permaculture

[Dieter Brand <diebrand@yahoo.com>]

Thomas,

You have expressed very well what I have been meaning to say.  

What counts is the land management we perform every year and not the charcoal 
we integrate only once.  The very act of integrating charcoal usually 
involves soil disturbance that, in itself, releases carbon into the 
atmosphere.

Instead of using a technology fix of which the long term outcome cannot be 
known, we should start right now by developing farming methods that will 
reduce soil disturbance, or make it unnecessary, and that will keep the soil 
covered by green vegetation most of the time.  That is all the contribution 
farming can or needs to make to counteract environmental destruction.

Perennials have their place in farming, but I think we should not 
underestimate the importance of annuals, which 1) have a rapid growth, 2) 
produce a lot of biomass, and 3) die to enrich the humus deposits of the soil 
each and every year.  The challenge is to develop methods for cultivating 
annuals without soil disturbance - but there are numerous good models.

Yes, nature - just like humus or life itself - is a dynamic process.  That is 
why static concepts of humus as a stable substance are detrimental.  That is 
why ideas of sequestering carbon by integrating charcoal as a stable 
substance in soil are basically flawed.  Soil breathes just like humans 
breath.  The more microbial activity there is, the more it breathes – in and 
out.  If biochar advocates are correct and the charcoal “apartment buildings” 
result in increased microbial activity, then that too will lead to more 
carbon being gassed off into the atmosphere, which would render their 
argument ad absurdum.  There is a balance in everything: a balance in nature, 
a balance in the soil, a balance in the gas exchange between soil and the 
atmosphere.  We are about to upset the balance in the atmosphere.  We are not 
going to remedy this by upsetting the balance in the soil – which is already 
upset enough as it is.

I think there is also an underlying conceptual problem.  We have been used to 
the static chemical view of the functioning of soil and of plant nutrition 
offered by agrochemists for so long that we have difficulty appreciating 
humus as a living organism.  Even organic advocates rely largely on the 
analytical tools of chemical farming.  I think it is important to develop a 
more holistic biological approach, or organic farming will in the end not be 
much more than a subspecies of chemical farming.

Dieter


--- On Thu, 11/17/11, Thomas Paul Jahn <thomaspauljahn@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Thomas Paul Jahn <thomaspauljahn@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] Biochar
> To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011, 9:44 PM
> *Dieter, I have posted on this topic
> yesterday on muy bolg and also try to
> post a link on the list, but it didn't get through. Anyway,
> the post fits
> here into the discussion pretty well.
> My point is: there is plenty of good reason to use biochar.
> But only as
> local solutions. Each and every time we gotta make sure
> that it is of
> benefit for the system as a whole.
> 
> Maybe you want to read my post at:*
> 
> http://jordforbindelse.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/biochar-is-part-of-a-local-solution/
> 
> Biochar cannot be a global solution for capturing CO2 from
> the atmosphere
> as long as we do not completely stop burning fossil fuels.
> The
> sequestration of carbon through production and deposition
> of biochar cannot
> compete with the current massive production of CO2 from
> burning fossil
> fuels. Starting with biochar production at massive scale
> would be under
> expense of the vegetation, which is the other – and
> probably much more
> important – part of the solution to climate change.
> Biochar production at
> large scale may also eliminate the incentive to stop the
> burning of fossil
> fuels. This is like burning the candles at both ends.
> 
> I share a lot of the view of Albert Bates that he expresses
> in the
> following video. But I am even more skeptical than him when
> it comes to
> biochar as a tool for global carbon management.
> 
> [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPOcPwxrUqQ&feature=player_embedded]
> 
> It is often argued that stopping the burning of fossil
> fuels will not be
> enough to save the climate, as we already have passed the
> critical mark of
> 350 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and that we would need to
> sequester carbon
> by active processes such as production and deposition of
> biochar. But these
> calculations ignore natures capacity to do the job on its
> own. The exchange
> of carbon between the atmosphere and the biosphere is a
> highly dynamic
> process. And this process is not only directly disturbed by
> massive release
> of carbon from fossil fuels, but also - and importantly -
> indirectly be the
> management of our land.
> 
> I am convinced that by far the main task to meet the goal
> of reducing
> atmospheric carbon is stopping emission form fossil fuels,
> stopping
> industrial agriculture and the destruction of natural
> ecosystems so that
> nature is allowed do the job of remediation. Stopping the
> burning of fossil
> fuels is the most important means to stabilize the climate.
> This in turn
> will have profound impact on agriculture, which will not be
> able to proceed
> in its current form. If further active sequestration is
> useful and needed
> can only be monitored after fossil fuels are out of
> business.
> 
> However, biochar is part of a solution for soil restoration
> in polluted
> areas. In residential areas, where we need to grow our food
> with the aim of
> eliminating machinery and transport in the production and
> distribution of
> food. Another part of the local solution is no till
> practices. Permanent
> cultures. The soil must not be disturbed, so that soil
> carbon will increase
> and be maintained at high level. Furthermore, part of the
> solution is a
> shift from annual crop planting to perennial crops, which
> is a logical
> extension of the non till practice. Perennial plants
> including trees and
> shrubs will also increase the above soil carbon.
> 
> Biochar can also be part of a solution for revegetation of
> regions with
> extended drought or even deserts. But again, biochar is
> always *only
> part*of a solution and a kick-starter for a more complex
> change in
> land use
> practices. Biochar is not a solution on its own!
> 
> Biochar production must not become an industrial process!
> 
> Biochar must not be used as a remedy for industrial
> agriculture!
> 
> Biochar should be produced locally at a scale to match the
> particular needs
> for your local project in your local environment.
> 
> *Therefore, a number of points have to be considered by
> local initiatives:*
> 
>    - Most importantly, when making biochar
> for your local use, choose the
>    cleanest process for production you can
> find.
>    - Try to match your production to the
> need for the purpose of using
>    biochar in your particular place.
>    - As feedstock for making biochar, use
> locally available material.
>    - ...and: change your practice to the
> simple method of chop and
> drop<http://jordforbindelse.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/maintaining-the-garden/>