a few nasty questions

[Hanns-Andre Pitot]

Dear all,

so far, this discussion group seems unanimous about the benefits of
anaerobic decomposition and of charcoal in tropical soils. I would
beg to raise a couple of questions about these notions:

Anaerobic decomposition in the open as suggested by Mel and Jacky is
producing methane - a greenhouse gas that is a lot more (16 or so
times) potent than CO2. Can that be justified if one of the aims is
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Also, anaerobic conditions in the soil are the last thing that the
roots of agricultural plants like. They stay out of such zones, so
that anaerobically produced compost is only getting utilized when it
is turning aerobic (and plant roots start growing into it). Once
aerobic, however, the products of anaerobic decomposition are not at
all stable but degrade more or less quickly depending on air supply.
Think of peat that is highly stable under water, but quickly degrades
once exposed to the air only to form more stable AEROBICALLY produced
humus. Does anaerobic composting really make sense under these
conditions? I am wondering whether Mel doesn't actually mean aerobic
conditions with restricted air supply rather than truly anaerobic
conditions?

And now to the use of charcoal: burning organic material in smoldering
fires or charring such material in unsophisticated ovens is certainly
resulting in a lot of smoke. Wouldn't that in itself constitute
serious air pollution? And what about NOx (nitrogen oxides - another
highly potent greenhouse gas) in such emissions?

In any case, Mel, thanks for your enthusiasm and for explaining these
mulched raised beds to us. Apart from these anaerobic conditions -
you really want well aerated soils in order for plants to grow well, I
do like the idea. There is an old technique known in Germany, where
you have stems, twigs and branches in the center of such beds - that
would make a lot more sense to me because of the better aeration.

Regards to everybody,

Hanns-Andre Pitot

[arclein]

Addressing your questions regarding charcoal. First, the same
material will either be burned releasing all the carbon back into the
atmosphere or decomposed releasing most of the carbon back into the
atmosphere either immediately or in a very few years as part of the
normal humus cycle. The end result is no carbon retention over the
long term. Take a look at the soils of europe were fertility
retention is a function of carbon retention. The magic of biochar is
that a fair proportion is charcoal that will take centuries to be
released while holding nutrients. Terra preta was formed in soils
that are utterly unable to support any form of sustained cropping and
achieved that goal by holding unto the soluable salts needed for
plants that would otherwise by washed out.

[Mel Landers]

Hi,

 

arclein <arc...@gmail.com> wrote:

The end result is no carbon retention over the
long term.

 

This is exactly the point of all this a it concerns the sequestration of Carbon.

 

In order to address Hans comments below, I would need to repeat much of what I have already submitted in the way of documents. I know they are long, but there is a lot to understand concerning decomposition and pyrolisis and their effects on production and sequestration.

 

Briefly, many of the anaerobic organisms that produce most humus can work in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. But, the majority of humus is produced by these organisms under low Oxygen levels as you mentioned.

 

In the process I presented for discussion, I planted peanut because of the lack of Nitrogen available while decomposition is taking place below the surface of the soil. There is plenty of Oxygen in the root zone for these plants. others, with deep root systems might not do as well.

 

Dark earth soils are high in both Carcoal and humus. Both of them (and the pottery shards as well) are chelating agents. These have transformed worthless Amazonian soils and turned tham into some of the world´s richest soils, and not for just a short time. We are talking about hundreds of years for the youngest of them and thousands of years for older sites. this was done without harvesting the smoke. What has been suggested over and over again here is a pyrolisis process that also sequesters the Carbon in the smoke.

 

Anaerobic decomposition does produce Methane, which can seep up through the soil, as it does from the thousands of uncapped coal fields in the Western U.S. so that some Methane can be captured at a profit. The Methane released from these uncapped coal fields is much more than can be produced in the process of making dark earth soils.

 

But, lets go on. How much of the Methane produced by the anaerobic production of humus is actually leaving the soil and how much is being trapped by the charred biomass? That is a question that begs to be answered.

 

Sure we could sequester billions of tons of Carbon in the form of biochar and slow down its accumulation in the atmosphere without bothering to produce any humus in the soil. But then we would not be producing the smae thing as we have in the dark earth soils. And, we are in desparate need of millions of acres of dark earth soils.

 

One serious consequence of global warming is that the production of crops is quickly decreasing. Australia was supposed to produce 24 million tons of wheat last year. But, they only produced million 10 tons. We need all the crop productive soils we can get. That is why I was so thrilled about the ¨Mulched Raised Beds in Jordan¨ video. It gives me proof that these beds will even green the desert. I will be presenting a talk and demonstration on that topic at the ECHO Agricultural Missions Conference in November. This will save lives!

 

Yes, some Methane will be released during the production of the humus needed in dark earth soils. Methane is more than 20 times stronger as a climate forcing agent as Carbon Dioxide, depending on the quantity of the other Grennhouse gasses and other climatic factors. But, the small amount of Methane that might make it into the atmosphere from the production of these soils is insignificant compared to that released by big oil companies and compared to the benefit to the people who will come to depend on these soils to survive.

 

In order to slow down the release of Methane, people need to park their cars more and eat meat less! It makes no sense to prevent the prodution of these soils that are so vital to the survival of the people of the world.

 

For what it is worth.

 

mel

Addressing your questions regarding charcoal. First, the same
material will either be burned releasing all the carbon back into the
atmosphere or decomposed releasing most of the carbon back into the
atmosphere either immediately or in a very few years as part of the
normal humus cycle. The end result is no carbon retention over the
long term. Take a look at the soils of europe were fertility
retention is a function of carbon retention. The magic of biochar is
that a fair proportion is charcoal that will take centuries to be
released while holding nutrients. Terra preta was formed in soils
that are utterly unable to support any form of sustained cropping and
achieved that goal by holding unto the soluable salts needed for
plants that would otherwise by washed out.

---

Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.

[Hanns-Andre Pitot]

Hi Mel and hi arclein,

I agree that humus is the center piece of any sustainable agriculture
as well as horticulture. What I was saying is that I'd rater go for
aerobic composting and well aerated soils for the reasons I stated.
The basic idea in organic agriculture is to feed the soil rater than
the plants, a 'well fed' soil making sure that the plants are growing
well. The way you do that is by providing regular aerobically
produced compost that isn't aged too strongly (depending on the
application), so that soil organisms still get some of the 'food' to
decompose. Of course raised beds containing decomposing organics that
are arated via the stated twigs are another alternative.

If you consistantly provide high levels of compost to the soil, you
can keep the carbon content high (in the order of several percent)
without adding charcoal, but I guess charcoal wouldn't hurt. I was
just pointing out the problem of smoke pollution that you don't have
in composting. And I was asking about nitrogen oxides. I would agree
that charcoal is a good way of returning nutrients as well as carbon
to the soil if organics are pyrolized with the aim of using the gas.
But there is no immediate need for charcoal in well maintained soils.

Greetings, Hanns-Andre

On Aug 26, 11:45 pm, Mel Landers <agri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,

> ---------------------------------