Date   

Wholesale Biochar Suppliers in Florida

Tom Miles
 

Who sells biochar in supersack or tote quantities in Florida? We have had inquiries from Palm County FL

 

Many thanks

 

Tom Miles

Executive Director

U.S. Biochar Initiative

"Promoting the Sustainable Production and Use of Biochar"

www.biochar-us.org

@USbiochar

Facebook US Biochar Initiative

USBI Logo - Copy (420x176) 

 

 


Re: A general reply to Michael's notes

Paul S Anderson
 

Michael and Claudia,

 

Patient and reasoned discussion is good and appreciated.  Thank you both.

 

I needed to look up “Benthamite reason”   From Wiktionary: 

What is Bentham's theory?

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) was a philosopher, economist, jurist, and legal reformer and the founder of modern utilitarianism, an ethical theory holding that actions are morally right if they tend to promote happiness or pleasure (and morally wrong if they tend to promote unhappiness or pain) among all those affected by them.

 

Considering our modern society’s excesses on personal “happiness or pleasure”, I would emphasize the final words that actions should be morally right “among ALL those affected by them [by their actions].”      The actions of today’s world population (including us) will affect (actually inflict) the unhappiness and pain of those living in the hotter climate of the second half of this century, meaning you younger ones who read this and the grandchildren of we older readers.

 

IMO, the pace of the biochar work in ALL societies is insufficient.   But how to accomplish more, better and faster is a challenge.

 

Thank you all who are trying.   Special thanks to Claudia and Michael.

 

Paul  

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.com

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@... via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 4:21 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] A general reply to Michael's notes

 

[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]

Claudia,

 

Thank you very much for your patient and reasoned reply to my recent impatient and unreasoned rant. Although to my amazement it has elicited a large number of personal emails thanking me for saying what needed saying, I want to apologize to you for my intemperance.

 

What first struck me while reading your response was how much I was learning about a world of modeling and so on, stuff I had never heard of. What then really hit me hard was that we live in entirely different worlds. It is not simply that I do not know about all of these major international study groups and studies that are going on, but that I could never afford to belong to them if I did. Once this occurred to me and I sat back to count on my fingers, I realized how very small these two worlds we inhabit are. There simply are not very many people engaged in the big endeavor and I know very few engaged in the little endeavor. The question is then: would greater good follow from cooperation?

 

This is an excellent question. Needless to say, we could all do with a world less roiled by uncivil voices like mine. But your real question goes much further and suggests that at base, I undermine the very cause I seek to promote by railing against those engaged in report writing, standard setting, and so on. The suggestion is that if you and yours succeed, the small farmers I care for will be at least provided access to the climate change money pool, and perhaps even embraced.

 

I have two reservations. The first is simple: time. By your own admission, you do not anticipate rapid progress on the biochar certification and recognition fronts, etc. (And, yes, I do recognize that the European Certification was meant for Europe, but where do poor countries look for the lead on such subjects? The EBC is today the de facto global standard. Your comment on PHAs is generally apt: Bureaucracies are not fine instruments. They tend to mash not slice.) So what happens to those on the margin in the meantime? Even if all of this were ultimately to deliver some form of financial support, how many will die waiting? My trainers work in villages that are down to a meal a day of corn gruel. Time is not on our side.

 

Second, the notion that once everything is in place politically and scientifically, all that will remain is to get these small farmers to figure out a foolproof, verifiable and certifiable system for counting their char burials overlooks rather a lot of the reality of life in the rural areas of much of the developing world. Take CarbonFuture, for example, how in the world could anyone provide SBC certification of the char produced by tens of thousands of small farmers using TLUDS, troughs and trenches - there being no certification for "whatever" biochar? How in the world could anyone provide blockchain verification of what happened to the char - not least when no one recognizes any agency to deal collectively for large numbers of individuals over whom it does not exercise physical control? Without power or cell phone coverage, for example, most rural people we work with don't have phones. When we ask farmers to text us pictures of their crops or the biochar they make, we get blank looks. And we should know. This is just the surface; it gets much worse. Did I mention the corruption of officials unpaid for months at a time? Or....

 

What if we came at these related questions from a different, more utilitarian point of view, the greatest good for the greatest number. We know from the research that there are feedstocks that provide better chars for specific purposes, that different residence times and temperatures result in chars better for this or that, that the same is true with quenching. All of these tweaks are readily available to anyone in the OECD who wishes to make char. None of them are available to small, rural farmers. These farmers must use whatever feedstock and whatever low-rent technology they have to produce whatever biochar comes out. OECD biochar is easy to standardize and certify; small farmer "whatever" biochar is another matter.

 

Does the fact that 2.5 billion small farmers with 500 million farms and limited access to ag chemicals, rising temperatures and falling precipitation suggest that addressing this sort of "whatever" biochar should not be our primary focus? I mean, on a person to person basis, the developing world is much bigger than the developed. With population growth flattening or falling in the EU and US while it continues to grow in the developing world, isn't there a Benthamite reason to look South? Am I being American because of the Big Orange One and his wall? I think not. Orange is also the color of the life vests the hunger migrants from Africa wear as they attempt the Mediterrainian wall. (Ach, yes, "someday you, too, will have your Trump" to paraphrase (badly) Haile Selassie before the League as the Italians invaded his country,)

 

Should we cooperate more? Absolutely. How? I have no idea. I cannot fly around the world to attend conferences in Europe and the Antipodes. I know few real scientists who are comfortable sleeping on the floor with the flees, ticks, lice, goats and entire family. It is a big gap. Maybe we should just recognize that we have common, humanitarian goals.

 

M




Image removed by sender. photo

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Image removed by sender.

Image removed by sender.

Image removed by sender.

 

Image removed by sender.

 

Image removed by sender.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Image removed by sender.  Image removed by sender.  

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:36 PM Claudia Kammann <claudia.kammann@...> wrote:

I have read that there was more discussion from the side of Michael Shafer (Schäfer?) lately, condemning standards like the EBC (which was never made for developing countries but for Europe, like the name says), but at the same time, rejecting negative emission shemes like BECCS. It is right to be afraid of those, they would likely lead to land grabbing, if this strategy does make it through to global politics. The global politics, however, are mostly advised by earth system modeler scientists when it comes to climate change, mostly people doing IAMs (Integrated assessment models) that are rather economically driven. In other words, „let’s throw money this way and things will be fixed (regarding the necessary negative emissions)“. This would leave out or even endanger the existence of smallholder farmers to an extent that you wouldn’t like to think about, believe me…

 

This is one of the reasons why we tried to  get the earth climate modeller community doing assessments on Negative Emissions to acknowledge that biochar is a tool in a large diverse Negative Emission Technologies (NET) toolbox that they have so far overlooked. By working with them, which was a mutually enjoyable process of learning from each other. And this is how PyCCS as a NET came to be, why it was included in the 1.5°C IPCC special report. Our hope was to raise awareness that this tool in the NET toolbox can be applied everywhere, from small-scale rural for everyone, made by low-cost efforts, to industrial-scale when it comes to Europe or North America. (The EBC guidelines helped a little with the legislation in some European countries because they included all the rules, silly or not, that existed already around fertilizer laws and soil protection regulation and so on. Ignoring these would have resulted in zero legal way of using biochar. These regulation guys don’t care how logical things are, or if PAHs (if they exist) would even be bioavailable. If they are present, they just give you a fat „no“ and that’s it for you.)

 

We tried and still try to embrace the topic of biochar in research from this broad perspective, „Global and political governance“ and „local-rural for everyone“: The one who initiated the EBC (Hans-Peter Schmidt) also developed the Kon-Tiki Pyrolysis together with Paul Taylor as far as I know, back in 2014. They immediately put everything online, so that no one would go and put a patent on it; that it can be freely used by whoever wants to use it. Hans-Peter applied that newfound knowledge in a project in Nepal where the intention was to replace mineral (expensive) fertilizers in rural Nepal villages, which showed the potential for small doses of urine-biochar and manure compost as a root zone fertilizer. We published  the results of 21 field trials with on average 100% yield increase back in 2017 in Land Degradation and Development, which may be seen as proof of this broad spectrum of ours of approaching biochar. We/he also published the only review out there on animal feeding of biochar (Schmidt et al. 2019 in PeerJ). The latter work was financed by the same project that helped us to develop PyCCS, by the way…. I can sent both papers in case someone is interested (from a

 

Thus, to shoot someone first, verbally, calling them „gurus who’s approval no one needs“, and to ask questions later may be a little bit…. An American thing to do…? (Imagine me smiling, this is not said with spite.)

 

I just want to make sure, within this discussion, that a fight against certification schemes (that were meant for Europe) is simply not needed. In my view, a waste of energy. Rather, mutual discussions about how to improve approaches, in particular for trading C sinks (Negative emissions) globally, will be much more helpful and always warmly welcome.

 

We developed such a scheme lately and intend to develop it further, the starting of C sink certification you can find it here if you are interested https://www.european-biochar.org/media/doc/26/c_en_sink-potential.pdf. It already enables trading C sinks (see https://carbonfuture.earth/). I would be highly interested in schemes that can make sure that smallholder farmers can be included and that the biochar that is produced and used can be counted and certified. How to enable that and make sure it’s fool-proof? That no one can betray it and count „air C sinks“? I haven’t worked there, I have no idea about it. But solutions will only come with open-minded discussions.

 

Let’s all try to find solutions, not to do bashing or condemnation of each other‘s work J

 

Best regards,

Claudia Kammann

 

 

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io [mailto:main@Biochar.groups.io] Im Auftrag von d.michael.shafer@...
Gesendet: Montag, 3. August 2020 11:59
An: main@biochar.groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

Tomaso,

 

You are absolutely correct about the potential instability of injected, liquid CO2. I, however, have never considered this a carbon removal technology but only an emissions reduction technology. Collecting CO2 from power plant stacks does no more than reduce the about of new, fossil CO2 being emitted.

 

As for your comment about the term "burying" I agree, but think that we should go further. If you read the Chinese paper on the long-term impact of biochar in soil that Tom just recommended, you will see that the addition of biochar to soil dramatically increases soil's capacity to grab and sequester more CO2. Adding biochar to the soil results in increasing CO2 removal; it is not a static removal number.

 

M


 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. photo

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net

Project number 219008  

 

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 

without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 

the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests

and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

 

image.png

 

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

 

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

 

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

 

if not I will try sending an email myself

 

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

 

Tomaso 

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:

i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

 

M


 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  


Re: A general reply to Michael's notes

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Claudia,

Thank you very much for your patient and reasoned reply to my recent impatient and unreasoned rant. Although to my amazement it has elicited a large number of personal emails thanking me for saying what needed saying, I want to apologize to you for my intemperance.

What first struck me while reading your response was how much I was learning about a world of modeling and so on, stuff I had never heard of. What then really hit me hard was that we live in entirely different worlds. It is not simply that I do not know about all of these major international study groups and studies that are going on, but that I could never afford to belong to them if I did. Once this occurred to me and I sat back to count on my fingers, I realized how very small these two worlds we inhabit are. There simply are not very many people engaged in the big endeavor and I know very few engaged in the little endeavor. The question is then: would greater good follow from cooperation?

This is an excellent question. Needless to say, we could all do with a world less roiled by uncivil voices like mine. But your real question goes much further and suggests that at base, I undermine the very cause I seek to promote by railing against those engaged in report writing, standard setting, and so on. The suggestion is that if you and yours succeed, the small farmers I care for will be at least provided access to the climate change money pool, and perhaps even embraced.

I have two reservations. The first is simple: time. By your own admission, you do not anticipate rapid progress on the biochar certification and recognition fronts, etc. (And, yes, I do recognize that the European Certification was meant for Europe, but where do poor countries look for the lead on such subjects? The EBC is today the de facto global standard. Your comment on PHAs is generally apt: Bureaucracies are not fine instruments. They tend to mash not slice.) So what happens to those on the margin in the meantime? Even if all of this were ultimately to deliver some form of financial support, how many will die waiting? My trainers work in villages that are down to a meal a day of corn gruel. Time is not on our side.

Second, the notion that once everything is in place politically and scientifically, all that will remain is to get these small farmers to figure out a foolproof, verifiable and certifiable system for counting their char burials overlooks rather a lot of the reality of life in the rural areas of much of the developing world. Take CarbonFuture, for example, how in the world could anyone provide SBC certification of the char produced by tens of thousands of small farmers using TLUDS, troughs and trenches - there being no certification for "whatever" biochar? How in the world could anyone provide blockchain verification of what happened to the char - not least when no one recognizes any agency to deal collectively for large numbers of individuals over whom it does not exercise physical control? Without power or cell phone coverage, for example, most rural people we work with don't have phones. When we ask farmers to text us pictures of their crops or the biochar they make, we get blank looks. And we should know. This is just the surface; it gets much worse. Did I mention the corruption of officials unpaid for months at a time? Or....

What if we came at these related questions from a different, more utilitarian point of view, the greatest good for the greatest number. We know from the research that there are feedstocks that provide better chars for specific purposes, that different residence times and temperatures result in chars better for this or that, that the same is true with quenching. All of these tweaks are readily available to anyone in the OECD who wishes to make char. None of them are available to small, rural farmers. These farmers must use whatever feedstock and whatever low-rent technology they have to produce whatever biochar comes out. OECD biochar is easy to standardize and certify; small farmer "whatever" biochar is another matter.

Does the fact that 2.5 billion small farmers with 500 million farms and limited access to ag chemicals, rising temperatures and falling precipitation suggest that addressing this sort of "whatever" biochar should not be our primary focus? I mean, on a person to person basis, the developing world is much bigger than the developed. With population growth flattening or falling in the EU and US while it continues to grow in the developing world, isn't there a Benthamite reason to look South? Am I being American because of the Big Orange One and his wall? I think not. Orange is also the color of the life vests the hunger migrants from Africa wear as they attempt the Mediterrainian wall. (Ach, yes, "someday you, too, will have your Trump" to paraphrase (badly) Haile Selassie before the League as the Italians invaded his country,)

Should we cooperate more? Absolutely. How? I have no idea. I cannot fly around the world to attend conferences in Europe and the Antipodes. I know few real scientists who are comfortable sleeping on the floor with the flees, ticks, lice, goats and entire family. It is a big gap. Maybe we should just recognize that we have common, humanitarian goals.

M




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:36 PM Claudia Kammann <claudia.kammann@...> wrote:

I have read that there was more discussion from the side of Michael Shafer (Schäfer?) lately, condemning standards like the EBC (which was never made for developing countries but for Europe, like the name says), but at the same time, rejecting negative emission shemes like BECCS. It is right to be afraid of those, they would likely lead to land grabbing, if this strategy does make it through to global politics. The global politics, however, are mostly advised by earth system modeler scientists when it comes to climate change, mostly people doing IAMs (Integrated assessment models) that are rather economically driven. In other words, „let’s throw money this way and things will be fixed (regarding the necessary negative emissions)“. This would leave out or even endanger the existence of smallholder farmers to an extent that you wouldn’t like to think about, believe me…

 

This is one of the reasons why we tried to  get the earth climate modeller community doing assessments on Negative Emissions to acknowledge that biochar is a tool in a large diverse Negative Emission Technologies (NET) toolbox that they have so far overlooked. By working with them, which was a mutually enjoyable process of learning from each other. And this is how PyCCS as a NET came to be, why it was included in the 1.5°C IPCC special report. Our hope was to raise awareness that this tool in the NET toolbox can be applied everywhere, from small-scale rural for everyone, made by low-cost efforts, to industrial-scale when it comes to Europe or North America. (The EBC guidelines helped a little with the legislation in some European countries because they included all the rules, silly or not, that existed already around fertilizer laws and soil protection regulation and so on. Ignoring these would have resulted in zero legal way of using biochar. These regulation guys don’t care how logical things are, or if PAHs (if they exist) would even be bioavailable. If they are present, they just give you a fat „no“ and that’s it for you.)

 

We tried and still try to embrace the topic of biochar in research from this broad perspective, „Global and political governance“ and „local-rural for everyone“: The one who initiated the EBC (Hans-Peter Schmidt) also developed the Kon-Tiki Pyrolysis together with Paul Taylor as far as I know, back in 2014. They immediately put everything online, so that no one would go and put a patent on it; that it can be freely used by whoever wants to use it. Hans-Peter applied that newfound knowledge in a project in Nepal where the intention was to replace mineral (expensive) fertilizers in rural Nepal villages, which showed the potential for small doses of urine-biochar and manure compost as a root zone fertilizer. We published  the results of 21 field trials with on average 100% yield increase back in 2017 in Land Degradation and Development, which may be seen as proof of this broad spectrum of ours of approaching biochar. We/he also published the only review out there on animal feeding of biochar (Schmidt et al. 2019 in PeerJ). The latter work was financed by the same project that helped us to develop PyCCS, by the way…. I can sent both papers in case someone is interested (from a

 

Thus, to shoot someone first, verbally, calling them „gurus who’s approval no one needs“, and to ask questions later may be a little bit…. An American thing to do…? (Imagine me smiling, this is not said with spite.)

 

I just want to make sure, within this discussion, that a fight against certification schemes (that were meant for Europe) is simply not needed. In my view, a waste of energy. Rather, mutual discussions about how to improve approaches, in particular for trading C sinks (Negative emissions) globally, will be much more helpful and always warmly welcome.

 

We developed such a scheme lately and intend to develop it further, the starting of C sink certification you can find it here if you are interested https://www.european-biochar.org/media/doc/26/c_en_sink-potential.pdf. It already enables trading C sinks (see https://carbonfuture.earth/). I would be highly interested in schemes that can make sure that smallholder farmers can be included and that the biochar that is produced and used can be counted and certified. How to enable that and make sure it’s fool-proof? That no one can betray it and count „air C sinks“? I haven’t worked there, I have no idea about it. But solutions will only come with open-minded discussions.

 

Let’s all try to find solutions, not to do bashing or condemnation of each other‘s work J

 

Best regards,

Claudia Kammann

 

 

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io [mailto:main@Biochar.groups.io] Im Auftrag von d.michael.shafer@...
Gesendet: Montag, 3. August 2020 11:59
An: main@biochar.groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

Tomaso,

 

You are absolutely correct about the potential instability of injected, liquid CO2. I, however, have never considered this a carbon removal technology but only an emissions reduction technology. Collecting CO2 from power plant stacks does no more than reduce the about of new, fossil CO2 being emitted.

 

As for your comment about the term "burying" I agree, but think that we should go further. If you read the Chinese paper on the long-term impact of biochar in soil that Tom just recommended, you will see that the addition of biochar to soil dramatically increases soil's capacity to grab and sequester more CO2. Adding biochar to the soil results in increasing CO2 removal; it is not a static removal number.

 

M




Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. photo

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net

Project number 219008  

 

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 

without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 

the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests

and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

 

image.png

 

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

 

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

 

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

 

if not I will try sending an email myself

 

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

 

Tomaso 

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:

i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

 

M


 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  


Growing Bedding Plants With Biochar And Vermicompost #vermicompost

Tom Miles
 

Good work with biochar and vermicompost by Jose M Alvarez de la Puente.

https://www.biocycle.net/growing-bedding-plants-with-biochar-and-vermicompost/

See his Biochar and Bioenergy 2019 presentation at on USBiochar at https://bit.ly/2DepszG

Tom Miles

Executive Director

U.S. Biochar Initiative

"Promoting the Sustainable Production and Use of Biochar"

www.biochar-us.org

@USbiochar

Facebook US Biochar Initiative

USBI Logo - Copy (420x176) 

 

 

 


[CDR] Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review | SpringerLink #CDR #climate

Ron Larson
 

List:

The following was written with the intent to send to this list.  Mainly recommending the recent review paper in my item #4.  But also asking about word frequency studies - and what happens with and without the word “biochar”.

Ron


Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review | SpringerLink
Date: August 4, 2020 at 1:42:02 PM MDT
To: Greg Rau <ghrau@...>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@...>

Greg and list:

1.   Thanks for this alert on what we might call the “Fawzy” paper.    Below a few comments from a biochar perspective - after a few hours of review.   Overall I think biochar was treated fairly - with one exception given next.  I have only skimmed the other sections of the paper.

2.   I enjoyed the word density charts of their Figure 4 - but believe it deficient as they didn’t perform their search using the word “biochar”.  Their roughly 4000 cites for the years 2015-2020 would probably have been more than doubled had “biochar” been an included search term - so I can understand not including “biochar".  But I think the resultant chart still must be missing the important CDR trends that involve biochar.
  I remember seeing a similar word char with biochar - can anyone gives a cite for other such bibliometric searches?

3.   Their cite for the biochar paper by Semida is not free but is available through ResearchGate and is worth reading. 

4.   I was especially impressed by their reference to a paper by T.J. Purakayastha et al:  "A review on biochar modulated soil condition improvements and nutrient dynamics concerning crop yields: pathways to climate change mitigation and global food security.”  
Still behind a pay way, but Google Scholar gave this early version:  http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/144976/1/accepted%20version.pdf.  Section 3 of the paper is on the climate aspects of biochar - but mostly this (like most biochar papers) is on soils.  Well over 150 cites I think - and several good summary figures that were new to me.

5.  Anyone have similar comments on this paper’s treatment of the other CDR approaches?

Ron


On Aug 3, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Greg Rau <ghrau@...> wrote:


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w


"Climate change is defined as the shift in climate patterns mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions from natural systems and human activities. So far, anthropogenic activities have caused about 1.0 °C of global warming above the pre-industrial level and this is likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 if the current emission rates persist. In 2018, the world encountered 315 cases of natural disasters which are mainly related to the climate. Approximately 68.5 million people were affected, and economic losses amounted to $131.7 billion, of which storms, floods, wildfires and droughts accounted for approximately 93%. Economic losses attributed to wildfires in 2018 alone are almost equal to the collective losses from wildfires incurred over the past decade, which is quite alarming. Furthermore, food, water, health, ecosystem, human habitat and infrastructure have been identified as the most vulnerable sectors under climate attack. In 2015, the Paris agreement was introduced with the main objective of limiting global temperature increase to 2 °C by 2100 and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C. This article reviews the main strategies for climate change abatement, namely conventional mitigation, negative emissions and radiative forcing geoengineering. Conventional mitigation technologies focus on reducing fossil-based CO2 emissions. Negative emissions technologies are aiming to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon to reduce carbon dioxide levels. Finally, geoengineering techniques of radiative forcing alter the earth’s radiative energy budget to stabilize or reduce global temperatures. It is evident that conventional mitigation efforts alone are not sufficient to meet the targets stipulated by the Paris agreement; therefore, the utilization of alternative routes appears inevitable. While various technologies presented may still be at an early stage of development, biogenic-based sequestration techniques are to a certain extent mature and can be deployed immediately."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2918671A-AC27-4B1A-8D23-87C6468EA2FF%40sbcglobal.net.



Re: Charging Biochar with Urine - Hole in Ground - Simplest Method #urine

 

I have done a small application at my farm of char charged with urine.  I'm not sure how long before I see some results.  I pee in 14 liter pails of processed to 1/8 minus char.  I would say it's correct to assume there would be no leaching, because there is absolutely no smell.

Cheers
David 




David R Derbowka                   owner

Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 
eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |



On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:48 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:
Kevin,

I like the idea (not surprisingly) and especially the idea of peeing on the hole nightly.

As long as the char goes in first, I don't think that you have to worry about leaching. The whole point of combining the biochar with traditional urine fertilization is that the char ought to hold the N and other valuable minerals from the pee. 

I think that you are going to have to get the whole family out there peeing if they are planting any reasonable amount of corn. You might want to suggest that they collect pee for a few weeks in advance (especially if they can evaporate it some).

The idea of peeing on the holes multiple times is a good one. I have been told by some that you cannot "load" char by, for example, soaking it in water mixed with NPK. Despite that, we like to add as much pee as possible to our char, dry it in the sun and then add more on the notion that if you dry off the water, you leave the good stuff behind and ought to be able to add more. I am sure that there is a limit set by total cation locations, but if your pee is rich enough to max them out, you may not need to be peeing on your holes personally.

You might suggest to folks that they look to their diets when preparing pee. You tend to pee out excess stuff, so if you can get them to eat lots of dark greens, for example, you might be able to up the amount of X, Y or Z that they are peeing out.

M



photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT Read More
    

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:31 PM Kevin McLean <info@...> wrote:
I'd like to know the absolute simplest method to charge biochar - a method that will be simple to train and implement. My goal is not perfect but "good enough".  (A Michael Shaferism.)

Sun24 hopes to partner with the Catholic and Anglican Churches in Africa to train smallholder farmers to make and use biochar. Most farmers do not have easy access to manure.   In Uganda, a maize planting is in a few weeks.  I want to test this with several farmers.
 
Please give your thoughts on this charging method:
1.  Dig a hole in the ground.
2.  Put the char in the hole either as a batch or by regularly adding small amounts.
3.  Urinate daily on the char.
4.  If the farmer has access to manure, it can be mixed in at a 50:50 ratio.  

I hope Steps 1-3 can stand on their own.  In the upcoming maize planting we will only charge with urine.  Step 4 especially needs vetting.

Trainers can easily be trained on this method and families can easily learn and implement it.

Christa Roth recommended that the hole not be outside to avoid leaching.  If the hole is outside, a mound should be built around it to keep surface water from flowing into it.  Is leaching a significant concern?

Must the char be crushed to a certain size?  Any other thoughts on effectiveness or improvements?  

Thank you,
Kevin

Kevin McLean, President
Sun24
Tampa, Florida, USA
+1 (813) 505-3340

                     


Re: A general reply to Michael's notes

Harry Groot
 

Claudia, Thanks for your emphasis on the need for collaboration and cooperation.  It's needed now (globally, tho particularly in the US!) and will be needed as an effective management tool increasingly as time passes and conditions worsen.  

Thanks too for the work you've done and shared willingly.

Harry Groot
Dovetail Partners, Inc.

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:36 AM Claudia Kammann <claudia.kammann@...> wrote:

I have read that there was more discussion from the side of Michael Shafer (Schäfer?) lately, condemning standards like the EBC (which was never made for developing countries but for Europe, like the name says), but at the same time, rejecting negative emission shemes like BECCS. It is right to be afraid of those, they would likely lead to land grabbing, if this strategy does make it through to global politics. The global politics, however, are mostly advised by earth system modeler scientists when it comes to climate change, mostly people doing IAMs (Integrated assessment models) that are rather economically driven. In other words, „let’s throw money this way and things will be fixed (regarding the necessary negative emissions)“. This would leave out or even endanger the existence of smallholder farmers to an extent that you wouldn’t like to think about, believe me…

 

This is one of the reasons why we tried to  get the earth climate modeller community doing assessments on Negative Emissions to acknowledge that biochar is a tool in a large diverse Negative Emission Technologies (NET) toolbox that they have so far overlooked. By working with them, which was a mutually enjoyable process of learning from each other. And this is how PyCCS as a NET came to be, why it was included in the 1.5°C IPCC special report. Our hope was to raise awareness that this tool in the NET toolbox can be applied everywhere, from small-scale rural for everyone, made by low-cost efforts, to industrial-scale when it comes to Europe or North America. (The EBC guidelines helped a little with the legislation in some European countries because they included all the rules, silly or not, that existed already around fertilizer laws and soil protection regulation and so on. Ignoring these would have resulted in zero legal way of using biochar. These regulation guys don’t care how logical things are, or if PAHs (if they exist) would even be bioavailable. If they are present, they just give you a fat „no“ and that’s it for you.)

 

We tried and still try to embrace the topic of biochar in research from this broad perspective, „Global and political governance“ and „local-rural for everyone“: The one who initiated the EBC (Hans-Peter Schmidt) also developed the Kon-Tiki Pyrolysis together with Paul Taylor as far as I know, back in 2014. They immediately put everything online, so that no one would go and put a patent on it; that it can be freely used by whoever wants to use it. Hans-Peter applied that newfound knowledge in a project in Nepal where the intention was to replace mineral (expensive) fertilizers in rural Nepal villages, which showed the potential for small doses of urine-biochar and manure compost as a root zone fertilizer. We published  the results of 21 field trials with on average 100% yield increase back in 2017 in Land Degradation and Development, which may be seen as proof of this broad spectrum of ours of approaching biochar. We/he also published the only review out there on animal feeding of biochar (Schmidt et al. 2019 in PeerJ). The latter work was financed by the same project that helped us to develop PyCCS, by the way…. I can sent both papers in case someone is interested (from a

 

Thus, to shoot someone first, verbally, calling them „gurus who’s approval no one needs“, and to ask questions later may be a little bit…. An American thing to do…? (Imagine me smiling, this is not said with spite.)

 

I just want to make sure, within this discussion, that a fight against certification schemes (that were meant for Europe) is simply not needed. In my view, a waste of energy. Rather, mutual discussions about how to improve approaches, in particular for trading C sinks (Negative emissions) globally, will be much more helpful and always warmly welcome.

 

We developed such a scheme lately and intend to develop it further, the starting of C sink certification you can find it here if you are interested https://www.european-biochar.org/media/doc/26/c_en_sink-potential.pdf. It already enables trading C sinks (see https://carbonfuture.earth/). I would be highly interested in schemes that can make sure that smallholder farmers can be included and that the biochar that is produced and used can be counted and certified. How to enable that and make sure it’s fool-proof? That no one can betray it and count „air C sinks“? I haven’t worked there, I have no idea about it. But solutions will only come with open-minded discussions.

 

Let’s all try to find solutions, not to do bashing or condemnation of each other‘s work J

 

Best regards,

Claudia Kammann

 

 

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io [mailto:main@Biochar.groups.io] Im Auftrag von d.michael.shafer@...
Gesendet: Montag, 3. August 2020 11:59
An: main@biochar.groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

Tomaso,

 

You are absolutely correct about the potential instability of injected, liquid CO2. I, however, have never considered this a carbon removal technology but only an emissions reduction technology. Collecting CO2 from power plant stacks does no more than reduce the about of new, fossil CO2 being emitted.

 

As for your comment about the term "burying" I agree, but think that we should go further. If you read the Chinese paper on the long-term impact of biochar in soil that Tom just recommended, you will see that the addition of biochar to soil dramatically increases soil's capacity to grab and sequester more CO2. Adding biochar to the soil results in increasing CO2 removal; it is not a static removal number.

 

M




Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. photo

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net

Project number 219008  

 

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 

without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 

the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests

and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

 

image.png

 

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

 

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

 

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

 

if not I will try sending an email myself

 

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

 

Tomaso 

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:

i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

 

M


 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  


Re: You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read #characteristics #biochar

Rick Wilson
 

Michael,  I believe that the major unique benefit of biochar in soil is to induce carbon sequestration. For that you need incentives.

There are other benefits in soil of course, but in most cases they can be achieved by other low cost means
  • Biochar has a high pH. So if your soil is acidic it can help. Neutral pH frees up nutrients. 
  • Biochar has high air filled porosity. So if you have a soil with little aeration or low infiltration it can help by providing oxygen and water to microbes that facilitate nutrient uptake.
  • If your soil is low in labile organic matter – you can use pyrolysis char with has organic matter that can feed the microbiome.  
  • Some biochar are high in potassium, particularly gasifier chars, which is a critical nutrient helping the microbiome convert potassium to plant usable forms
  • Some biochar helps compost get to maturity sooner.  But you can also just move your compost pile off site and let it mature
Most of what you see biochar does in soil in practice can be explained by these simple effects.  Biochar has its greatest value when it can address multiple of these soil challenges.
If you start with a soil analysis, and do the right tests, and also analyze the biochar as a soil, you can quickly see if biochar can help. 

In the end, biochar can not cost much more than compost for it to go to scale. (If that were not the case, it would have happened by now)

Rick


On Aug 3, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Michael Woelk <mike@...> wrote:

In addition to what others are saying, I suggest the concept of “additionality” is wrongheaded. It penalizes business models, like biochar production,  that deliver co-linear benefits to customers unlike direct air capture & storage that deliver ZERO co-linear benefits to customers. From the paper - additionality requires that “a project would not take place in the absence of the incentives provided through the existence of carbon market mechanisms, e.g. revenues from carbon credits.” 
Imagine pitching investors and customers, “Here’s the good part. Our value proposition is so low. In fact, it’s zero! We’d have no customers without carbon markets,”?  To significantly scale carbon drawdown markets (any market for that matter) incentives/benefits should be bundled to maximize customer value! 
Mike
 
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:52 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read
 
The graphic appears to assume that biochar is being made by harvesting perfectly good forests. Otherwise it would be shown as a derivative of biomass. 
As a product of biomass, biochar should have a node after "Capture from biomass" and be shown to be longer-term than underground storage. Who is considering underground storage of biomass anyway? Is that compost? 
They seem to think that sequestering captured CO2 can be done with the same methods as sequestering biomass. 
That's just from looking at the graphic which, IMHO, is seriously flawed and prejudicial toward biochar.

Chars,
Robert Gillett 



Re: You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read #characteristics #biochar

Michael Woelk
 

In addition to what others are saying, I suggest the concept of “additionality” is wrongheaded. It penalizes business models, like biochar production,  that deliver co-linear benefits to customers unlike direct air capture & storage that deliver ZERO co-linear benefits to customers. From the paper - additionality requires that “a project would not take place in the absence of the incentives provided through the existence of carbon market mechanisms, e.g. revenues from carbon credits.”

Imagine pitching investors and customers, “Here’s the good part. Our value proposition is so low. In fact, it’s zero! We’d have no customers without carbon markets,”?  To significantly scale carbon drawdown markets (any market for that matter) incentives/benefits should be bundled to maximize customer value!

Mike

 

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:52 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

The graphic appears to assume that biochar is being made by harvesting perfectly good forests. Otherwise it would be shown as a derivative of biomass.
As a product of biomass, biochar should have a node after "Capture from biomass" and be shown to be longer-term than underground storage. Who is considering underground storage of biomass anyway? Is that compost?
They seem to think that sequestering captured CO2 can be done with the same methods as sequestering biomass.
That's just from looking at the graphic which, IMHO, is seriously flawed and prejudicial toward biochar.

Chars,
Robert Gillett


Re: You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read #characteristics #biochar

Frank Strie
 

Hello Robert Gillett and all,
Ever since Hans-Peter Schmidt of the Ithaka Institute for Carbon Intelligence introduced the Carbon Cascade of  “55 uses of Biochar” then followed by Kathleen Draper with the outline of what she called  ‘the Biochar Displacement Strategy’ in the Biochar Journal and seriously since Albert Bates  & Kathleen Draper presented the book ‘BURN Using Fire to Cool the Earth’ in print or as an audio version, is it possible to imagine the enormous scale potential of Pyrogenic Carbon Capture & Sequestration / Storage PyCCS.
Let’s get on with it and keep working
Frank

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 1:52 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

The graphic appears to assume that biochar is being made by harvesting perfectly good forests. Otherwise it would be shown as a derivative of biomass.
As a product of biomass, biochar should have a node after "Capture from biomass" and be shown to be longer-term than underground storage. Who is considering underground storage of biomass anyway? Is that compost?
They seem to think that sequestering captured CO2 can be done with the same methods as sequestering biomass.
That's just from looking at the graphic which, IMHO, is seriously flawed and prejudicial toward biochar.

Chars,
Robert Gillett


Re: A general reply to Michael's notes

Frank Strie
 

Thank you Claudia for the excellent and authentic explanations and this matters:
I would be highly interested in schemes that can make sure that smallholder farmers can be included and that the biochar that is produced and used can be counted and certified. How to enable that and make sure it’s fool-proof? That no one can betray it and count „air C sinks“? I haven’t worked there, I have no idea about it. But solutions will only come with open-minded discussions.

Let’s all try to find solutions, not to do bashing or condemnation of each other‘s work ”

Be assured that I / we will be doing our BIT = Biochar Initiative Tasmania, to collaborate with you and the EBC design team and the IBI to be ‘glocally’ responsible and effective. We will aim to get on with things on the local level (TAS) to address things authentically, be that  in regenerative agriculture, the circular bioeconomy and restorative forest management and also involving regenerative tourism in AUS & NZ when/ as  possible. The communication tools we have now are a great way to ‘cut through the fear and chase’ address mistrust and tackle misunderstandings. It will be fascinating how things will grow from here.
Let’s all keep up the valuable work in progress.
Best wishes and thanks
Frank
www.terrapretadevelopments.com.au

“Regenerative Together”

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Claudia Kammann
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 12:37 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: [Biochar] A general reply to Michael's notes

 

I have read that there was more discussion from the side of Michael Shafer (Schäfer?) lately, condemning standards like the EBC (which was never made for developing countries but for Europe, like the name says), but at the same time, rejecting negative emission shemes like BECCS. It is right to be afraid of those, they would likely lead to land grabbing, if this strategy does make it through to global politics. The global politics, however, are mostly advised by earth system modeler scientists when it comes to climate change, mostly people doing IAMs (Integrated assessment models) that are rather economically driven. In other words, „let’s throw money this way and things will be fixed (regarding the necessary negative emissions)“. This would leave out or even endanger the existence of smallholder farmers to an extent that you wouldn’t like to think about, believe me…

 

This is one of the reasons why we tried to  get the earth climate modeller community doing assessments on Negative Emissions to acknowledge that biochar is a tool in a large diverse Negative Emission Technologies (NET) toolbox that they have so far overlooked. By working with them, which was a mutually enjoyable process of learning from each other. And this is how PyCCS as a NET came to be, why it was included in the 1.5°C IPCC special report. Our hope was to raise awareness that this tool in the NET toolbox can be applied everywhere, from small-scale rural for everyone, made by low-cost efforts, to industrial-scale when it comes to Europe or North America. (The EBC guidelines helped a little with the legislation in some European countries because they included all the rules, silly or not, that existed already around fertilizer laws and soil protection regulation and so on. Ignoring these would have resulted in zero legal way of using biochar. These regulation guys don’t care how logical things are, or if PAHs (if they exist) would even be bioavailable. If they are present, they just give you a fat „no“ and that’s it for you.)

 

We tried and still try to embrace the topic of biochar in research from this broad perspective, „Global and political governance“ and „local-rural for everyone“: The one who initiated the EBC (Hans-Peter Schmidt) also developed the Kon-Tiki Pyrolysis together with Paul Taylor as far as I know, back in 2014. They immediately put everything online, so that no one would go and put a patent on it; that it can be freely used by whoever wants to use it. Hans-Peter applied that newfound knowledge in a project in Nepal where the intention was to replace mineral (expensive) fertilizers in rural Nepal villages, which showed the potential for small doses of urine-biochar and manure compost as a root zone fertilizer. We published  the results of 21 field trials with on average 100% yield increase back in 2017 in Land Degradation and Development, which may be seen as proof of this broad spectrum of ours of approaching biochar. We/he also published the only review out there on animal feeding of biochar (Schmidt et al. 2019 in PeerJ). The latter work was financed by the same project that helped us to develop PyCCS, by the way…. I can sent both papers in case someone is interested (from a

 

Thus, to shoot someone first, verbally, calling them „gurus who’s approval no one needs“, and to ask questions later may be a little bit…. An American thing to do…? (Imagine me smiling, this is not said with spite.)

 

I just want to make sure, within this discussion, that a fight against certification schemes (that were meant for Europe) is simply not needed. In my view, a waste of energy. Rather, mutual discussions about how to improve approaches, in particular for trading C sinks (Negative emissions) globally, will be much more helpful and always warmly welcome.

 

We developed such a scheme lately and intend to develop it further, the starting of C sink certification you can find it here if you are interested https://www.european-biochar.org/media/doc/26/c_en_sink-potential.pdf. It already enables trading C sinks (see https://carbonfuture.earth/). I would be highly interested in schemes that can make sure that smallholder farmers can be included and that the biochar that is produced and used can be counted and certified. How to enable that and make sure it’s fool-proof? That no one can betray it and count „air C sinks“? I haven’t worked there, I have no idea about it. But solutions will only come with open-minded discussions.

 

Let’s all try to find solutions, not to do bashing or condemnation of each other‘s work J

 

Best regards,

Claudia Kammann

 

 

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io [mailto:main@Biochar.groups.io] Im Auftrag von d.michael.shafer@...
Gesendet: Montag, 3. August 2020 11:59
An: main@biochar.groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

Tomaso,

 

You are absolutely correct about the potential instability of injected, liquid CO2. I, however, have never considered this a carbon removal technology but only an emissions reduction technology. Collecting CO2 from power plant stacks does no more than reduce the about of new, fossil CO2 being emitted.

 

As for your comment about the term "burying" I agree, but think that we should go further. If you read the Chinese paper on the long-term impact of biochar in soil that Tom just recommended, you will see that the addition of biochar to soil dramatically increases soil's capacity to grab and sequester more CO2. Adding biochar to the soil results in increasing CO2 removal; it is not a static removal number.

 

M


 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. photo

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net

Project number 219008  

 

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 

without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 

the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests

and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

 

image.png

 

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

 

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

 

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

 

if not I will try sending an email myself

 

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

 

Tomaso 

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:

i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

 

M


 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  


Re: You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read #characteristics #biochar

ROBERT W GILLETT
 

The graphic appears to assume that biochar is being made by harvesting perfectly good forests. Otherwise it would be shown as a derivative of biomass.
As a product of biomass, biochar should have a node after "Capture from biomass" and be shown to be longer-term than underground storage. Who is considering underground storage of biomass anyway? Is that compost?
They seem to think that sequestering captured CO2 can be done with the same methods as sequestering biomass.
That's just from looking at the graphic which, IMHO, is seriously flawed and prejudicial toward biochar.

Chars,
Robert Gillett


Re: You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read #characteristics #biochar

Paul S Anderson
 

Tomaso, Michael and all,           (Someone please provide the link to the original document.  Was it Carniege C2ES?)

 

I agree with Tomaso that the graphic should be changed or we (the biochar community) need to severely criticize it to the point that WE need to insist upon (or even create ourselves) an improved version.     Some improvements are noted in my continuation of comments below the graphic.

 

Comments about the graphic.

 

1.  It is simplistic (a good feature in some ways) with three columns:

     A.  Left column is CDR technologies without any arrow to indicate why the order was selected.  But the order implies that NATURAL processes of soils, forests and crops are not as good as the man-made processes (DACCS and EW).  The graphic totally overlooks the issues of 1) cost to implement, and 2) availability of the technology now (vs. dreams of the future).  Add such info to the graph to show these important factors.

     B.  Central column that allows for the arrows (which are all of equal thickness, as if equal in reality).   NOTE the error that “Biochar” comes from Forest (not from crops) and is not included in the box “Capture from Biomass.”   Duhhh.   Where do they think biochar comes from?

     C.  Right-side column is clearly marked (with the arrow) as being in order (with a rank-order scale, not quantitative scale).   And worse, the order is WRONG.   How can biochar from forest material be less permanent than the harvest-ready forests that will eventually die and decompose?   And less permanent than “capture from biomass that comes from crops”?     Add on to that Michael’s comments about leakage of CO2 underground storage (which is clearly separated from CO2 injected underground ford “mineralization” – which is long term).  Biochar should be placed in the favorable position next to mineralization.

 

2.  A graphic like this could have more quantitative expression (such as the potential for soil carbon as storage, etc.), AND expressed in maybe 3 or 4 graphs with quantitative estimates for 2020, 2030, 2050, and 2100.   THAT would show that the natural solutions are able to be implemented now (2020 – 2030) and that the man-made solutions are betting on 2050 and beyond, which is important, but needs to be shown clearly.   We advocate ALL CDR methods.   But keep them in the right perspective.

 

3.  And also the graphics can note the costs and the benefits.   Yes, benefits.   For example, biochar PRODUCTION can have a component for the use of the heat to offset the need for fossil-fuel-generated heat for space heating (homes, apartment complexes, schools, business ventures like shopping malls, and urban business districts, and also for process heat that is in the under 800 deg. C range --  which is a massive need and possible with heat from pyrolysis/biochar processes.  One of the big pitches for the future transition away from fossil fuel is job creation and the new activites regarding replacement energy.

 

So, I strongly agree with Tomaso about the need to get that incorrect graphic changed.   This is an issue of education, to inform the public, the decision makers, and also the K-12 and university students who are being taught inaccurate information.  

 

Note:  In my professional career before retirement, I was a professor of geography, including mapping/ cartography / graphics with data.   I volunteer to help design the new graphic(s).   But some help is needed for do the computer graphics / display.   Any volunteers?    Contact me at   psanders@...   or via discussion on the Biochar Discussion Group.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.com

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tomaso Bertoli - CISV via groups.io
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 4:46 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net

Project number 219008  

 

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 

without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 

the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests

and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

 

 

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

 

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

 

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

 

if not I will try sending an email myself

 

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

 

Tomaso 

 


A general reply to Michael's notes

Claudia Kammann
 

I have read that there was more discussion from the side of Michael Shafer (Schäfer?) lately, condemning standards like the EBC (which was never made for developing countries but for Europe, like the name says), but at the same time, rejecting negative emission shemes like BECCS. It is right to be afraid of those, they would likely lead to land grabbing, if this strategy does make it through to global politics. The global politics, however, are mostly advised by earth system modeler scientists when it comes to climate change, mostly people doing IAMs (Integrated assessment models) that are rather economically driven. In other words, „let’s throw money this way and things will be fixed (regarding the necessary negative emissions)“. This would leave out or even endanger the existence of smallholder farmers to an extent that you wouldn’t like to think about, believe me…

 

This is one of the reasons why we tried to  get the earth climate modeller community doing assessments on Negative Emissions to acknowledge that biochar is a tool in a large diverse Negative Emission Technologies (NET) toolbox that they have so far overlooked. By working with them, which was a mutually enjoyable process of learning from each other. And this is how PyCCS as a NET came to be, why it was included in the 1.5°C IPCC special report. Our hope was to raise awareness that this tool in the NET toolbox can be applied everywhere, from small-scale rural for everyone, made by low-cost efforts, to industrial-scale when it comes to Europe or North America. (The EBC guidelines helped a little with the legislation in some European countries because they included all the rules, silly or not, that existed already around fertilizer laws and soil protection regulation and so on. Ignoring these would have resulted in zero legal way of using biochar. These regulation guys don’t care how logical things are, or if PAHs (if they exist) would even be bioavailable. If they are present, they just give you a fat „no“ and that’s it for you.)

 

We tried and still try to embrace the topic of biochar in research from this broad perspective, „Global and political governance“ and „local-rural for everyone“: The one who initiated the EBC (Hans-Peter Schmidt) also developed the Kon-Tiki Pyrolysis together with Paul Taylor as far as I know, back in 2014. They immediately put everything online, so that no one would go and put a patent on it; that it can be freely used by whoever wants to use it. Hans-Peter applied that newfound knowledge in a project in Nepal where the intention was to replace mineral (expensive) fertilizers in rural Nepal villages, which showed the potential for small doses of urine-biochar and manure compost as a root zone fertilizer. We published  the results of 21 field trials with on average 100% yield increase back in 2017 in Land Degradation and Development, which may be seen as proof of this broad spectrum of ours of approaching biochar. We/he also published the only review out there on animal feeding of biochar (Schmidt et al. 2019 in PeerJ). The latter work was financed by the same project that helped us to develop PyCCS, by the way…. I can sent both papers in case someone is interested (from a

 

Thus, to shoot someone first, verbally, calling them „gurus who’s approval no one needs“, and to ask questions later may be a little bit…. An American thing to do…? (Imagine me smiling, this is not said with spite.)

 

I just want to make sure, within this discussion, that a fight against certification schemes (that were meant for Europe) is simply not needed. In my view, a waste of energy. Rather, mutual discussions about how to improve approaches, in particular for trading C sinks (Negative emissions) globally, will be much more helpful and always warmly welcome.

 

We developed such a scheme lately and intend to develop it further, the starting of C sink certification you can find it here if you are interested https://www.european-biochar.org/media/doc/26/c_en_sink-potential.pdf. It already enables trading C sinks (see https://carbonfuture.earth/). I would be highly interested in schemes that can make sure that smallholder farmers can be included and that the biochar that is produced and used can be counted and certified. How to enable that and make sure it’s fool-proof? That no one can betray it and count „air C sinks“? I haven’t worked there, I have no idea about it. But solutions will only come with open-minded discussions.

 

Let’s all try to find solutions, not to do bashing or condemnation of each other‘s work J

 

Best regards,

Claudia Kammann

 

 

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io [mailto:main@Biochar.groups.io] Im Auftrag von d.michael.shafer@...
Gesendet: Montag, 3. August 2020 11:59
An: main@biochar.groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

Tomaso,

 

You are absolutely correct about the potential instability of injected, liquid CO2. I, however, have never considered this a carbon removal technology but only an emissions reduction technology. Collecting CO2 from power plant stacks does no more than reduce the about of new, fossil CO2 being emitted.

 

As for your comment about the term "burying" I agree, but think that we should go further. If you read the Chinese paper on the long-term impact of biochar in soil that Tom just recommended, you will see that the addition of biochar to soil dramatically increases soil's capacity to grab and sequester more CO2. Adding biochar to the soil results in increasing CO2 removal; it is not a static removal number.

 

M




Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. photo

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.

 

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.  

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net

Project number 219008  

 

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 

without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 

the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests

and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

 

image.png

 

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

 

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

 

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

 

if not I will try sending an email myself

 

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

 

Tomaso 

 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:

i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

 

M


 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.

 

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT

Read More

Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  Fehler! Es wurde kein Dateiname angegeben.  


Re: High School Senior's Tool To End Food Insecurity Wins National Competition : NPR #news

mikethewormguy
 

Michael,

It maybe helpful to consider focusing on the seed and planting hole. Optimize all that can be done to get the seed out of the ground and plant established.

It's all about the seed& root zone and not about the bulk soil.

my humble 2 cents.....

Mike
" Do what you can with what you have right where you are "........t.r. 





Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read #characteristics #biochar

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Tomaso,

You are absolutely correct about the potential instability of injected, liquid CO2. I, however, have never considered this a carbon removal technology but only an emissions reduction technology. Collecting CO2 from power plant stacks does no more than reduce the about of new, fossil CO2 being emitted.

As for your comment about the term "burying" I agree, but think that we should go further. If you read the Chinese paper on the long-term impact of biochar in soil that Tom just recommended, you will see that the addition of biochar to soil dramatically increases soil's capacity to grab and sequester more CO2. Adding biochar to the soil results in increasing CO2 removal; it is not a static removal number.

M




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:
sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net
Project number 219008  

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 
without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 
the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests
and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

image.png

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

if not I will try sending an email myself

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

Tomaso 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:
i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

M


photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT Read More
    


Re: You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read #characteristics #biochar

Tomaso Bertoli - CISV
 

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net
Project number 219008  

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 
without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 
the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests
and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

image.png

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

if not I will try sending an email myself

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

Tomaso 


On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:
i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

M


photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT Read More
    


Re: Malawi: Biochar Boosts Egg Production #feed #flamecap #malawi #eggs

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Tom (Nelson),

As I understand it, the char is mixed into the feed because most African chickens run loose. In other communications from Sister, I understand that she has been feeding the chickens very high doses of char, taking a week off every three. I have asked her to test feeding at different doses to find an optimal mix, but this is still underway.

Previous reports from Malawi suggest that biochar in the feed dramatically reduces intestinal illnesses and I suspect that better health may explain some of the improvement in laying and the faster/greater weight gain. The only reports that I have other than Sister's are from Kenya where the farmer is raising broilers. He is happy with the mix of a quite small amount of char - I don't know the exact amount, but I would guess less than 3% - in terms of lower illness and faster weight gain.

I have not heard the thing about pH in floor litter, but I do know that biochar in floor litter reduces the smell of chicken urine, especially of the ammonia. Under close conditions in barns, this smell apparently makes the chickens very anxious and leads to pecking deaths. I don't think that this is an issue in Africa.

In the meantime, I suggest the paper by hans-Pieter Smidt et al. "The use of biochar in animal feeding" published in PeerJ July 2019. It is the single most comprehensive review of the literature available anywhere.




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 1:15 AM Tom Nelson <tom@...> wrote:

Hi Tom,

 

Do you apply the biochar to the food, or to the bedding? I understand chickens preferentially peck biochar out of the bedding because of the attractive pH. What percentage of biochar to feed or bedding? Any comments on the specifications of the biochar used? (feedstock, time, temperature, particle size).

 

Tom Nelson

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@...>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 11:58am
To: biochar@groups.io
Subject: [Biochar] Malawi: Biochar Boosts Egg Production

From Sr. Miriam Paulette, Warm Heart Foundation, Malawi:

I am glad to share with you the results of biochar when used in poulty. Before I started mixing my chickens' feeds with biochar I could get only 3 eggs per day but when I started feeding them with biochar mixed feeds they started laying eggs like nobody's business. I therefore urge those of you who are keeping chicken to try biochar mixed feeds and you won't regret. https://bit.ly/38MiQDC

 

 

Tom Miles

International Biochar Initiative

Biochar-international.org

Logo160.

 


Re: use in Poultry -- Malawi: Biochar Boosts Egg Production #flamecap #malawi #eggs #maize #feed

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Stephen,

Thank you so much for this post. Not only am I very interested in chicken feed (I am not joking), but I especially appreciate your emphasis on the need for context. It has long driven me crazy that unlike any other industry I have worked with, biochar continues to insist on applying a single set of very stringent standards to all chars used under all circumstances for all purposes. Hello? Does this make sense? Seriously? Why should floor litter for chickens - for chickens! - require world class certification? Oh, right, they will peck it up, it might get past their craw and who knows what terrible carcinogens might sneaks into Mrs. Jones' morning egg. But really.

M




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:53 PM Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...> wrote:
Hi Frank

We  need to look at the feed char  Mara Seeds have been producing and selling in NSW and detailed published work by Surya Bhattarai that have done over the past 10 years in Australia as a more relevant guide for what can be done in Australia.   They use a mixed biomass feed and a wide range of pyrolysis temperatures.  There biochar does not meet a premium EBC grade but works extremely well.  I would propose we dont use EBC for animal feed char in Australia but develop a standard based on our own research,

Regards
Stephen

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:49 AM Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

There are a range of aspects as with everything in natural resource management, regenerative  farming and restorative forest landscape management …
Rather to constantly looking at and limiting the investigation of potential uses of pyrogenic carbon =  chars through a narrow microscope focus, it will help the discussion, the  investigation and knowledge building / learning  to ask
1. WHY?  followed by
2. WHAT? and then
3. HOW?

Here we have the overview / intro of the Biochar uses in (industrial scale) Poultry, scientific research program  in Germany since 2014:

Biochar in poultry farming

The animal welfare indicator footpad health and minimizing the use of antibiotics play an important role in broilers and turkeys. Animal welfare and animal welfare are measured in indicators based on the condition of the balls of the feet as an objective evaluation criterion. Animal health and minimization of pharmacologically active substances are politically defined goals with timely implementation. New ways are being sought to achieve these goals. The use of activated biochar and / or a reduction in protein in the feed represent a starting point. The reduction in protein content is sustainable, reduces emissions, reduces animal stress and reduces metabolism.

 

Since autumn 2014, the Lower Saxony Chamber of Agriculture has been working on the use of activated biochar as a litter additive for chicken fattening as part of a pilot project in animal husbandry and animal health. In the preliminary experiments with chickens in a practice, positive effects of biochar as a litter additive were found. The suitability for practical use was not really given due to the dust that should not be despised. Since the results were promising, the activated biochar is fed to the animal in a new approach via feeding.

Source:
https://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/index.cfm/portal/1/nav/2049/article/31154.html


Further:

Approved EIP Agri project "CarboFeet" - presented in the ministry, now the implementation follows Add activated charcoal to the fattening feed of chickens and turkeys

The idea: The animal welfare indicator footpad health will play an important role in fattening poultry in the future. Animal welfare and animal welfare are measured based on the condition of the balls of the feet as an objective evaluation criterion. The balls of the feet are negatively affected by damp litter and an increased production of ammonia. Additional measures will follow in the chicken and turkey fattening to significantly reduce the use of pharmacologically active substances and to "slow down" the fattening with suitable feed programs. These animal welfare regulations for more animal welfare are based on an optimization in the production process by raising the awareness of the farm manager and by improving the management. Ultimately, optimizing posture leads to more animal health and, accordingly, more animal welfare. Monetary company analyzes based on standardized company evaluations for chickens and turkeys should show whether this project also makes economic sense.
The Chamber of Agriculture has recently tested biochar as bedding material in chicken practice and has been able to achieve better balls of foot in chicken fattening.
This experiment was also presented at the last specialist forum in Cloppenburg and in several publications in the specialist press.
In addition, the Lower Saxony Chamber of Agriculture is working on nutrient-reduced feeding concepts in certain growth phases of chickens and turkeys with the aim of capturing nutrient flows, optimizing the amino acid supply in fattening poultry and adapting the nutrient content in the feed to the growth of the animals, reducing growth stress and thereby improving intestinal health stabilize. … cont.
Source: https://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/index.cfm/portal/1/nav/229/article/29613.html

I trust this is an indication how things progress. The article is much further but here I only aimed to provide the indications that they do look at / investigate and trial real life issues rather that pure lab research as it happened in so many institutions Down Under since at least 2007 until the short lived public funds ran out …
As  I see it since March 2004, it is crucial to see the uses / the cascading uses of Pyrogenic Carbon = chars in a holistic and bioregional context. Building on the systems approaches of Regenerative Agriculture and Restorative Forest (and watershed/ catchment restoration / hydrology).
Now 16 years later we forming discussions in various regions amongst all age groups and industry clusters. The discussion here in Tasmania, Mainland Australia and New Zealand  is about to engage with our ‘glocal’ collaborators in Kaindorf Austria and other places to form intergenerational networks of learning and knowledge exchanges.
zoom enables the discussion and participation from home and home office, even from the garden, the farm and the forest (even poultry shed)
Best regards
Frank again



From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tom Miles
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 6:45 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Malawi: Biochar Boosts Egg Production

 

That may be part of it. Poultry operations have been adding biochar to bedding to reduce ammonia. The birds ingest the biochar. We understand that turkeys especially like wood biochar which may be more like grit than the corn cob char.    

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of mikethewormguy via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Biochar Group <main@Biochar.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Malawi: Biochar Boosts Egg Production

 

Does the biochar serve as grit for the chicken's gizzards... ?

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

 


Re: High School Senior's Tool To End Food Insecurity Wins National Competition : NPR #news

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Don't know about prediction, but my question is: Why wait?

My inclination would be to go in everywhere possible to teach farmers about biochar and get as many as possible of them making and using the stuff. We all talk about 10t/ha, but in the developing world, my work has found that 2.5 will have amazing results. That is about tops for what most farmers can manage in any reasonable amount of time, too. if they could be convinced to stay at it, they might be able to get to 10t/ha in a decade. The water retention results could have major beneficial effects in terms of food security. It would not save crops, but might save enough to avoid crop failure and starvation.

This is a cool project, but I think less critical to farmers than to relief agencies and governments that could use an extra month or so to gear up for the necessary relief effort. For farmers, there is no running away. Drought, no drought. What the hell are they supposed to do with a warning like this? Biochar can help and in bulk a lot, but it takes time and effort to make and get in the ground. It and virtually all farm level food security projects need to be planned and executed before the shit hits the fan, And here's the problem. No one thinks about these people until they are dying, whether in feeding camps or the beaches of Europe. 

If we are going to do anything about the rural poor, we have to be willing to start early and engage in projects that will make a difference - and then probably only at the margin - only the next time a severe drought strikes. These sorts of things are not popular under the best of circumstances and the USG has made them anathema now.

M




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:24 PM Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:
This young woman’s invention uses satellite imagery to predict at the beginning of a growing season how the crop will turn out.  Might this help farmers predict how biochar will improve their crop yields?
Kim


https://www.npr.org/2020/07/30/897076414/high-school-senior-created-model-to-end-food-insecurity



1961 - 1980 of 29932