Date   

Re: Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

Tom Miles
 

Nando,


Thanks for the update. We look forward to seeing your system in operation.

 

We understand ta there are some anaerobic digesters in Europe which add biochar to their feed. It would be helpful to understand what value the owners see in adding biochar. Stable gas production while varying feedstock quality is one benefit that we have heard.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tom

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of nando@...
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2020 2:34 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #AD

 

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 03:17 PM, Ron Larson wrote:

I haven’t heard much of your own recent biochar work.  What’s happening for you?

We're developing a horizontal bed kiln, the prototype is nearly ready for testing in upstate New York -> http://biochar.info/?p=en.horizontal_bed_kiln
It's generating a lot of regional interest. John Schwarz informs me that he is running from one meeting to the next. 

At the moment, I'm translating the documentation for the Stockholm biochar urban plant bed project from Swedish into English to place here 
http://biochar.info/?p=en.biochar_urban_landscapes (text is also on the way) as part of a general effort to document a variety of biochar / wood vinegar scenarios as completely as I can. I was in Stockholm to see this project first hand and was very impressed to see how successful it is. I'm informed that it is being replicated in other part of Sweden, particularly in Uppsala (just north of Stockholm), where they are using the biochar structural soil under the roads to increase the storm water retention capacity to 100 year floods. I hope that having the documentation and construction drawings will help other cities to replicate this project. 

AD systems are on my list to research more fully, particularly as we have a dairy farm with a digester 4 miles away from the plant location. We already have an AD research project in the planning stage with someone at Cornell, which is also close to the plant location. 

So far, I've managed to read "A review of biochar properties and their roles in mitigating challenges with anaerobic digestion" (very good paper)  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.048
and "Biochar increases biogas production in a batch digester charged with cattle manure" http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/12/sang24212.htm

So, back to translating ... 
 
--
Nando Breiter
http://biochar.info
CarbonZero Sagl
Astano, Switzerland


Re: Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

Nando Breiter
 

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 03:17 PM, Ron Larson wrote:
I haven’t heard much of your own recent biochar work.  What’s happening for you?
We're developing a horizontal bed kiln, the prototype is nearly ready for testing in upstate New York -> http://biochar.info/?p=en.horizontal_bed_kiln
It's generating a lot of regional interest. John Schwarz informs me that he is running from one meeting to the next. 

At the moment, I'm translating the documentation for the Stockholm biochar urban plant bed project from Swedish into English to place here 
http://biochar.info/?p=en.biochar_urban_landscapes (text is also on the way) as part of a general effort to document a variety of biochar / wood vinegar scenarios as completely as I can. I was in Stockholm to see this project first hand and was very impressed to see how successful it is. I'm informed that it is being replicated in other part of Sweden, particularly in Uppsala (just north of Stockholm), where they are using the biochar structural soil under the roads to increase the storm water retention capacity to 100 year floods. I hope that having the documentation and construction drawings will help other cities to replicate this project. 

AD systems are on my list to research more fully, particularly as we have a dairy farm with a digester 4 miles away from the plant location. We already have an AD research project in the planning stage with someone at Cornell, which is also close to the plant location. 

So far, I've managed to read "A review of biochar properties and their roles in mitigating challenges with anaerobic digestion" (very good paper)  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.048
and "Biochar increases biogas production in a batch digester charged with cattle manure" http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/12/sang24212.htm

So, back to translating ... 
 
--
Nando Breiter
http://biochar.info
CarbonZero Sagl
Astano, Switzerland


Re: Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

Charles Hegberg
 

Kim

You are walking down the right path.  Have discussed this with a number of USA WWTP operators.  I think the stated price point is off considerably for many reasons such as the plant buying the biochar rather than producing their own biochar, other operational offsets etc.  Primarily they are not accounting for the many economic and regulation externalities.  For example, in the not so distant future, the USEPA is likely to ban all biosolids land applications including digestate.  This is due to the fact the processes does not get to sufficient temperatures to destroy PFOS, antibiotics, estrogen, microplastics and other pollutants.  Everything is based on harmful bacteria.  However, gasification is one technology that does.     

 

Many places that have already installed AD systems, might as well make them operate better. So add biochar.  However the systems are very sensitive and the regulatory fines and penalties are very large for a system that goes out of balance.  Most operators do not want to take that risk without some assurance that things will not go off the rails.    

 

For those that have AD, the only reason they make money at this time is subsidies and reduced disposal costs.  If they are removed then it all falls a part or becomes a burden on the rate payers.  AD systems really do nothing but extract the gas from the waste and at the most reduces volumes by 50% or less and not at high enough temperatures to destroy the bad stuff other than the bad bugs.  Thus in that case it is worth a gasifier attached to the AD to provide supplemental heat especially in the winter.  For plants in some highly urbanized areas such as the Chesapeake Bay region, they also have a Biological Nitrogen Removal (BNR) system which must also be kept at the right temperature and even more critical than the AD system. 

 

The key is converting it into something that can be spread on the field, forests (Class B) or compost (Class A).  However, few get a payback on it.  Just another disposal method.  An example is Blue Plains in Washington DC.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb16X8gb9ME They spent I believe  $400M for the AD system and will never pay them back.  It was done really to remove odors that would cover the Washington DC especially in the summer.  While they get other benefits, the number one reason was high level public pressure.

 

For those in AD scenario, it would be best to produce biochar from the communities green waste which could be used in the AD system.  Better yet use the green waste to blend with the digestate and run it all through the gasifier together. This process would reduce the volume and destroy all the bad stuff in the biosolids.      

 

If a WWTP hasn’t installed an AD system then it is a waste of money to even consider it.  Go straight to a gasifier and process the biosolids through it. If a plant doesn’t have a BNR, then just look to make some electricity as that is the biggest operational cost to a WWTP.  If it has BNR flip over in the winter for the heat needed.  The processing of biosolids and green waste can be scheduled to fit the plant operations.

 

My only disagreement is on cleaning up syngas from a gasifier.  IMO, it is a waste of time and unnecessary expense.  Best to go straight to electricity or other uses.  In general, WWTPs have a lot of moving parts that must be carefully considered before entering another component.  Agriculture systems don’t have any real constraints as WWTP systems do so might be best to work out the operations on those first.

Chuck H. 

 

 

 

 

 

From: <main@Biochar.groups.io> on behalf of "George "Kim" Chaffee" <kim.chaffee2@...>
Reply-To: "main@Biochar.groups.io" <main@Biochar.groups.io>
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 2:47 PM
To: "main@Biochar.groups.io" <main@Biochar.groups.io>
Cc: Nando <d.nando@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #AD

 

Guys,

 

I read the Executive Summary twice and have a couple thoughts.  The last paragraph identifies the economic barrier as the requirement that the biochar cost $66.00 to $80.00 per ton to make the process cost neutral.

 

If the wastewater treatment plant had a biochar gasifier located next to the AD unit, it could use the heat energy to warm the digestate, which should accelerate the digestion process.  Also, it may be possible for the gasifier to co-produce syngas without significantly degrading the suitability of the biochar to improve the digestion process.  The syngas could be cleaned up along with the AD unit’s digestate gas.

 

This would, of course, add the capital cost of the gasifier to the equation.  However, if the financing were creatively structured, it might just work out.  After all, the biochar supplier has his own plant’s capital costs factored into his selling price.

 

Also, I saw in the ES that the digester gas would qualify for tax credits, due to its replacing natural gas.  

 

I’d be interested in any thoughts on this idea.  Thanks.

 

Kim

 


On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:17 AM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Nando and list:

 

I also have not read this report thoroughly, but from my scan believe there is no discussion of pore size optimization - nor optimization of much else.  They strove for small particle size - which gave many problems.  My guess is that using pore and particle sizes optimum for a final use in agriculture might give them the best economics - an approach not even hinted at here,

 

I haven’t heard much of your own recent biochar work.  What’s happening for you?

 

Ron



On Mar 1, 2020, at 6:34 AM, nando@... wrote:

 

Ron,

Interesting report. I've only had time to scan it, but so far I don't see mention of the amount of micropores in the biochar produced. From what I've read in other papers, maximizing the number of micropore sites in a biochar will increase the amount of CO2 sequestered when adding biochar to a digester. This would require an accurate pyrolysis technique and preferably a feedstock that can optimally produce micropores. As far as I understand, micropore formation requires a certain minimum highest pyrolysis temperature, but if the particles get too hot the micropores that have formed tend to fissure open too wide to capture CO2 molecules. 

The increase in value of the biochar would most likely boil down to its ability to adsorb ammonia in a way that is plant available.

My have the impression so far that some combinations of digester feedstock / technique and a certain type of biochar at the correct dosage may be financially viable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this study doesn't seem to have been designed to nail that down with any precision.

--
Nando Breiter
http://biochar.info
CarbonZero Sagl
Astano, Switzerland

 


Re: Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

Kim Chaffee
 

Guys,

I read the Executive Summary twice and have a couple thoughts.  The last paragraph identifies the economic barrier as the requirement that the biochar cost $66.00 to $80.00 per ton to make the process cost neutral.

If the wastewater treatment plant had a biochar gasifier located next to the AD unit, it could use the heat energy to warm the digestate, which should accelerate the digestion process.  Also, it may be possible for the gasifier to co-produce syngas without significantly degrading the suitability of the biochar to improve the digestion process.  The syngas could be cleaned up along with the AD unit’s digestate gas.

This would, of course, add the capital cost of the gasifier to the equation.  However, if the financing were creatively structured, it might just work out.  After all, the biochar supplier has his own plant’s capital costs factored into his selling price.

Also, I saw in the ES that the digester gas would qualify for tax credits, due to its replacing natural gas.  

I’d be interested in any thoughts on this idea.  Thanks.

Kim


On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:17 AM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Nando and list:

I also have not read this report thoroughly, but from my scan believe there is no discussion of pore size optimization - nor optimization of much else.  They strove for small particle size - which gave many problems.  My guess is that using pore and particle sizes optimum for a final use in agriculture might give them the best economics - an approach not even hinted at here,

I haven’t heard much of your own recent biochar work.  What’s happening for you?

Ron

On Mar 1, 2020, at 6:34 AM, nando@... wrote:

Ron,

Interesting report. I've only had time to scan it, but so far I don't see mention of the amount of micropores in the biochar produced. From what I've read in other papers, maximizing the number of micropore sites in a biochar will increase the amount of CO2 sequestered when adding biochar to a digester. This would require an accurate pyrolysis technique and preferably a feedstock that can optimally produce micropores. As far as I understand, micropore formation requires a certain minimum highest pyrolysis temperature, but if the particles get too hot the micropores that have formed tend to fissure open too wide to capture CO2 molecules. 

The increase in value of the biochar would most likely boil down to its ability to adsorb ammonia in a way that is plant available.

My have the impression so far that some combinations of digester feedstock / technique and a certain type of biochar at the correct dosage may be financially viable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this study doesn't seem to have been designed to nail that down with any precision.

--
Nando Breiter
http://biochar.info
CarbonZero Sagl
Astano, Switzerland


Re: Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

Ron Larson
 

Nando and list:

I also have not read this report thoroughly, but from my scan believe there is no discussion of pore size optimization - nor optimization of much else.  They strove for small particle size - which gave many problems.  My guess is that using pore and particle sizes optimum for a final use in agriculture might give them the best economics - an approach not even hinted at here,

I haven’t heard much of your own recent biochar work.  What’s happening for you?

Ron

On Mar 1, 2020, at 6:34 AM, nando@... wrote:

Ron,

Interesting report. I've only had time to scan it, but so far I don't see mention of the amount of micropores in the biochar produced. From what I've read in other papers, maximizing the number of micropore sites in a biochar will increase the amount of CO2 sequestered when adding biochar to a digester. This would require an accurate pyrolysis technique and preferably a feedstock that can optimally produce micropores. As far as I understand, micropore formation requires a certain minimum highest pyrolysis temperature, but if the particles get too hot the micropores that have formed tend to fissure open too wide to capture CO2 molecules. 

The increase in value of the biochar would most likely boil down to its ability to adsorb ammonia in a way that is plant available.

My have the impression so far that some combinations of digester feedstock / technique and a certain type of biochar at the correct dosage may be financially viable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this study doesn't seem to have been designed to nail that down with any precision.

--
Nando Breiter
http://biochar.info
CarbonZero Sagl
Astano, Switzerland


Re: Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

Nando Breiter
 

Ron,

Interesting report. I've only had time to scan it, but so far I don't see mention of the amount of micropores in the biochar produced. From what I've read in other papers, maximizing the number of micropore sites in a biochar will increase the amount of CO2 sequestered when adding biochar to a digester. This would require an accurate pyrolysis technique and preferably a feedstock that can optimally produce micropores. As far as I understand, micropore formation requires a certain minimum highest pyrolysis temperature, but if the particles get too hot the micropores that have formed tend to fissure open too wide to capture CO2 molecules. 

The increase in value of the biochar would most likely boil down to its ability to adsorb ammonia in a way that is plant available.

My have the impression so far that some combinations of digester feedstock / technique and a certain type of biochar at the correct dosage may be financially viable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this study doesn't seem to have been designed to nail that down with any precision.

--
Nando Breiter
http://biochar.info
CarbonZero Sagl
Astano, Switzerland


Re: Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

Ron Larson
 

Bob and list, adding a cc

I decided not to pay much attention here after reading the first sentence containing “biochar”:

Emphasis added:     "Biochar is a waste product from thermochemical conversion of biomass via gasification and pyrolysis.”  

(This the first time I have seen biochar listed that way - only possible if you come from a world dealing with gases, I guess.)

But I did look at all 489 “biochar” cites, and came away with the view that biochar would make a lot of sense with digesters.  The authors noted but didn’t much accept the view that the biochar becomes MORE valuable after being in the digester.  They kept saying biochar couldn’t be afforded - even though the numbers said the opposite to me.

One option they didn’t look into at all was that the AD operators could make their own char.  In colder climates a good bit of heat is required with digesters - available with biochar production.  Also the pyrolysis gases could themselves be converted into a bio-methane.

All in all - a plus for biochar - but did not demonstrate much knowledge of biochar.

One other thing that was not discussed is that biochar is in direct competition for the same feedstock.  My perception is that biogas is not progressing much - because of the extremely low price for methane today (not mentioned at all in the paper, where the finances were based on 2015 methane costs/prices).  That cost problem for biogas will go away, but biochar could still win out for system size reasons - the final biochar product appears in minutes or hours - not weeks.  And biogas systems are not providing carbon negativity - the current big need.   Biogas can be helpful backing up wind and solar - but so can biochar.

I have added Dr. A.D. Karve to this thread, as he has worked with biochar additions to digesters for many years (as a promoter and user of household scale digesters
 - for cooking and lighting).  AD - Your thoughts on this report?  

Bob - good catch.  Thanks for the alert.

Ron

On Feb 29, 2020, at 11:31 AM, ROBERT W GILLETT <themarvalus.wabio@...> wrote:

This report was published in January. A big technology push for biochar (489 mentions) in California anaerobic digestion.


Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

Geoff Thomas
 

Albert, - Stephen Joseph is a grown and intelligent human, quite capable of looking after himself, and as a Designer, - as you can imagine, - I just about live on Google.
The reason I got more accurate results than you (at least I got daily methane production per cow) is probably because i searched for ‘feeding cows Charcaol', whereas it seems you used ‘feeding cows biochar’, - based no doubt on that incorrect and harmful definition of some German group of Biochar, being ‘anything not about to be burnt', so therefore Diamonds are biochar.
Ta, btw for providing me with the source for that piece of idiocy in your final link, although knowing the Deutch, I suspect it was in a very different context for eg, 'The Hanover Principles' as explained by Bill McDonough, concerning the Principle "Respect Relationships between Spirit and Matter” un-acceptable at place 8, and also not at place 5, but fine at place 3, see at 20 minutes and 58 seconds on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc
 - btw, you could consider watching the whole talk, at least you would have a better understanding of Designers.

So that definition of biochar, in the link you provided, where anything made out of carbon including diamonds and radiation riddled DDT absorbed by charcoal in a toxin removal usage, is called Biochar, makes it very hard to use the Scientific Method.
To use an example from another of your links, they had Biochar with added Nitrogen, - doesn’t any biochar, - or at least chemichar, have nitrogen in it? - it just shows the problem, - anything called Biochar can have anything in it.

What Stephen was concerned about was the lack of the specific research, and that most research was in vitro, ie in a test tube, so results were only extrapolated, and he felt that he would do much more exact research if he could get funded, the which he mentioned more than once.

I would think that the least requirement would be for a large, say 40 cows, sealed and temperature controlled shed, with top of the line gas meters particularly sensitive to methane and derivatives on the input and out put plus ability to vary the intake volume and measure the output volume , - where all the animals could be subjected to various dietary intakes and charcoal intakes with various additions also.
Even better if each cow was constantly weighed, and the hosed out amalgamated daily sludge (perhaps separatable, so to several smaller groups,) subjected to a range of tests.
Such a research building would not need a control group.
I once designed an air conditioned battery storage room, which contained an 800 volt DC battery bank, - 340 of 500 ampere/hour 2 volt cells, totally fail safe under a dozen or so Parameters, - the outside temperature being 30 degrees C, would have halved the $200,000 battery bank life so the fuss was economic.
It had to get past a panel of stony faced engineers and politicians so every jot and tittle had to be perfect, and there was a $340,000. Grant riding on it, I had even the Danger Explosion sign writen also in the local Yolngu language.

So, Stephen would need some pretty decent funding.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.


On 28 Feb 2020, at 9:05 am, Albert Bates <albert@...> wrote:

Geoff you could have easily have done this and given Joey a break. It is called Google.

Leng, R. A., Sangkhom Inthapanya, and T. R. Preston. "Methane production is reduced in an in vitro incubation when the rumen fluid is taken from cattle that previously received biochar in their diet." Gas 1050, no. 1488 (2012): 1367. https://lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd24/11/sang24211.htm

Leng, R. A., T. R. Preston, and Sangkhom Inthapanya. "Biochar reduces enteric methane and improves growth and feed conversion in local “Yellow” cattle fed cassava root chips and fresh cassava foliage." Livestock Research for Rural Development 24, no. 11 (2012). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7497/7013a4b177b60a1207d7ba13fd054efd03a4.pdf

Leng, R. A., Sangkhom Inthapanya, and T. R. Preston. "All biochars are not equal in lowering methane production in in vitro rumen incubations." in vitro 12, no. 12 (2013): 12. https://www.lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd25/6/leng25106.htm

Schmidt, Hans-Peter, Nikolas Hagemann, Kathleen Draper, and Claudia Kammann. "The use of biochar in animal feeding." PeerJ 7 (2019): e7373. https://peerj.com/articles/7373/

On 2/26/20 9:28 PM, Geoff Thomas wrote:
Rong Lengs articles on use of biochar to reduce methane in cows
-- 
Cool Lab Belize Project Office
Gonzalo Guerrero 5
Holbox, Q.R. 77310 México
52-998-116-5532
albert@...


Re: Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

Charles Hegberg
 

Thanks Robert –

On another note, have you had a chance to look at the Maryland 2019 GGRA draft plan?  Biochar is in it but they have some real misconceptions and limitations.  If they are going to include it, they should at least have a better understanding.  I think it is something USBI/IBI should send a letter of support but address some of the issues.  Let me know if you get a chance to review it and thoughts.

Chuck

 

From: <main@Biochar.groups.io> on behalf of ROBERT W GILLETT <themarvalus.wabio@...>
Reply-To: "main@Biochar.groups.io" <main@Biochar.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 1:31 PM
To: "main@Biochar.groups.io" <main@Biochar.groups.io>
Subject: [Biochar] Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #AD

 

This report was published in January. A big technology push for biochar (489 mentions) in California anaerobic digestion.


Biomethane Report - California #bioenergy #ad

ROBERT W GILLETT
 

This report was published in January. A big technology push for biochar (489 mentions) in California anaerobic digestion.


Re: Different purposes. MICRO, LET'S RESEACH OURSELVES. #micro #research

Geoff Thomas
 

Earlier i posted i have a laboratory of my house my dog and me, - me changing the food and carbon input of the dog and observing the reults.
 Well, why can’t I be part of the Subject, and start taking Char, as I already make for the dog, and use the coffee grinder for the courser charcoal, - so am already ingesting some charcoalf, - why can’t I go the whole Hog and use myself as a research tool? 
 Why can’t all of us,? and if we have a dog, cat, hamster, bird, whatever, using the scientific method as best you can, but most importantly try it on your self. 
Naturally, we will have different results because we all are different, and also have different diets, live in different countries etc, - the important thing is to not get too attached to ones own result but look for others results and think about as much as you can integrate.
Our advantage is precisely that we are all different, so sharing the different results may lead to over-arching similiarities, - or not. - all grist for the mill.
There is no better observer of oneself, than oneself, with an open mind.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

On 28 Feb 2020, at 8:12 am, mikethewormguy via Groups.Io <mikethewormguy@...> wrote:

Stephen,

Do you see a synergistic combination of biochar and  'X'....that could provide an effective and affordable option for farmers...?

For example,  would a farmer get a benefit from growing green fodder on a bed of char and then direct feed all of biomass&char....?

Mike





Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone



Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

Stephen Joseph
 

hypothesis


On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:55 AM mikethewormguy via Groups.Io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Stephen,

On a macro level, are we speaking about how cultural practices effect methane emission reduction.

Are grass fed soil  biochar's cows the best vehicles for methane reductions .....?

Is the hypothesis question....?

Mike  



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

mikethewormguy
 

Stephen,

On a macro level, are we speaking about how cultural practices effect methane emission reduction.

Are grass fed soil  biochar's cows the best vehicles for methane reductions .....?

Is the hypothesis question....?

Mike  



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

Stephen Joseph
 

good question

My observation is when charcoal on the ground with grass animals will eat both.  

If you look at the work by Light in South Africa and Flemattii and Dickson in Western Australia the water soluble compounds from biochar (that is sitting on the ground), that leach outwhen there is a rain event, will interact with the grass roots and soil microbes.  This can lead to an increase in quality and yield of the grass and a change in the abundance of specific organisms.  Which in turn can lower methane emissions.

Now someone needs to prove this.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:12 AM mikethewormguy via Groups.Io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Stephen,

Do you see a synergistic combination of biochar and  'X'....that could provide an effective and affordable option for farmers...?

For example,  would a farmer get a benefit from growing green fodder on a bed of char and then direct feed all of biomass&char....?

Mike





Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

Albert Bates
 

Geoff you could have easily have done this and given Joey a break. It is called Google.

Leng, R. A., Sangkhom Inthapanya, and T. R. Preston. "Methane production is reduced in an in vitro incubation when the rumen fluid is taken from cattle that previously received biochar in their diet." Gas 1050, no. 1488 (2012): 1367. https://lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd24/11/sang24211.htm

Leng, R. A., T. R. Preston, and Sangkhom Inthapanya. "Biochar reduces enteric methane and improves growth and feed conversion in local “Yellow” cattle fed cassava root chips and fresh cassava foliage." Livestock Research for Rural Development 24, no. 11 (2012). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7497/7013a4b177b60a1207d7ba13fd054efd03a4.pdf

Leng, R. A., Sangkhom Inthapanya, and T. R. Preston. "All biochars are not equal in lowering methane production in in vitro rumen incubations." in vitro 12, no. 12 (2013): 12. https://www.lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd25/6/leng25106.htm

Schmidt, Hans-Peter, Nikolas Hagemann, Kathleen Draper, and Claudia Kammann. "The use of biochar in animal feeding." PeerJ 7 (2019): e7373. https://peerj.com/articles/7373/

On 2/26/20 9:28 PM, Geoff Thomas wrote:
Rong Lengs articles on use of biochar to reduce methane in cows
-- 
Cool Lab Belize Project Office
Gonzalo Guerrero 5
Holbox, Q.R. 77310 México
52-998-116-5532
albert@...


Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

mikethewormguy
 

Stephen,

Do you see a synergistic combination of biochar and  'X'....that could provide an effective and affordable option for farmers...?

For example,  would a farmer get a benefit from growing green fodder on a bed of char and then direct feed all of biomass&char....?

Mike





Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

Charles Hegberg
 

Ron – Got busy but wanted to provide you the links to Walter Jehne’s.  Might be meaningless by now.  Again, I have not gotten through the material but others might have more time and interest. 1st part of a 3 part YouTube Video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ygsdHJjdI

 

Walter Jehne is an Australian soil microbiologist, with decades of experience teaching and advising governments, farmers, students and communities. Walter is the director of Healthy Soils Australia, and is also part of NGOs including Global Cooling Earth and Regenerate Earth.

 

Chuck

From: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 7:48 PM
To: "main@biochar.groups.io" <main@Biochar.groups.io>, Charles Hegberg <chuck.hegberg@...>
Subject: Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the

 

List and Charles:

 

I have just been critical of cattle rearing on this list and believe, Charles,  that you are being supportive here of DeLorenzo,  not Jehne?   I hadn’t been aware of DeLorenzo’s videos.  Any on biochar?

 

Charles did aa great job as the Chair of the 2017 (?) biochar conference in Delaware.

 

Ron

 



On Feb 26, 2020, at 3:49 PM, Charles Hegberg <chegberg@...> wrote:

 

Been watching his YouTube videos as well. Interesting information and I think a solid perspective. 

 Charles H. Hegberg, President

reGENESIS Consulting Services, LLC

Infinite Solutions, L3C

 

U.S. Biochar Initiative Board Member

USBI Biochar 2018 Conference (Past Chair)

 

"Promoting the Sustainable Production and Use of Biochar"

 

@USbiochar

 

 

 

 



On Feb 26, 2020, at 5:21 PM, Shaked From <shakedfrom@...> wrote:

A question about methane production:
i came across this recording of Walter Jehne, (all sorts of interesting statements there) in min 45:00 to 49:00 he talks about very fast oxidation of methane into co2 and water vapour, saying that the whole issue of methane from animals (and other?) is wrong accounting..
do others have the same understanding? Or otherwise?

 


Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

Geoff Thomas
 

Hi Mike, I would think that the inclusion of x amount of charcoal would reduce Methane by an average amount.
To add all sorts of other no doubt wonderful materials to make it Biochar, will increase the cost of the charcoal, - probably drastically, and also the funding for charcoal may not cover all the extra material so not be available.
Many farmers do not swim any extra rivers to ensure the health of their land when they leave, but free charcoal that will increase the health and weight of their of their animals would attract most, and the more thoughtful could add what they want later.
Kiss principle, imho.
Geoff.

On 28 Feb 2020, at 5:04 am, Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...> wrote:

Hi Mike

yes and this is what complicates the matter.  
Stephen

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 3:58 AM mikethewormguy via Groups.Io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Stephen,

Do you know if the effect of diet has been factored into methane emission studies.. ?

My sense is any discussion of biochar being a direct fed additive should be connected to diet...  

You are what you eat.......

Mike



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone





Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

Ron Larson
 

List,  cc Greta and Shaked

Greta - thanks for the added information - which presumably is well known by Jehne.  I presume he was referring to methanotrophs - which in soil do convert at least some of the methane produced from the dung.   Maybe close to 100% conversion of that methane sometimes - maybe closer to 0% sometimes.   Must depend on many variables.  I don’t feel like researching the topic as I don’t see it as the main issue.

Any claim of one day conversions of all belched methane needs to provide a citation.

Ron



On Feb 27, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Greta Loeffelbein <spoonlegs@...> wrote:

It would be great if this were true, that methane breaks down so quickly.  However, validated scientific research seems to indicate that, at best, methane's life in the atmosphere is at least 8.4 years.  It would apparently be even longer without the breakdown from the photo-generated hydroxyl radical (more like 12 years).

On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:44 PM, Shaked From <shakedfrom@...> wrote:

Stephen and list,
thank you for the references !
i have read Hans et al recently, and i found (my somewhat quick read) of Rong Leng very informative.

it seems very clear that incorporating biochar in feed can be very useful for various reasons.

what i did not find (and maybe i just missed) is more information or reference to the specific point made by Walter Jehne - stating that methane produced by cows in the field is oxidized within hours and so does not contribute or contribute much less than seems, to GHG concentration. (and maybe I didn't understood Walter well?)  (min 45:00 to 49:00 https://juliandelorenzo.com/walter/)

again, while adding biochar to feed would be beneficial regardless, if methane emissions was not part of the discussion - the story is different...

I lack knowledge in that field, and I thought that maybe someone would have reference to a study, or can summarize their understanding?

thanks everyone


Re: Different purposes. RE: [Biochar] How to Calculate the #feed

Stephen Joseph
 

Hi Mike

yes and this is what complicates the matter.  
Stephen

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 3:58 AM mikethewormguy via Groups.Io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Stephen,

Do you know if the effect of diet has been factored into methane emission studies.. ?

My sense is any discussion of biochar being a direct fed additive should be connected to diet...  

You are what you eat.......

Mike



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

6421 - 6440 of 32982