toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
of course you’re right here. Just that I wouldn’t call the avoidance of emission sequestration. The added carbon that remains in the soil: yes.
I was referring to changing our practices in order to emit less, e.g. through improved fertilization techniques, the use of organic fertilization etc. AND using biochar as a complementary.
Distinguishing between emission reduction and carbon sinks is important when it comes to carbon accounting and there it has to be clearly divided, that’s what I think and this is why I mentioned it.
I also know there is no C in N2O ;-)
Am 11.10.2020 um 05:54 schrieb Geoff Thomas <wind@...
So reducing the N20 is like emissions reduction, as it is an emission, but if you for eg feed cows charcoal, - the which reduces methane, reducing emissions and turning it into more cow, and stores carbon in the soil, - which is Drawing Back the carbon we put into the air, it also reduces N20, so Harald does the N20 not be emitted by the cow or not produced because the charcoal in it’s system sequesters it like the charcoal?- being provocative because I don’t know but suspect you do :)Cheers,Geoff Thomas.
On 11 Oct 2020, at 4:14 am, Harald Bier <Harald.Bier@...> wrote:
I would say so. At least for us, this is one of our many arguments for the use of biochar in agriculture. If you’re interested, look at this:
Am 10.10.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...>:
Does this new research report that exposes the major contribution of N2O from overuse of fertilizer present an opportunity for biochar?