Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Burning Issue of Biochar

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Burning Issue of Biochar
  • Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:37:52 -0700


Not to sound argumentive, but in my view Ken is 100% correct. On average, our
agricultural land is sorely depleted of organic matter. Now Ken and I both
concur on no-till and for the reason you name, among others. You mention the
expense to process those huge mounds of "waste." A little reflection would
bring us back down to earth on it. Biochar cannot be cost effective on any
significant scale. But we do have enormous amounts of organic waste in this
society, and composting it or working it into the agricultural soil doesn't
require serious expense or burn fossil fuel directly or send up smoke
pollution. The whole biochar thing reminds me of a book, "The $64 Tomato".
I've never seen anything about biochar that improves on the cost effective
composting and organic techniques of pioneers from Sir Albert to the Rodales.

>The question was "Which would be better for the soil, biochar or
>chippings?" If done properly, the BioChar is much better and longer
>lasting. How else can we deal with the sticks and brush that even the
>goats won't eat?

False choice. Wood chips don't belong in the soil anyway; unlike cellulose,
lignin takes too long to break down and robs nitrogen from growing plants.
Wood chips make great mulch, and mulch pays for itself in weed control,
yield, soil improvement, and irrigation costs. We have to take in the Big
Picture.

We're always trying to improve our techniques and materials but the soil
basics remain the same. Sir Albert didn't have our UV greenhouse plastic in
his time, when he was developing the Indore method of composting in weeks
instead of months. But I'm glad to have it today. I still search the
secondhand stores for books I don't have yet from Rodale Press, tho I have
dozens of them already. No sense in reinventing the wheel.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 11/11/2009 at 2:48 PM Zachary Domike wrote:

>Biochar is cutting edge investigation, so might be considered "Fringe:"
>
>Frankly, I am disappointed at the way the Biochar discussion has played
>out. Ken should know that there is an appropriate method to agricultural
>techniques, or there is an inappropriate shortcut. Ken mistakenly
>describes biochar as "burn up organic matter that the soil needs.?"
>
>Proper charcoal production is a process that evaporates the vapor from the
>carbon then shuts down the oxygen, so - when done properly - emits
>relatively little carbon. The sad truth is that -worldwide- most
>agricultural smoke comes from "burning waste" that could be profitably
>used as Biochar. The hurdle is that biochar needs good technique, and a
>deep understanding of its value in the soil to justify the expense to
>process those huge mounds of "waste."
>
>Organic matter takes a long delicate process to change into humus.
>Delicate because it is so sensitive to oxygen and humidity and temperature
>and acidity and the correct mix of micro-organisms, and it burns up
>(oxidizes) in direct sun. (Turning the soil with a tiller exposes the
>organics to more damage, which is an important, but separate, argument for
>no-dig.)
>
>Soil science is new, as those who read Dr. Elaine Ingham know. But
>charcoal has a long history as a filter, and works in a similar way on a
>microscopic scale in soil. Distributed in the soil, charcoal holds all
>sorts of elements and compounds which are then selectively available to
>roots.
>
>The question was "Which would be better for the soil, biochar or
>chippings?" If done properly, the BioChar is much better and longer
>lasting. How else can we deal with the sticks and brush that even the
>goats won't eat?
>
>I hope Marty's technique is clean and produces the most excellent soil
>amendment! Let us know the results? Thanks to Bobby G. for his clear
>description, so Marty knows what will be his benefits.
>
>Sincerely,
>Zack






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page