experiment Stations. This computer program would of course use all the data in existing studies and from these new operational studies. When the program is relatively complete it would be delivered to the NRCS farm service centers throughout the US and possibly the rest of the world with the UN for example.

It is hoped this can also be the foundation of responding to some of the challenges stated in this thread. As with any grant application we may not get funded I will try to keep some posting on that in this thread.

Thanks

Taildragerdriver

[RBlack]

Taildragerdriver,

Good work on those projects. I hope you get all the funding you need. I had a wild idea last night that 100 years from now there won't be agricultural soil that does not have charcoal/biochar/carbon of one sort or the other in it! But then I have always been a dreamer!

Are you doing a baseline study with just charcoal? Or adding NPK or other variables? What controls do you envision on the parent material (pine, hardwood, or other), and the charring temperature? The reason I ask is that in all my reading on Terra Preta one thing that sticks out is that the variability of parent material, char temperature, and degree of char give lots of different results and often conflicting information. So I was wondering where you plan to start with and what type of soils and crops. I sometime think with all these variables that Terra Preta technology will turn out to be as much art as science. Another thought is that in dealing with soil and Terra Preta we need to look at second and third order effects of what we do. Example: What would be the crop yields of a field of corn the year after a nitrogen fixer like soybeans be and then how would that contrast with potatoes? Or the reverse order? We know some of this with regular soils but what about Terra Preta and at differing percentages of charcoal/carbon? Also the potential of Terra Preta science to manipulate the soil organic matter stability and the microbial makeup will be a huge factor in what we can do with it. Also how do we set up experiments that would isolate and examine any one of these factors or can we even do that since many of these factors are intertwined?

So if you have time let us know what is happening and it is great that we have people out there doing things and generating movement and discussion. Also let us know about that database and how to access the results.

RBlack

[Taildragerdriver]

RBlack:

Our detailed study plans have not been developed yet but I will describe the general concepts of each below:

Operational Study:

Our operational study is proposed to be mostly a baseline study. We would divide the 7.5 acre pasture into three treatments. One with hardwood charcoal, one with no charcoal, and one with conifer charcoal. The only treatment would be monitor pH on all and modify it if needed. We will plant alfalfa on all treatments since this is a pasture environment and we also want to see what happens with the nitrogen fixing.

We will get a pre-treatment soil test on the three areas. We plan to install wells to test runoff for nutrients lost during irrigation. We will describe our methods for incorporating large amounts of charcoal into soil on an operational scale. We will measure production on a clip plot scale and total acre production in bails for each treatment. We will also monitor soil moisture on each treatment to document if possible reduced need for irrigation. We also plan to get annual soil tests on the treatments.

We will measure and weigh and test moisture on wood going into and measure and weigh charcoal coming out of the charcoal making process. We will monitor and describe our charcoal making process but due to our need to produce an estimated 50 tons of charcoal we probably will use a primitive method to start with. If we get some good proof of the value of charcoal we feel we can build a better plant and utilize all the byproducts, and also control our production much better.

Greenhouse Study:

In the greenhouse study we will select a variety of major soil types, charcoal amounts, NPK variation, probably a range of farm plants, and different watering and microbial ideas. These various tests would be the initial calibration of the computer program to provide to farmers who might be interested in using terra preta the best estimate of what to do.

This will be a much more complex study plan but will develop the basis for estimates for what to do on a larger range of conditions.

We hope through these studies to look at some of the second order effects like irrigation (water as you know is a pretty big issue in much of the world), leaching (off farm pollution is a huge issue) and other second order issues but it will take time to look at third order effects.

==================
So you identify very clearly that we will establish a very basic foundation with the results of these studies and program them into this soil modeling program. In my job I do lots of modeling and the way this works is you start with the best model you can build and apply it. Then you do further studies to see if the predicted results are correct if they are not you figure out why and improve the model. That is what we plan to do and work with the State Agricultural Research Stations to improve these predictions. We will do this over and over to move from art to science but we will probably always be somewhere on the continuum. In reality farming is kind of the same thing much of an art and science mix.

So we sure will not be able to answer many of these questions that you mention immediately. They are all very relevant but it will take many years to answer them and some may never be answered because of the complexity of the interactions. If we can, through this effort establish proof of the value of terra preta, in operational settings and demonstrate the cost effectiveness of these treatments to farmers we feel much of the rest will follow.

Thanks

Taildragerdriver

[RBlack]

Taildragerdriver,

WOW!! If that's just the general concept I can't wait to see what you do in the end. No wonder you've been busy it looks to me that you will have covered everything you can and more in this study and the results should be applicable to everything we all are trying to do. How long are you shooting for to do this study? The reason I ask is that the results over a 5 year period would be very enlightening for to many reason to mention here.

One idea I have had is what would just charcoal do for a habitat restoration/enhancment project where we put charcoal into a natural area and see what happens 1,2 or 5 years later (change in biomass/species/animal habitat). Your just plain charcoal treatments may be a great indicator about that. Also looking at the hardwood/conifer varibles should be very interesting.

Also let us know if there is anything we can do to help you in this endevor. If you haven't contacted Erich Knight yet do! He has his fingers in alot of pies and one may be of benifit to you. (Sorry to volunteer you Erich but....).

RBlack

[Taildragerdriver]

RBlack:

I have not contacted Erich specifically but he is on many of the same forums I have been on. I currently can't think of any help specifically others might be except in forums like this to be able to exchange ideas. Currently we have some pretty eminent scientists working with us and that is a big help as you might guess.

Our current grant proposal is for 3 years but at least on the operational study we would continue to monitor all the various variables I would expect. We expect if things go well that we will add a lot of work in the future in optimizing the charcoal production facility to use byproducts and expand on the control of the products and temperatures.

Ideally we will be publishing results of the greenhouse studies as soon as we can. As is not uncommon in studies like this there will be progress reports. Just having this pasture modified in this way creates a lot of opportunities to monitor and publish the changes for years. I would expect long term as a more robust microbial community develops interesting things will continue to happen.

Your idea of putting charcoal back on a forested or other natural landscape, we have been thinking of that too. In fact it is a very interesting idea. The main problem is that it would be even harder to study. There are lots more complex interactions going on in natural landscapes than on farmland. That doesn't mean that it is not something we might want to do in the near future if we are making lots of charcoal just to see what will happen. It would be worth doing just to see what would happen.

I'll try to report back to this forum if we get our grant. I will continue to put in progress reports as we work if we do.

Thanks

Taildragerdriver

[davidgmills]

Truly humbled by your ambition and project Taildraggerdriver.

As I continue to put lump charcoal in my yard at 8 lbs a sack, thinking my goal in life is to put a ton in the ground before I die (primarily for global warming purposes) I am truly glad someone out there is cranking up large scale projects.

But on the other hand the world rally needs everyone of us to reverse global warming so I continue to try to get my neighbors to put charcoal on their grounds and lawns in good ole suburbia.

I just started my vegetable garden last Sunday. Planted about 40 seeds or so of corn. The package said germination would be twelve days. At least half of the seeds have already sprouted and it is only Friday. Six days. Half the time. Don't have a clue if that means anything but I thought I would post the observation anyway.

[Taildragerdriver]

David:

It might be interesting to you to know that I'm not focused on Global Warming as the reason for getting to work on Terra Preta. For most people the problem is far to big a problem for them to get their interest up because they know even with a big change it will be many years before they see any results. So I am talking about some immediate benifits of Terra Prata.

So I use the following ideas:

If Terra Preta works there are the immediate benifits to farmers.

The first and most improtant is the ability eliminate or substantially reduce the need for chemical fertilizer. This is a very expensive cost of production for most farmers.

Second is the potential to reduce the water needed for irriagtion which is another big concern for many farmers.

Third is the idea of reduced pollution from leaching of neutrients from farm fields. This is a big concern for farmers as well since they may have to invest money in not allowing runoff to go into rivers for example.

For these reasons farmers and ranchers can get behind this idea.

If we can sell charcoal to farmers then there is a potential for a great new industry in depressed rural areas

If you make charcoal you only get 40% charcoal out of the wood you put into the process. The good thing about this is that you want to produce the charcoal as close to the source of wood as you can. This means the charcoal would be produced in these little rural communities close to the forests.

The second idea is that there may be several great byproducts for charcoal making that we could make verious forms of energy from in cogeneration.

These are things that local people in rural communities can get behind.

If we can make charcoal we can reduce the excess fuels in our forests that contribute to forest fires.

One of the big concerns in the west is the forest fires that start every year and may burn up forests we recreate in and may burn our homes. Currently these fuels are only removed by burning slash after thinned the forest area. This contributes to smoke in the air which is limitied by each state so much of the slash can't be burned each year.

Making charcoal could be a soulution to this problem so many people support the idea.

=============
This is a very cursory view of three reasons to get started with Terra Preta but as you can see it solves immedate problems for people where I live. I tell them Terra Preta can also be a solution to Global Warming, they say thats fine, but it isn't the reason they are supporting what we are doing.

Thanks and good luck.

Taildragerdriver

[davidgmills]

Taildragerdriver:

I realize there has to be a benefit (really a huge benefit to farmers) before they will charcoal the ground. I sincerely hope the benefit to farmers is obvious and emerges very quickly.

For suburbia it is different. I need a different pitch so the global warming angle along with healty yards and gardens is the pitch I use.

But since I suck at gardening and am getting too damn old for yardwork, for me terra preta is my way of helping the earth. For me, buying a few bags of lump charcoal and putting them in my gardens is not a significant expense. And I hope it will reduce the need for fertilizers.

I wish they had a solution for weeds. Unfortunately, they won't just allow us to let our lawns go natural. Hell, I got a neighborhood fine last year for failing to trim my bushes!

I see no reazon though that farmers shouldn't terra preta for agricultural purposes and suburbanites and urbanites have to terra preta for global warming reasons.

Of course today, I had a discussion about global warming winners and losers. There will no doubt be global warming winners as well as losers. It will be hard politically to get those who win with global warming to get on board.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Taildragerdriver

David:


If Terra Preta works there are the immediate benifits to farmers.

The first and most important is the ability eliminate or substantially reduce the need for chemical fertilizer. This is a very expensive cost of production for most farmers.

Are organic fertilisers better? does anyone know? I guess it depends on your soil.

Second is the potential to reduce the water needed for irrigation which is another big concern for many farmers.

I am told that the more "activated" the charcoal is the better it holds water.
I can't find any research to support this.
Intuitively it seems right as the carbon "pops' like popcorn?? Can anyone help?

For these reasons farmers and ranchers can get behind this idea.

yes the fact that it can save 17% ++ water.
This alone is a good enough reason to use it; especially in Oz.

If we can sell charcoal to farmers then there is a potential for a great new industry in depressed rural areas

If you make charcoal you only get 40% charcoal out of the wood you put into the process.

In pyrolysis I have seen estimates of 70-90% charcoal (BEST energies)

The second idea is that there may be several great byproducts for charcoal

I did post a British study on this Charcoal is used in pet food and all sorts of amazing things
I will find it and post the URL here later

If we can make charcoal we can reduce the excess fuels in our forests that contribute to forest fires.

You have to gather it, but it may be a better solution
mmm
In Oz we need the fire for phosphorus and seed germination




Taildragerdriver[/quote]

[RBlack]

To Taildragerdriver,

On your post about making the immediate benefits of Terra Preta available and attractive to farmers I agree wholeheartedly. One thing I would add is that we need to take Terra Preta technology/science and make it available and easy to use for a farmer/gardener in their own back yard without outside resources. For small scale Terra Preta to work we have to have the materials in place and no hauling/fuel consumption or much capital outlay. That is one reason I have experimented with oil drum (or metal garbage can), kilns. Easy to build, use, not expensive, and chars up the excess material you have lying around.

In today’s world if we can’t find solutions to global warming that are cheap, easy, and of benefit than I don’t believe we will use them.

To Michaelangelica,

Are organic fertilisers better? does anyone know?

In answer to this question I talked to a soil professor from Colorado State University and he summed it up as NPK applications can be calculated to the exact crops/soils that a farmer has and the next year if they change crops they can change the percentages of NPK as NPK is a one year shot. Organic fertilizers are all around better but you can’t get that exact of a percentage and organic fertilizers stay in the soil for longer periods. NPK also offers quicker results as organic (depending on what you use), takes longer to breakdown. NPK is also is more susceptible to leaching than organic but for “wee beasties”, worms, and overall soil health organic is better. NPK does nothing for soil organic matter and offers no amendment qualities for soil structure (water retention and air spaces), or soil texture (water retention/drainage).

I am told that the more "activated" the charcoal is the better it holds water. I can't find any research to support this.

On this question I have read that the higher the charring temperature that greater the surface area and better environment for microbes and more “activated” the charcoal. This greater surface area may increase water retention. It also may be that the higher temperature opens up more pores so water can saturate the charcoal. I read in Wiki that to make charcoal activated some processes steam it to remove impurities, this would also open up the pores. I ground up some low temp charcoal and have it soaking in water for the last month. About 60 percent has saturated and sank to the bottom but the rest is floating merrily on top. Obviously gases are trapped inside the charcoal so that water retention of these pieces is lower. Also the size of the charcoal makes a difference as smaller/finer charcoal absorbs more water than charcoal pieces. I have read all of this off of internet available articles but can’t remember which ones. If you need references I can do more research.

RBlack