Homestead mailing list

["Frank Fries" <frank.fries AT imagewireless.ca>]

Not a dumb question at all.

An important point is that we are talking real, natural charcoal - not 
briguettes that often have coal dust and other filler added.  So charcoal 
made out of natural substances.

Some of the people who have done quite a bit of work on this actually think 
it matters what temperature the charcoal is "cooked" to.  But again nobody 
really knows.  If the temperature does matter, any you use that was made at 
a hotter or colder temp may be ineffective.

On the upside, if you try some stuff, it doesn't seem to hurt anything if it 
doesn't work.  Many greenhouses have added charcoal to potting soil mixes 
for years for reasons other than the "magic" of terra preta....water 
holding, anti-compacting (like perlite or vermiculite) therefore 
contributing to drainage, and it buffers something if present (perhaps 
acidity?).

I have only done a very small experiment with this.

When emptying ashes from my woodburning heater, I noticed there were some 
small pieces of charcoal.

So, I got a piece of hardware cloth (perhaps 3/8 by 3/8 mesh) and made a 
kind of basket under a rectangular frame I put together out of 2 x 2.  When 
I put ashes into the barrel to haul out, I put them through this basket 
(sieve) and keep the charcoal (the black unburned coals).

If the ashes and the pieces are hot when you do this, you have to put the 
charcoal in something like an old pot with a tight fitting lid, or they will 
start to glow and just burn up once they get oxygen.

Anyway, over a period of time, I got a couple of small barrels (perhaps 20 
gallons each) full.  I spread the charcoal in a line in the garden, 
perpendicular to the direction I run the rows.   In the spring, I rototilled 
the charcoal in while working in some sheep manure and straw bedding.

I noticed no difference the first year.  I think I noticed a slight 
difference last summer (the plants appeared slightly better in each row 
where the row crossed the strip with the charcoal).  I emphasize that the 
difference, if real, was minor - I am not positive that there was a 
difference (perhaps I saw a difference because I wanted to see a 
difference).

I could quite easily tell where I put the charcoal the first year, there was 
a blackish stripe and the odd piece of charcoal that was not crushed laying 
on top.  In the second year, even where I didn't work the soil, it was 
difficult to see where the charcoal had been applied.  I don't know whether 
it is breaking up due to freezing/thawing, being stepped on, etc and whether 
one year of earthworms working the soil, and water sinking in during spring 
thaw and the odd rain are making that much difference or what.  I guess 
there really was not that much of it to begin with.

So not much of a conclusion.  Other than it certainly would take a lot of 
charcoal to cover any amount of area at all.  I can't imagine how much it 
would take to cover my quarter, over even just the seeded portion.  Or even 
just the whole garden.

I may someday get around to trying it out in a raised bed (much less total 
soil volume involved).  I hope to get around to trying out a raised bed 
someday (with or without charcoal).

Frank
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Bunjov AT aol.com>
To: <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Soil and fertility


> Perhaps a dumb question (although my father told me there was no such 
> thing)
> -
> Could this perhaps be a matter of the fact that the charcoal in the soil 
> is
> the result of native organic matter being burned there, and that's why
> 'introduced' charcoal does not have the same effect? Maybe that foreign 
> charcoal
> would have a different effect in its own sphere of influence?
> To everything there is an ecosystem.
> Just asking.
> Sandy
> Mid-Mojave
>
>
> In a message dated 1/24/2009 6:17:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> frank.fries AT imagewireless.ca writes:
>
> >  out, it seems, that the charcoal is incidental.  The archeology of the
> > patches
> > show that they were intensively gardened continuously  for 3000 years and
> > that's
> > why they are permanently  fertile.   >
>
> Having read a fair bit on this, and having  read about the various
> experiments in pots with differing percentages of  charcoal, etc.  it 
> doesn't
> appear that anyone really knows why the  soil is permanently fertile....
> however, as you said, just adding powdered  charcoal definitely doesn't do
> it.
>
> In the Amazon basin, when they  dig some of the Terra Preta up, as long as
> they only take a little at a  time and leave enough in the patch, it seems 
> to
> "grow back"...  This  implies that it is related to beneficial
> micro-organisms... There is some  speculation that the porous nature of 
> the
> charcoal helps by providing a  beneficial environment for the soil
> micro-organisms.
>
> In one case  that I read about (it was a while ago and I don't have a link 
> to
> it - this  is from memory only) they tried a number of patches in the 
> Amazon
> basin,  in the poor soil  - a control plot (no change to the soil), a plot
> with chicken manure added, a plot with charcoal added and a plot with
> chicken manure and charcoal added.  (I think there were actually a  number 
> of
> plots in each of the categories above, with varying amounts of  manure and
> charcoal added).
>
> As you would expect in infertile soil,  the plot with the chicken manure
> added did better than the control  plot.  It also did better than the 
> control
> plot in the second year  but the improvement was less marked and even less 
> so
> in the third  year.
>
> As I recall the plot with the charcoal added was slightly better,  but not
> much so compared to the control plot.
>
> The plot with the  charcoal and manure was approx. the same as the chicken
> manure plot the  first year, but noticably better the second year and even
> more so in the  third.  There appears to be a cumulative effect.   This 
> may
> possibly be due to micro-organisms getting a chance to breed up and 
> perhaps
> the charcoal assists in some way.
>
> None of the above is  conclusive and it certainly doesn't necessarily mean
> that the same thing  would work here...it is possible for example that 
> there
> very specific  micro-organisms that exist there and not elsewhere, or 
> ...??
>
> Another  thing I once read was about the beneficial effect of animals on
> soil.   I think everyone (even the agri-biz soil scientist  types) agrees
> that organic matter added to soil is good.  At the very  least, it 
> produces
> nitrogen.  There have been studies proving the  negative effects of 
> cropping
> land and taking all organic residues off (the  straw, stalks, etc).
>
> In the study I read about, they used a number of  fairly large plots that 
> had
> been farm land, and they seeded all but one of  them to some kind of 
> forage.
> The unseeded one was kept fallow.
>
> In  one plot they just let the cover crop (hay/grass) grow and stay on the
> land, eventually decomposing ( I can't recall for sure, but I think they 
> may
> have cut it and/or chopped it).
>
> In another, they harvested the  hay (and hauled it away).
>
> In yet another, they harvested the hay and  fed it to animals, whose 
> manure
> went back on the soil.  I can't  remember for sure but I think that they 
> let
> the animals harvest it  directly (graze), which of course also looked 
> after
> spreading the  manure.
>
> So on the one plot, nothing was taken away from the soil, on  the second, 
> the
> weight of the hay was taken away, and on the third, the  weight of the
> grazing animals turned into meat was taken away from the  soil.
>
> If it were just volume of organic material, you would expect the  piece 
> with
> nothing taken away to be the most fertile after the  trial.  As I recall, 
> all
> the seeded test plots were more fertile than  the fallowed plot after the
> trial and the most fertile was the one that  had the animals and their
> manure.  It appears that perhaps the  digestion process used by animals 
> adds
> benefits beyond just the organic  material in the manure.
>
> It appears to me that none of this is just cut  and dried, and as the 
> soil,
> moisture and weather changes from one area to  another, different rules
> apply.  It sure is interesting  though.
>
> I look forward to experimenting with different things over the  next few
> years as I get a chance to.... One of the things I mean to try is  raised
> beds.
>
> Frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and  subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change  your homestead list member  options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/bunjov%40aol.com
> View  the archives  at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead
>
>
>
>
> **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, 
> stay
> up-to-date with the latest news. 
> (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/frank.fries%40imagewireless.ca
> View the archives at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead