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: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:32:32 -0800 (PST)

--- On Sat, 11/19/11, Dieter Brand <diebrand@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So what type of microbes needs to live in those charcoal
> apartment buildings at what stage of decomposition,
> transformation or plant growth and for what purpose? 
> Each soil organism has a precise place and time of
> action.  Once that action has been accomplished they
> make way for something else.  Simply to say there are
> more microbes is not significant.

I have stumbled on an answer to at least one of my questions:

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf

“there is good evidence that soil microbes can and do metabolize black
carbon, which results in the carbon being emitted into the atmosphere. … one
concern is that the large scale application of charcoal could create an
expanded ecological niche for black-carbon degrading microbes. There is also
strong evidence that charcoal can increase soil microbial activity which
degrades preexisting (non charcoal) soil organic carbon into carbon dioxide.
A 2008 peer-reviewed study suggests that placing charcoal into boreal forest
soil led to the loss of substantial amounts of soil organic carbon over ten
years. Initial result of a study in Colombia show 60% increases in soil
carbon losses during two years of 'biochar' use, compared to control plots.
Although the final conclusions have not yet been published, this may well be
in line with other studies suggesting increased microbial activity and
increased loss of original soil carbon through charcoal.

In sum, there is little basis for confidence that charcoal will retain carbon
in soils. The charcoal itself can be degraded, and charcoal encourages
microbial activity that in some cases degrades either the charcoal carbon or
other soil organic carbon or both.”

What this signifies to me is that the function of the microbes that will
increase as a result of the charcoal will have something to do with the
charcoal, for example “metabolize black carbon”, and not with the
life-sustaining functions of humus. Even if that were not to be the case,
the “increased microbial activity” would in any case burn up humus for no
purpose at all; thus resulting in a net loss of humus.

I think the basic problem is that the biochar argument is based on a static
chemical model of soil to which a dash of biology is added by saying:
“biochar will increase microbial activity.” Everybody assumes this to be a
good thing. But that is not necessarily the case because, as I have shown in
my previous post, each microbial activity occurs in response to a precise
need. If the reason for the microbial activity is the presence of charcoal,
then the increased microbial activity will use up humus not in response to a
life-sustaining need (decomposition of OM, feeding plants, etc.), but because
the charcoal encourages the microbial activity.

There are numerous examples of how even tropical soils can be brought to a
high level of fertility simply by applying all available biomass – as shown
by the natives of Latin America. Nature has always used decomposition of
biomass to generate future fertility – it is absolutely failsafe. To tinker
with the black box of humus by adding all kinds of stuff may produce
unforeseeable consequences.

Dieter





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page