Fw: Introduction

[Bob Morriss]

 

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

From: Bob Morriss

To: Jacky Foo

Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:53 AM

Subject: Introduction

Jacky, I sent Mel Landers a few questions that I did not want to openly ask as I am a novice and felt some were very basic and maybe a little "dumb". Mel was gracious in responding without laughing. I appreciated that Mel. Thank you.

 

 

Please let me begin with an "Introduction".

We are a small environmental group. We have been developing a Bio Organic Fertilizer process for about 10 years. We believe the addition of specific microbes to our windrow process will accelerate the breakdown and give us a quality BOF, basic compost or top soil base in less time than conventional methods. Our tests have demonstrated very good results.

 

We have been working in Asia on rice hull degradation with very good results. In a five crop demo, with a similar product, we learned the farmer could sell his rice for double that of NPK, herbicides and pesticide grown crops. This is after calculating in the cost of NPK, herbicides and pesticides VS using only BOF on the test plot. It did take two crops to repair the soil and generate a high amylose rice.

We are now setting up a test in S. Africa, Italy, S. America and Nigeria. There is another African country wanting to do this but we have been asked not to discuss who they are at this time.

 

At this time we are developing a few other environmental projects.

S. Africa, we are being asked to take a cities entire greenwaste volume and convert it into landfill cover. We will work with a local Univ. to convert some into BOF for agriculture applications and replacing NPK. Another group wants us to mine old landfills and convert the organic fraction into a landfill cover, top soil or BOF.

Italy, lots of rice waste here. Trying to set up a demo with a local rice producer and university to create BOF, apply it to crops and see how we can create a better crop without NPK, herbicides and pesticides.

India, same as Italy but with wheat, banana and sugar cane waste. Rice hulls are now a valued commodity because they can generate other incomes.

Vietnam, similar to Italy but they have LOTS of rice waste.  

Nigeria, we are "involved" with three groups bidding on the new landfill legislation. Smallest one is 40 tons per day of mostly organic waste but some mixed waste. The largest site is 1000 tons per day, 70% organic and 30% mixed waste. The cost of NPK is so high farmers cannot afford it and must find other ways to grow their crops. We believe BOF will repair the soil and provide the nutrients necessary for a healthy and larger crop.

Ram Blocks, we are encapsulating Chromium 6 in a soil block and the tests have show it does not leach the C6 in agitation and water.

Greatly reduces the cost of disposal.

 

I have read a lot if data relating to soils, fertilizers, Bio Organic Fertilizers, chemical fertilizers and crop production. Probably understood 10% of it. Would like to ask a lot of questions relating to composting, fast and slow, nutrients available in compost VS BOF, repair of soils with compost, BOF, humus, charcoal addition and more.

 

If anyone is interested in cooperating with us on these demos we would be happy to discuss it with you.

 

Bob Morriss

Joe Robertson

 

I have attached the results of a rice crop study using BOF and NPK.

[Jacky Foo]

On Aug 16, "Bob Morriss" wrote:
> We are a small environmental group. We have been developing
>a Bio Organic Fertilizer process for about 10 years.

>.......(cut)...Our tests have demonstrated very good results.

> We have been working in Asia on rice hull degradation
>with very good results. In a five crop demo, with a similar
>product, we learned the farmer could sell his rice for double
>that of NPK, herbicides and pesticide grown crops.

>...(cut)...We believe BOF will repair the soil and provide

>the nutrients necessary for a healthy and larger crop.

> .....(cut)....If anyone is interested in cooperating with us

>on these demos we would be happy to discuss it with you.

I am now working on the establishment of the Children's Village of
Kenya (CVK) where I have confirmation on access to land already. So I
am looking at how to develop cooperations for the transfer and
implementation of technologies at CVK so that OVC (orphans and
vulnerable children) can benefit. There are two sugested sites for the
CVK (one that is 130 acres and the other is 170 acres) and I hope to
target for 1000 children (?) per site.

For sure I will introduce the use of charred materials in the making
of composts. It is a simple practice. The technology that I will need
is how to make charred materials from agricultural residues (not wood)
like maize stalks, roots residues, etc.

Kenya has local technology for making charcoal but these are
"commercial" scale kilns. Availability of maize stalks and root
residues are seasonal, so it could be our choice too but there is also
the need for vocational training on how to make charred materials at
the household level.

I hope Mel can tell us more about how the Nicaraguans do it.

regards
jacky
--
15 Aug 2007: www.iobbnet.org is currently not available. Sorry for the
inconvenience.
+++++

[Daniel Nagengast]

Hello all,

Charcoal production is seemingly more difficult than just harvesting
the ash, etc. left from high oxygen-combustion fires. Wood ash and
charcoal are markedly different as a soil amendment, No? I know one
can quickly overuse wood ash, but charcoal seems to be stable, if I'm
understanding this correctly, and mostly or always beneficial up to a
point. I'm sure there is a balance that needs to be maintained between
charcoal, humus and other soil components.

My question, probably simple-minded, concerns the chemical and
structural differences between wood ash and charcoal. Is wood ash
mostly carbon also, or has that gone up into the atmosphere, leaving
only other compounds?

Are there intermediate forms of processing between fire (high oxygen
combustion) and pyrolysis, which might be easier (less management) for
people to control consistently than pyrolysis or straight charcoal
production? If so, would your carbonaceous end-product be suitable, or
almost as suitable as a soil amendment?

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Dan N.

Dan Nagengast
785-748-0959
785-748-0609 fax
nage...@earthlink.net
www.kansasruralcenter.org

[Mel Landers]

Daniel,

 

You said:

 

My question, probably simple-minded, concerns the chemical and
structural differences between wood ash and charcoal.

 

Far from being simple minded, I find your questions to be very intellegent. It takes more mental effort to come up with intellegent questions than it does to come up with intellegent answers. Once a question has been asked, you have a reference point on which to base your thoughts. It requires more focus to compose a question.

 

You asked:

Are there intermediate forms of processing between fire (high oxygen

combustion) and pyrolysis?

 

There are lots of intermediate combustions as are apparent with a walk through a burned forest. But, the process needs to be controlled and can be controlled quite simply. It is merely a difference between heating the material in the open air or heating it in a closed container.

 

You asked:

 

Wood ash and charcoal are markedly different as a soil amendment, No? I know one can quickly overuse wood ash, but charcoal seems to be stable, if I'm understanding this correctly, and mostly or always beneficial up to a point.

 

This will look kind of funny. I had to compose it in Microsft Word 2007; a horrible program.

 

Combustion is a chemical process in which molecules are re-arranged to form oxides of the original component s.  An example would be when you heat a molecule of Methane, to its combustion point, in the presence of two Oxygen molecules. The result is a molecule of Carbon Dioxide gas and two molecules of water, as a vapor. Respiration is a process of slow combustion. Fire is, of course, fast combustion.

 

Complete combustion gives different results from incomplete combustion. But, truly complete combustion does not occur in nature. When wood is burned in a somewhat complete combustion, ash is formed. Besides containing Potassium and Phosphorus, etc. ash also contains a lot of un-oxidized Carbon, mainly in the form of Calcium carbonate and some Magnesium carbonate. These make the ash so highly alkaline (9 -13) that they can seriously harm beneficial soil bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi.

 

Incomplete combustion occurs when there is not enough Oxygen to form Carbon Dioxide and water. This results in large amounts of un-oxidized Carbon, which because if its abundance is in a purer form. This form does not have the alkaline reaction and is stable for long periods of time in the soil. It is however able to form bonds with nutrients and therefore acts as a nutrient sponge. It also provides an adequate home for many soil microbes.

 

Humus has these same characteristics, but is an even better home for the beneficial microbes in the soil. The most important point of this seminar is that, the major limiting factor in modern agricultural production is the lack of soil humus.

 

Charcoal is not a replacement for humus. It is a good collaborator with humus in the maintenance of nutrients and moisture in the root zone.

mel

Daniel Nagengast <nage...@earthlink.net> wrote:

---

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

[Jacky Foo]

Hi Dan (and others)

since Mel is offline, let me respond to/comment on your questions.

On Aug 16, Daniel Nagengast <nageng...@earthlink.net> wrote:
DN> Charcoal production is seemingly more difficult than just

harvesting
> the ash, etc. left from high oxygen-combustion fires.

yes. charcoal production is a technology. Ash is just a by-product of
open air burning or as you say: high oxygen-combustion fires.

DN> My question, probably simple-minded, concerns the chemical and

> structural differences between wood ash and charcoal.

wood ash is usually appears as a powder after the fire.
Charcoal has a structure.

I grew up with the use of charcoal. I also understand that there are
children (and people) nowadays who may not have seen charcoal before.
These people only know electricity and cooking gas and most probably
live in apartments in the city. They are not allowed to burn anything
as everything goes into the rubbish bin.

So how does one explain this to such persons and children.
(i) An ash is what you get after burning something. e.g. cigarette ash
is ash from tobacco and paper. It is a powder.
(ii) a charred material is like an overtoasted bread. It is black and
solid but can be powderised. It has not caught "fire" yet.

DN>Is wood ash

> mostly carbon also, or has that gone up into the atmosphere, leaving
> only other compounds?

In general, wood ash has no carbon.
Composition of a wood ash depends on the type of material burnt.
Google "wood ash composition" and you will get lots of information.
e.g. in http://cavemanchemistry.com/cavebook/chpotash2.html
1000 lbs of beech wood when burnt gives you a wood ash residue of 5.8
lbs.

regards
jacky