Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Biochar

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dieter Brand <diebrand@yahoo.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Biochar
  • Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:48:39 -0800 (PST)

Toby,

I don’t see it as an either-or situation, but rather as two trends pulling in
opposite direction and I have a hunch that biochar is pulling in the wrong
direction. The trend away from organics has started 160 years ago and has
kept on accelerating at an every increasing speed during the last 60 years.

To fully describe the destruction of biomass and humus that keeps on
accelerating even as we are talking would require entire volumes. It has
started with the disappearance of draft animals and the introduction of the
WC and has reached a preliminary high water mark with the production of
biofuels, for the purpose of which forests are cut down to cultivate crops
with GMOs, Roundup and the most abusive methods that the human mind can
conceive of – all in the name of environmental protection.

> usable form. Just putting biomass into the soil does not
> sequester carbon; about 90% of the carbon is sent back into
> the atmosphere within a year, as opposed to biochar
> sequestering 30-40% of it for centuries. So in one sense,
> making humus out of biomass is far more damaging to the
> climate than making biochar, if I can play Devil's advocate
> for a minute.

If you believe that, you probably also believe the Vegan argument that a cow
is more damaging to the climate than an SUV ;-)

No, I think this argument amounts to not much more than rhetoric, because:

1. Charcoal does not fulfill the same functions as humus, thus comparing the
carbon sequestration of the two is meaningless. Even if we do use biochar,
we’ll still need humus. If we don’t have humus, we’ll have to use synthetic
and mineral fertilizers.

2. How much biomass ends up in the soil depends on the type of land
management (till, no-till, bare/covered soil, etc.), the type of crop, the
temperature (humus in tropical climates depletes 6 times faster than in
temperate climates, which is offset by higher biomass production in the humid
tropics) and numerous other factors. Thus the 90% is an arbitrary assumption.

3. Even if 90% were gassed off, that would mean 100% of the biomass is
turned to humus in 10 years (10% x 10 years). To achieve the same with
biochar, we would have to turn biomass into charcoal every 3 years (30-40% x
3 years). Even if we consider that the gas exchange between soil and
atmosphere will continue after one year, there will be a gradual buildup of
humus and carbon which will increase as humus levels and fertility increases.
Much of this added humus will remain underground in the form of dead roots,
root exudates and Glomalin and not gas off at the surface, if soil
disturbance is avoided.

But you are certainly correct in that anything that uses wood for heating
more efficiently is very welcome.

Dieter





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page