Date   

Progress on Biobased Industrial Carbons as Thermochemical Biorefinery Coproducts

Tom Miles
 

Biochar advocates often dream of making activated carbon, graphene and industrial carbons from biomass feedstocks. The article from the US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service provides perspective on industrial carbons.  

 

USA: Progress on Biobased Industrial Carbons as Thermochemical Biorefinery Coproducts

 

Industrial carbons are a category of high purity carbon (>95 wt %) materials that are solid at room temperature, produced in bulk as refinery byproducts, and subsequently used in a wide variety of applications. The most dominant industrial carbons are calcined coke, coal tar pitch, carbon black, and graphite. The manufacturing sector consumes a large majority of industrial carbons as electrode materials, carbon binders, tire reinforcement fillers, and ink components and constitutes one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Thermochemical conversion of biomass offers promising pathways for both the integration of drop-in fuels with refinery infrastructure and for the production of carbonaceous solid materials. Conversely, over the past two decades, most biofuels efforts focused on fuel production technologies with high-value small molecule chemicals as coproducts. This review summarizes recent progress toward developing biobased industrial carbons, particularly as coproducts from thermochemical conversions of biomass. Pyrolysis and gasification produce liquid and solid products in varying yields; biocarbons from either stream currently must compromise between adequate yield and adequate quality. While metals can be removed post-synthesis, there exist opportunities for improvement of biocarbon quality, including using deashed biomass and/or process modification beyond standard pyrolysis conditions. Improving calcined coke and tar pitch properties (density/porosity and softening point/coking value, respectively) will likely follow by departing from standard biomass conversion parameters. Although markets exist for biobased graphite, current products of high quality will require significant research into scale-up strategies..

 

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00182


Embers from Three Stone as Biochar - Who has done this?

K McLean
 

Stoves list, biochar list, cc Ron Larson


Have any of you actually used embers/char from an open-fire cookstove (eg 3-stone) or campfire as biochar (soil amendment)?  Did it work?  

African women can get plenty of char from three stone while cooking.  But will the char work as biochar?

Ron and I have been discussing this with others.  We all have ideas on why it should or should not work.  But we cannot find anyone who has actually tried it.

We want to train women on smallholder farms to collect, quench and crush embers and then charge the char and apply it to their fields.  I think this training can happen at scale with relatively little expense.  With hundreds of millions of families cooking over open fires, the potential is enormous.

Using tongs to remove embers, women can make 300-800g of char daily.  Because they've reported that firewood usage does not increase, SNV did a simplified WBT and, counterintuitively, SNV found only an insignificant increase in fuel usage.

But will the char be effective?  Who has tried char made this way as biochar?


Kevin McLean, President

Sun24

https://sun24.solar Embers from Three Stone


1st April - Green Carbon Webinar

Tom Miles
 

Dear all,

 

Our second session runs tomorrow 1st April at 3 PM – Central European Time / 2 PM – Greenwich Mean Time / 9 AM New York, US / 6.30 PM Delhi, India, with talks from:

15:00 (CET) – Manvendra Patel (Jawaharlal Nehru University, India):

Biochars and engineered biochars for aqueous pharmaceuticals removal

15:30 (CET) – Robert Lavoie (Air Terra Inc., Canada):

Bio-energy, biochar, carbon capture, with organics co-composting

Instructions to join the webinar:

  • Use the following link and password to join the webinar

Webinar:        https://ed-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/89182604325

                                   Password:       GhE22cA9

 

·       You can add our webinar to your calendar by clicking on the following link: https://ed-ac-uk.zoom.us/meeting/tZ0sf-uurj8pGNHZuIwbD2RAqtI0NwXxMH8Y/ics?icsToken=98tyKuGhrzMoHNSRsxuCRpx5BYqga-7ziClejY11pgrMFCJ3MDHXJ_ZrYpxoKMD9

 

If you do not wish to receive emails from us, please reply with ‘Unlist’ to this email.

 

Hope to see many of you tomorrow.

 

Best wishes,

Christian Wurzer

PhD student

UK Biochar Research Centre

University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Researchgate , LinkedIn

 

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.


Re: CharMin Mushrooms

mikethewormguy
 

Good Day,

You all may find reading my shroom story more engaging in the context of the research cited in the latest IBI newletter. 

Hint :  it has to do with the fungal pre-treatment of wheat straw citation.

my 2 cents,

Mike


Re: Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

Geoff Thomas
 

I ask as a question, It may be instructive to know what temperature the char in Terra Preta was as even after a long time that char should (?) fit into one (or all?) of the temperature categories, - certainly if the Terra Preta char is mainly in one area of heating, that would be significant.
Anyone know of such research?

Whatever methods the highly populated civilisations that colonised the Amazon using Terra Preta to transform the soil in the Amazon so that they could live there in their cities, we can be reasonably sure that they knew what they were doing.

I use the words Highly populated on that statement in "guns germs and steel", by Jared Diamond, that 95% of the South American population was killed by the eurasian diseases brought by the spanish.

That the argument that theTerra Preta found in the Amazon was deliberately placed is in that it had the same pottery shards as the Incan or Aztec Terra Preta.

In regards to Paul’s comment that we have not thousands of years to re carbonise our soil, (if indeed that it took thousands of years for the South American civilisations to so do..), but whatever, the modern city has enormous waste streams, containing huge amounts of carbon, - some is not suitable for agriculture, but suitable for feeding to cattle, - ie Doug Pow achieved spectacular results from feeding his cattle charcoal derived from Aluminium production, and of course the toxic carbon from other processes can be used in concrete, steel making , road surfacing, etc.

Cheers,  Geoff Thomas.

On 29 Mar 2021, at 7:19 am, Tom Miles <tmiles@...> wrote:

Kevin, 
 
The tarry residue is exactly the concern about health and soil effects of products of incomplete combustion. The engineered TLUDs and Kon Tiki’s can generally make a clean char product. PAH contaminant levels are usually lower than expected. If you do a traditional proximate analysis you will find that biochars generally have less than 20% volatile matter compared with cooking charcoals at 20%-35% volatiles. The volatiles help ignite the cooking charcoal. I think the European requirement for volatile matter in cooing charcoal is something like 40%. Charcoal producers have complained that it is more costly to cook out the volatiles to make biochar compared with cooking charcoal. 
 
Tom 
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of K McLean
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 1:14 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Cc: main@biochar.groups.io; Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>; Biochar Listserv <Biochar@groups.io>; Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.
 
Using char from open-fire cookstoves or campfires as biochar must have been done.  Can anyone report their experiences?
 
This paper on a large TLUD study in Kenya states:
TLUD (GASTOV) flame temp:  738
Three stone flame temp:  648
 
From the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on making charcoal:
The spontaneous breakdown or carbonization of the wood above a temperature of 280°C liberates energy and hence this reaction is said to be exothermic. This process of spontaneous breakdown or carbonization continues until only the carbonised residue called charcoal remains. Unless further external heat is provided, the process stops and the temperature reaches a maximum of about 400°C. This charcoal, however, will still contain appreciable amounts of tarry residue, together with the ash of the original wood. The ash content of the charcoal is about 3-5%; the tarry residue may amount to about 30% by weight and the balance is fixed carbon about 65-70%. Further heating increases the fixed carbon content by driving off and decomposing more of the tars. A temperature of 500°C gives a typical fixed carbon content of about 85% and a volatile content of about 10%.
 
It seems that char from three stone cookstoves should work as biochar.  But I would love to hear about actual experiences.
 
Also, has anyone actually tested the use of low-temp charcoal as biochar?  I've spent hours researching this and found comments that it works and comments that it does not work but no references to actual testing.
 
Some women in Africa have been pulling embers from their three stone cookstoves.  They've reported that removing embers does not increase the amount of firewood needed for cooking.  This seems implausible so SNV did a WBT and found that the increase in firewood was negligible.  Here is the SNV report.
 
Kevin
 
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:59 AM Anderson, Paul <psanders@...> wrote:
Michael,
 
1.  I refer here to your statement:    “… why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?”
 
In common usage the  word “charcoal” CAN refer to  all types of chars (regarding temp at time of production and different equipment) ranging from low-temp to medium temp to high temp (think of activated charcoal made in special equipment).   And  all types have their uses / advantages.   So,  when there is no designation of low, medium or high, the word “charcoal” is insufficient.    So the word “biochar” (once proposed to be “agrichar” but it was somebody’s trademark) was created, initially regrading chars (charcoal) that was appropriate for placement into soils.    More recently it is also for chars into construction materials and other long-term sequestration destinations (which maybe should have a separate name, but that is a different discussion.)   
 
So, to compare “charcoal” with “biochar” means comparing one Undefined charcoal  vs. one that is defined.   Better to be called “low-temp charcoal” or “commonly made charcoal” or maybe some other name, but not just unspecified charcoal.   
 
2.  Your other phrase raises a question about:    “ … the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures.”
 
I would say that the problem with “common charcoal” (as taken from an open fire, including rock-bed fires) is that it gets TOO hot at its edges of the piece of biomass because of extra oxygen (more than needed for pyrolysis) reaching the outer layer of created charcoal, resulting in some (more than minimal) combustion of the charcoal (char combustion or char-gasification that leaves behind ash).   And this happens before the pyrolysis is completed in the interior of that piece of biomass.
 
Certainly this occurs, so the question is about the timing of the removal of the embers from the fire (or the quenching of the fire).   Too soon and there is much (more than desired) LOW-temp char or even torrefied wood or raw wood in the middle of ember.   Too late and there is much (more than desired) ash on the outside, with the ash falling off so it might not be seen or weighed (but such a small weight that it would hardly be included in the careful  calculations of weight).   
 
About weight (could be grams or kg or pounds):  If a biomass piece of wood is 100 gm, the well-made mid-temp biochar is about 20 grams% , and the “only ash” weight is 1 gm.      [Typical wood pellets are sold claiming less than 1% ash.]
 
3.  Comment:   Yes, there are differences between chars (I prefer to say chars instead for charcoal) made in “open fires” compared to those made in arrangements with constrained oxygen supply, ranging in order from open-top flame-cap (trenches, troughs, cones,  etc.) and (mostly) covered flame-cap (RoCC kiln), to TLUD with limited air flow, to sealed retorts.    And each degree of air control adds an amount of expense or required labor.   All have their places and roles and resultant chars.   Are the differences worth the efforts and expenses?   Subject to the desires of the involved people and their resources (labor, money, time, biomass, etc.)    
 
I am sure that the Amazonian Indians of 500 to 4000 years ago did not speak in terms of oxygen and pyrolysis, but they could have understood about quenching chars having advantages.  Using simple practices largely unknown to us, they left behind for us the  “terra preta” soils.   Unfortunately, modern society does not have thousands of years to build its soils.
 
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 and author of Biochar white paper :  See  www.woodgas.energy/resources   
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: Sunday, March 28, 2021 3:40 AM
To: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Cc: K McLean <kmclean56@...>; Biochar Listserv <Biochar@groups.io>; Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Ron, 
 
Would be very interested in results. My understanding is that the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures. If this is not true, why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?
 

 

photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart 
www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53
61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand 
 
 

App Banner Image

 
App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image   
 
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 8:18 AM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:
Michael,  cc Kevin 
 
It should be fairly easy to test with seed sprouting at a kitchen window.
 
I view all char as pretty much the same (if. The interior reaches the same temperatures.  The reason is that all combustion is two-stage.  The first stage is char-mkaing - followed by a second stage where the char is combusted.  In the first stage, gases exiting through the outer layer of char prevents oxygen to get to the char itself.  After all the internal gases are released (as the interior comes up to a final temperature) - then the oxygen can finally hit the hot outer layer of char.
 
Ron
 

 

On Mar 27, 2021, at 8:02 AM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:
 
Hi Ron,
 
Michael thinks that because the char from three stone is not made without oxygen, it will not work as biochar.  What do you think?
 
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:45 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:
Kevin:
 
No.  Some soils will be wrong of course.  I think the temperature range produced by most TLUDs is like 3 stone fires and TLUDs have some good reports (thinking of Bangladesh)
.
I’m almost finished with.a drawing of new idea for replacing multiple stones below the wood supply. Can use your existing tripod potholders.   Might add 70-80%.   A skirt seems worthwhile and cheap here also.
 
Ron
 

 

On Mar 26, 2021, at 2:21 PM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:
 
Ron,
 
Do you know of any reason that embers pulled from three stone would not make good biochar?  Maybe not perfect biochar but good biochar?  Someone from SNV suggested they would not make good biochar but I don't think this SNV person is an expert on biochar.
 

 

 
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:
Ron,
 
Here is the SNV embers report.  It is very encouraging.  Pulling embers out of the fire resulted in a negligible increase in fuel usage.  The weight of the char exceeded the weight of the additional wood.
 
The problems (cook time, tending, smoke) referenced by SNV are not problems that have been expressed by the women in Africa.  We are exploring.
 
We are already training farmers to crush the char, mix with urine and ashes and apply to their fields.  This is at a small scale now but can be expanded easily.
 
I see great potential for this, especially where farmland is degraded, like most of SS Africa.  I'm talking with SNV about more testing.
 
We are shifting to metal tongs (35x2 cm).  They are simple to make, use very little metal (140 sq cm), are cheap ($0.15 - 0.20) and durable.
 
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:14 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:
Hi Ron,
 
We are seeing promise in this.  Tongs are made from bamboo, very cheap and easy.  Women pull the embers out as they cook.  Here is a photo.  A video is attached.
 
<Pile of char from tongs - Kasese.jpeg>
 
 
This woman collected 400g in a day.  She did not notice any change in fuel usage or smoke.  
 
SNV Vietnam is going to do a water boil test to determine whether there is a change in fuel usage.  It seems like it should require more wood.
 
 
Kevin McLean, President
Sun24
 
 



Re: Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

Tom Miles
 

Kevin,

 

The tarry residue is exactly the concern about health and soil effects of products of incomplete combustion. The engineered TLUDs and Kon Tiki’s can generally make a clean char product. PAH contaminant levels are usually lower than expected. If you do a traditional proximate analysis you will find that biochars generally have less than 20% volatile matter compared with cooking charcoals at 20%-35% volatiles. The volatiles help ignite the cooking charcoal. I think the European requirement for volatile matter in cooing charcoal is something like 40%. Charcoal producers have complained that it is more costly to cook out the volatiles to make biochar compared with cooking charcoal.

 

Tom

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of K McLean
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 1:14 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Cc: main@biochar.groups.io; Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>; Biochar Listserv <Biochar@groups.io>; Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

 

Using char from open-fire cookstoves or campfires as biochar must have been done.  Can anyone report their experiences?

 

This paper on a large TLUD study in Kenya states:

TLUD (GASTOV) flame temp:  738

Three stone flame temp:  648

 

From the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on making charcoal:

The spontaneous breakdown or carbonization of the wood above a temperature of 280°C liberates energy and hence this reaction is said to be exothermic. This process of spontaneous breakdown or carbonization continues until only the carbonised residue called charcoal remains. Unless further external heat is provided, the process stops and the temperature reaches a maximum of about 400°C. This charcoal, however, will still contain appreciable amounts of tarry residue, together with the ash of the original wood. The ash content of the charcoal is about 3-5%; the tarry residue may amount to about 30% by weight and the balance is fixed carbon about 65-70%. Further heating increases the fixed carbon content by driving off and decomposing more of the tars. A temperature of 500°C gives a typical fixed carbon content of about 85% and a volatile content of about 10%.

 

It seems that char from three stone cookstoves should work as biochar.  But I would love to hear about actual experiences.

 

Also, has anyone actually tested the use of low-temp charcoal as biochar?  I've spent hours researching this and found comments that it works and comments that it does not work but no references to actual testing.

 

Some women in Africa have been pulling embers from their three stone cookstoves.  They've reported that removing embers does not increase the amount of firewood needed for cooking.  This seems implausible so SNV did a WBT and found that the increase in firewood was negligible.  Here is the SNV report.

 

Kevin

 

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:59 AM Anderson, Paul <psanders@...> wrote:

Michael,

 

1.  I refer here to your statement:    “… why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?”

 

In common usage the  word “charcoal” CAN refer to  all types of chars (regarding temp at time of production and different equipment) ranging from low-temp to medium temp to high temp (think of activated charcoal made in special equipment).   And  all types have their uses / advantages.   So,  when there is no designation of low, medium or high, the word “charcoal” is insufficient.    So the word “biochar” (once proposed to be “agrichar” but it was somebody’s trademark) was created, initially regrading chars (charcoal) that was appropriate for placement into soils.    More recently it is also for chars into construction materials and other long-term sequestration destinations (which maybe should have a separate name, but that is a different discussion.)  

 

So, to compare “charcoal” with “biochar” means comparing one Undefined charcoal  vs. one that is defined.   Better to be called “low-temp charcoal” or “commonly made charcoal” or maybe some other name, but not just unspecified charcoal.  

 

2.  Your other phrase raises a question about:    “ … the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures.”

 

I would say that the problem with “common charcoal” (as taken from an open fire, including rock-bed fires) is that it gets TOO hot at its edges of the piece of biomass because of extra oxygen (more than needed for pyrolysis) reaching the outer layer of created charcoal, resulting in some (more than minimal) combustion of the charcoal (char combustion or char-gasification that leaves behind ash).   And this happens before the pyrolysis is completed in the interior of that piece of biomass.

 

Certainly this occurs, so the question is about the timing of the removal of the embers from the fire (or the quenching of the fire).   Too soon and there is much (more than desired) LOW-temp char or even torrefied wood or raw wood in the middle of ember.   Too late and there is much (more than desired) ash on the outside, with the ash falling off so it might not be seen or weighed (but such a small weight that it would hardly be included in the careful  calculations of weight).  

 

About weight (could be grams or kg or pounds):  If a biomass piece of wood is 100 gm, the well-made mid-temp biochar is about 20 grams% , and the “only ash” weight is 1 gm.      [Typical wood pellets are sold claiming less than 1% ash.]

 

3.  Comment:   Yes, there are differences between chars (I prefer to say chars instead for charcoal) made in “open fires” compared to those made in arrangements with constrained oxygen supply, ranging in order from open-top flame-cap (trenches, troughs, cones,  etc.) and (mostly) covered flame-cap (RoCC kiln), to TLUD with limited air flow, to sealed retorts.    And each degree of air control adds an amount of expense or required labor.   All have their places and roles and resultant chars.   Are the differences worth the efforts and expenses?   Subject to the desires of the involved people and their resources (labor, money, time, biomass, etc.)   

 

I am sure that the Amazonian Indians of 500 to 4000 years ago did not speak in terms of oxygen and pyrolysis, but they could have understood about quenching chars having advantages.  Using simple practices largely unknown to us, they left behind for us the  “terra preta” soils.   Unfortunately, modern society does not have thousands of years to build its soils.

 

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 and author of Biochar white paper :  See  www.woodgas.energy/resources  

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: Sunday, March 28, 2021 3:40 AM
To: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Cc: K McLean <kmclean56@...>; Biochar Listserv <Biochar@groups.io>; Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

 

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

Ron,

 

Would be very interested in results. My understanding is that the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures. If this is not true, why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?

 


 

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

 

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

 

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 8:18 AM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Michael,  cc Kevin

 

It should be fairly easy to test with seed sprouting at a kitchen window.

 

I view all char as pretty much the same (if. The interior reaches the same temperatures.  The reason is that all combustion is two-stage.  The first stage is char-mkaing - followed by a second stage where the char is combusted.  In the first stage, gases exiting through the outer layer of char prevents oxygen to get to the char itself.  After all the internal gases are released (as the interior comes up to a final temperature) - then the oxygen can finally hit the hot outer layer of char.

 

Ron

 

 

On Mar 27, 2021, at 8:02 AM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

 

Hi Ron,

 

Michael thinks that because the char from three stone is not made without oxygen, it will not work as biochar.  What do you think?

 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:45 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Kevin:

 

No.  Some soils will be wrong of course.  I think the temperature range produced by most TLUDs is like 3 stone fires and TLUDs have some good reports (thinking of Bangladesh)

.

I’m almost finished with.a drawing of new idea for replacing multiple stones below the wood supply. Can use your existing tripod potholders.   Might add 70-80%.   A skirt seems worthwhile and cheap here also.

 

Ron

 

 

On Mar 26, 2021, at 2:21 PM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

 

Ron,

 

Do you know of any reason that embers pulled from three stone would not make good biochar?  Maybe not perfect biochar but good biochar?  Someone from SNV suggested they would not make good biochar but I don't think this SNV person is an expert on biochar.

 

 

 

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Ron,

 

Here is the SNV embers report.  It is very encouraging.  Pulling embers out of the fire resulted in a negligible increase in fuel usage.  The weight of the char exceeded the weight of the additional wood.

 

The problems (cook time, tending, smoke) referenced by SNV are not problems that have been expressed by the women in Africa.  We are exploring.

 

We are already training farmers to crush the char, mix with urine and ashes and apply to their fields.  This is at a small scale now but can be expanded easily.

 

I see great potential for this, especially where farmland is degraded, like most of SS Africa.  I'm talking with SNV about more testing.

 

We are shifting to metal tongs (35x2 cm).  They are simple to make, use very little metal (140 sq cm), are cheap ($0.15 - 0.20) and durable.

 

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:14 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,

 

We are seeing promise in this.  Tongs are made from bamboo, very cheap and easy.  Women pull the embers out as they cook.  Here is a photo.  A video is attached.

 

<Pile of char from tongs - Kasese.jpeg>

 

 

This woman collected 400g in a day.  She did not notice any change in fuel usage or smoke.  

 

SNV Vietnam is going to do a water boil test to determine whether there is a change in fuel usage.  It seems like it should require more wood.

 

 

Kevin McLean, President

Sun24

 

 


Re: Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

K McLean
 

Using char from open-fire cookstoves or campfires as biochar must have been done.  Can anyone report their experiences?

This paper on a large TLUD study in Kenya states:
TLUD (GASTOV) flame temp:  738
Three stone flame temp:  648

From the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on making charcoal:
The spontaneous breakdown or carbonization of the wood above a temperature of 280°C liberates energy and hence this reaction is said to be exothermic. This process of spontaneous breakdown or carbonization continues until only the carbonised residue called charcoal remains. Unless further external heat is provided, the process stops and the temperature reaches a maximum of about 400°C. This charcoal, however, will still contain appreciable amounts of tarry residue, together with the ash of the original wood. The ash content of the charcoal is about 3-5%; the tarry residue may amount to about 30% by weight and the balance is fixed carbon about 65-70%. Further heating increases the fixed carbon content by driving off and decomposing more of the tars. A temperature of 500°C gives a typical fixed carbon content of about 85% and a volatile content of about 10%.

It seems that char from three stone cookstoves should work as biochar.  But I would love to hear about actual experiences.

Also, has anyone actually tested the use of low-temp charcoal as biochar?  I've spent hours researching this and found comments that it works and comments that it does not work but no references to actual testing.

Some women in Africa have been pulling embers from their three stone cookstoves.  They've reported that removing embers does not increase the amount of firewood needed for cooking.  This seems implausible so SNV did a WBT and found that the increase in firewood was negligible.  Here is the SNV report.

Kevin

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:59 AM Anderson, Paul <psanders@...> wrote:

Michael,

 

1.  I refer here to your statement:    “… why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?”

 

In common usage the  word “charcoal” CAN refer to  all types of chars (regarding temp at time of production and different equipment) ranging from low-temp to medium temp to high temp (think of activated charcoal made in special equipment).   And  all types have their uses / advantages.   So,  when there is no designation of low, medium or high, the word “charcoal” is insufficient.    So the word “biochar” (once proposed to be “agrichar” but it was somebody’s trademark) was created, initially regrading chars (charcoal) that was appropriate for placement into soils.    More recently it is also for chars into construction materials and other long-term sequestration destinations (which maybe should have a separate name, but that is a different discussion.)  

 

So, to compare “charcoal” with “biochar” means comparing one Undefined charcoal  vs. one that is defined.   Better to be called “low-temp charcoal” or “commonly made charcoal” or maybe some other name, but not just unspecified charcoal.  

 

2.  Your other phrase raises a question about:    “ … the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures.”

 

I would say that the problem with “common charcoal” (as taken from an open fire, including rock-bed fires) is that it gets TOO hot at its edges of the piece of biomass because of extra oxygen (more than needed for pyrolysis) reaching the outer layer of created charcoal, resulting in some (more than minimal) combustion of the charcoal (char combustion or char-gasification that leaves behind ash).   And this happens before the pyrolysis is completed in the interior of that piece of biomass.

 

Certainly this occurs, so the question is about the timing of the removal of the embers from the fire (or the quenching of the fire).   Too soon and there is much (more than desired) LOW-temp char or even torrefied wood or raw wood in the middle of ember.   Too late and there is much (more than desired) ash on the outside, with the ash falling off so it might not be seen or weighed (but such a small weight that it would hardly be included in the careful  calculations of weight).  

 

About weight (could be grams or kg or pounds):  If a biomass piece of wood is 100 gm, the well-made mid-temp biochar is about 20 grams% , and the “only ash” weight is 1 gm.      [Typical wood pellets are sold claiming less than 1% ash.]

 

3.  Comment:   Yes, there are differences between chars (I prefer to say chars instead for charcoal) made in “open fires” compared to those made in arrangements with constrained oxygen supply, ranging in order from open-top flame-cap (trenches, troughs, cones,  etc.) and (mostly) covered flame-cap (RoCC kiln), to TLUD with limited air flow, to sealed retorts.    And each degree of air control adds an amount of expense or required labor.   All have their places and roles and resultant chars.   Are the differences worth the efforts and expenses?   Subject to the desires of the involved people and their resources (labor, money, time, biomass, etc.)   

 

I am sure that the Amazonian Indians of 500 to 4000 years ago did not speak in terms of oxygen and pyrolysis, but they could have understood about quenching chars having advantages.  Using simple practices largely unknown to us, they left behind for us the  “terra preta” soils.   Unfortunately, modern society does not have thousands of years to build its soils.

 

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 and author of Biochar white paper :  See  www.woodgas.energy/resources  

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: Sunday, March 28, 2021 3:40 AM
To: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Cc: K McLean <kmclean56@...>; Biochar Listserv <Biochar@groups.io>; Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

 

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

Ron,

 

Would be very interested in results. My understanding is that the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures. If this is not true, why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?

 




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

 

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

 

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 8:18 AM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Michael,  cc Kevin

 

It should be fairly easy to test with seed sprouting at a kitchen window.

 

I view all char as pretty much the same (if. The interior reaches the same temperatures.  The reason is that all combustion is two-stage.  The first stage is char-mkaing - followed by a second stage where the char is combusted.  In the first stage, gases exiting through the outer layer of char prevents oxygen to get to the char itself.  After all the internal gases are released (as the interior comes up to a final temperature) - then the oxygen can finally hit the hot outer layer of char.

 

Ron

 



On Mar 27, 2021, at 8:02 AM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

 

Hi Ron,

 

Michael thinks that because the char from three stone is not made without oxygen, it will not work as biochar.  What do you think?

 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:45 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Kevin:

 

No.  Some soils will be wrong of course.  I think the temperature range produced by most TLUDs is like 3 stone fires and TLUDs have some good reports (thinking of Bangladesh)

.

I’m almost finished with.a drawing of new idea for replacing multiple stones below the wood supply. Can use your existing tripod potholders.   Might add 70-80%.   A skirt seems worthwhile and cheap here also.

 

Ron

 



On Mar 26, 2021, at 2:21 PM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

 

Ron,

 

Do you know of any reason that embers pulled from three stone would not make good biochar?  Maybe not perfect biochar but good biochar?  Someone from SNV suggested they would not make good biochar but I don't think this SNV person is an expert on biochar.

 



 

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Ron,

 

Here is the SNV embers report.  It is very encouraging.  Pulling embers out of the fire resulted in a negligible increase in fuel usage.  The weight of the char exceeded the weight of the additional wood.

 

The problems (cook time, tending, smoke) referenced by SNV are not problems that have been expressed by the women in Africa.  We are exploring.

 

We are already training farmers to crush the char, mix with urine and ashes and apply to their fields.  This is at a small scale now but can be expanded easily.

 

I see great potential for this, especially where farmland is degraded, like most of SS Africa.  I'm talking with SNV about more testing.

 

We are shifting to metal tongs (35x2 cm).  They are simple to make, use very little metal (140 sq cm), are cheap ($0.15 - 0.20) and durable.

 

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:14 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,

 

We are seeing promise in this.  Tongs are made from bamboo, very cheap and easy.  Women pull the embers out as they cook.  Here is a photo.  A video is attached.

 

<Pile of char from tongs - Kasese.jpeg>

 

 

This woman collected 400g in a day.  She did not notice any change in fuel usage or smoke.  

 

SNV Vietnam is going to do a water boil test to determine whether there is a change in fuel usage.  It seems like it should require more wood.

 

 

Kevin McLean, President

Sun24

 

 


Pyroligneous Acid Study

mikethewormguy
 

Good Day,

I have been spending some of my Covid hibernation time playing around with the pyroligneous acids that I have in stock..

We have developed a general purpose plant tonic recipe.  We would like to setup a single blind trial with growers of vegetables, on this listserve, in the USA, who are interested in applying this foliar spray liquid to a section of their plantings.

As a first step, I am looking at sending out one 50mL test tube of liquid concentrate. I would expect the tester to pay for shipping from Richfield, WI 53076.  We have found folks use what they spend money on. 

If interested, email me at. mikethewormguy@... and we can work out the details.

Remember I do not make pyroligneous acid rather I buy PA from others.

Growing season is almost upon us. Hope to hear from many of you. Thank you for your participation.

Innovation is a contact sport.   

Mike Flynn
414-719-1656
Green Quest LLC
www.onagreenquest.net








Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: Instead of three-stone cookstove - Dakota Fire Hole

briancady413
 

Tangentially related: DIY rocket stove dug from ground a.k.a. Dakota Fire Hole:

Perhaps this can be a more efficient yet affordable alternative to a three-stone fire.

Brian
-


On Sunday, March 28, 2021, 9:59:42 AM EDT, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:


Michael,

 

1.  I refer here to your statement:    “… why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?”

 

In common usage the  word “charcoal” CAN refer to  all types of chars (regarding temp at time of production and different equipment) ranging from low-temp to medium temp to high temp (think of activated charcoal made in special equipment).   And  all types have their uses / advantages.   So,  when there is no designation of low, medium or high, the word “charcoal” is insufficient.    So the word “biochar” (once proposed to be “agrichar” but it was somebody’s trademark) was created, initially regrading chars (charcoal) that was appropriate for placement into soils.    More recently it is also for chars into construction materials and other long-term sequestration destinations (which maybe should have a separate name, but that is a different discussion.)  

 

So, to compare “charcoal” with “biochar” means comparing one Undefined charcoal  vs. one that is defined.   Better to be called “low-temp charcoal” or “commonly made charcoal” or maybe some other name, but not just unspecified charcoal.  

 

2.  Your other phrase raises a question about:    “ … the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures.”

 

I would say that the problem with “common charcoal” (as taken from an open fire, including rock-bed fires) is that it gets TOO hot at its edges of the piece of biomass because of extra oxygen (more than needed for pyrolysis) reaching the outer layer of created charcoal, resulting in some (more than minimal) combustion of the charcoal (char combustion or char-gasification that leaves behind ash).   And this happens before the pyrolysis is completed in the interior of that piece of biomass.

 

Certainly this occurs, so the question is about the timing of the removal of the embers from the fire (or the quenching of the fire).   Too soon and there is much (more than desired) LOW-temp char or even torrefied wood or raw wood in the middle of ember.   Too late and there is much (more than desired) ash on the outside, with the ash falling off so it might not be seen or weighed (but such a small weight that it would hardly be included in the careful  calculations of weight).  

 

About weight (could be grams or kg or pounds):  If a biomass piece of wood is 100 gm, the well-made mid-temp biochar is about 20 grams% , and the “only ash” weight is 1 gm.      [Typical wood pellets are sold claiming less than 1% ash.]

 

3.  Comment:   Yes, there are differences between chars (I prefer to say chars instead for charcoal) made in “open fires” compared to those made in arrangements with constrained oxygen supply, ranging in order from open-top flame-cap (trenches, troughs, cones,  etc.) and (mostly) covered flame-cap (RoCC kiln), to TLUD with limited air flow, to sealed retorts.    And each degree of air control adds an amount of expense or required labor.   All have their places and roles and resultant chars.   Are the differences worth the efforts and expenses?   Subject to the desires of the involved people and their resources (labor, money, time, biomass, etc.)   

 

I am sure that the Amazonian Indians of 500 to 4000 years ago did not speak in terms of oxygen and pyrolysis, but they could have understood about quenching chars having advantages.  Using simple practices largely unknown to us, they left behind for us the  “terra preta” soils.   Unfortunately, modern society does not have thousands of years to build its soils.

 

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 and author of Biochar white paper :  See  www.woodgas.energy/resources  

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: Sunday, March 28, 2021 3:40 AM
To: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Cc: K McLean <kmclean56@...>; Biochar Listserv <Biochar@groups.io>; Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

 

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

Ron,

 

Would be very interested in results. My understanding is that the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures. If this is not true, why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?

 




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

 

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

 

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 8:18 AM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Michael,  cc Kevin

 

It should be fairly easy to test with seed sprouting at a kitchen window.

 

I view all char as pretty much the same (if. The interior reaches the same temperatures.  The reason is that all combustion is two-stage.  The first stage is char-mkaing - followed by a second stage where the char is combusted.  In the first stage, gases exiting through the outer layer of char prevents oxygen to get to the char itself.  After all the internal gases are released (as the interior comes up to a final temperature) - then the oxygen can finally hit the hot outer layer of char.

 

Ron

 



On Mar 27, 2021, at 8:02 AM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

 

Hi Ron,

 

Michael thinks that because the char from three stone is not made without oxygen, it will not work as biochar.  What do you think?

 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:45 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Kevin:

 

No.  Some soils will be wrong of course.  I think the temperature range produced by most TLUDs is like 3 stone fires and TLUDs have some good reports (thinking of Bangladesh)

.

I’m almost finished with.a drawing of new idea for replacing multiple stones below the wood supply. Can use your existing tripod potholders.   Might add 70-80%.   A skirt seems worthwhile and cheap here also.

 

Ron

 



On Mar 26, 2021, at 2:21 PM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

 

Ron,

 

Do you know of any reason that embers pulled from three stone would not make good biochar?  Maybe not perfect biochar but good biochar?  Someone from SNV suggested they would not make good biochar but I don't think this SNV person is an expert on biochar.

 



 

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Ron,

 

Here is the SNV embers report.  It is very encouraging.  Pulling embers out of the fire resulted in a negligible increase in fuel usage.  The weight of the char exceeded the weight of the additional wood.

 

The problems (cook time, tending, smoke) referenced by SNV are not problems that have been expressed by the women in Africa.  We are exploring.

 

We are already training farmers to crush the char, mix with urine and ashes and apply to their fields.  This is at a small scale now but can be expanded easily.

 

I see great potential for this, especially where farmland is degraded, like most of SS Africa.  I'm talking with SNV about more testing.

 

We are shifting to metal tongs (35x2 cm).  They are simple to make, use very little metal (140 sq cm), are cheap ($0.15 - 0.20) and durable.

 

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:14 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,

 

We are seeing promise in this.  Tongs are made from bamboo, very cheap and easy.  Women pull the embers out as they cook.  Here is a photo.  A video is attached.

 

<Pile of char from tongs - Kasese.jpeg>

 

 

This woman collected 400g in a day.  She did not notice any change in fuel usage or smoke.  

 

SNV Vietnam is going to do a water boil test to determine whether there is a change in fuel usage.  It seems like it should require more wood.

 

 

Kevin McLean, President

Sun24

 

 


Re: Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

Paul S Anderson
 

Michael,

 

1.  I refer here to your statement:    “… why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?”

 

In common usage the  word “charcoal” CAN refer to  all types of chars (regarding temp at time of production and different equipment) ranging from low-temp to medium temp to high temp (think of activated charcoal made in special equipment).   And  all types have their uses / advantages.   So,  when there is no designation of low, medium or high, the word “charcoal” is insufficient.    So the word “biochar” (once proposed to be “agrichar” but it was somebody’s trademark) was created, initially regrading chars (charcoal) that was appropriate for placement into soils.    More recently it is also for chars into construction materials and other long-term sequestration destinations (which maybe should have a separate name, but that is a different discussion.)  

 

So, to compare “charcoal” with “biochar” means comparing one Undefined charcoal  vs. one that is defined.   Better to be called “low-temp charcoal” or “commonly made charcoal” or maybe some other name, but not just unspecified charcoal.  

 

2.  Your other phrase raises a question about:    “ … the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures.”

 

I would say that the problem with “common charcoal” (as taken from an open fire, including rock-bed fires) is that it gets TOO hot at its edges of the piece of biomass because of extra oxygen (more than needed for pyrolysis) reaching the outer layer of created charcoal, resulting in some (more than minimal) combustion of the charcoal (char combustion or char-gasification that leaves behind ash).   And this happens before the pyrolysis is completed in the interior of that piece of biomass.

 

Certainly this occurs, so the question is about the timing of the removal of the embers from the fire (or the quenching of the fire).   Too soon and there is much (more than desired) LOW-temp char or even torrefied wood or raw wood in the middle of ember.   Too late and there is much (more than desired) ash on the outside, with the ash falling off so it might not be seen or weighed (but such a small weight that it would hardly be included in the careful  calculations of weight).  

 

About weight (could be grams or kg or pounds):  If a biomass piece of wood is 100 gm, the well-made mid-temp biochar is about 20 grams% , and the “only ash” weight is 1 gm.      [Typical wood pellets are sold claiming less than 1% ash.]

 

3.  Comment:   Yes, there are differences between chars (I prefer to say chars instead for charcoal) made in “open fires” compared to those made in arrangements with constrained oxygen supply, ranging in order from open-top flame-cap (trenches, troughs, cones,  etc.) and (mostly) covered flame-cap (RoCC kiln), to TLUD with limited air flow, to sealed retorts.    And each degree of air control adds an amount of expense or required labor.   All have their places and roles and resultant chars.   Are the differences worth the efforts and expenses?   Subject to the desires of the involved people and their resources (labor, money, time, biomass, etc.)   

 

I am sure that the Amazonian Indians of 500 to 4000 years ago did not speak in terms of oxygen and pyrolysis, but they could have understood about quenching chars having advantages.  Using simple practices largely unknown to us, they left behind for us the  “terra preta” soils.   Unfortunately, modern society does not have thousands of years to build its soils.

 

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 and author of Biochar white paper :  See  www.woodgas.energy/resources  

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: Sunday, March 28, 2021 3:40 AM
To: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Cc: K McLean <kmclean56@...>; Biochar Listserv <Biochar@groups.io>; Stephen Joseph <joey.stephen@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

 

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

Ron,

 

Would be very interested in results. My understanding is that the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures. If this is not true, why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?

 




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

 

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

 

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 8:18 AM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Michael,  cc Kevin

 

It should be fairly easy to test with seed sprouting at a kitchen window.

 

I view all char as pretty much the same (if. The interior reaches the same temperatures.  The reason is that all combustion is two-stage.  The first stage is char-mkaing - followed by a second stage where the char is combusted.  In the first stage, gases exiting through the outer layer of char prevents oxygen to get to the char itself.  After all the internal gases are released (as the interior comes up to a final temperature) - then the oxygen can finally hit the hot outer layer of char.

 

Ron

 



On Mar 27, 2021, at 8:02 AM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

 

Hi Ron,

 

Michael thinks that because the char from three stone is not made without oxygen, it will not work as biochar.  What do you think?

 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:45 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Kevin:

 

No.  Some soils will be wrong of course.  I think the temperature range produced by most TLUDs is like 3 stone fires and TLUDs have some good reports (thinking of Bangladesh)

.

I’m almost finished with.a drawing of new idea for replacing multiple stones below the wood supply. Can use your existing tripod potholders.   Might add 70-80%.   A skirt seems worthwhile and cheap here also.

 

Ron

 



On Mar 26, 2021, at 2:21 PM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

 

Ron,

 

Do you know of any reason that embers pulled from three stone would not make good biochar?  Maybe not perfect biochar but good biochar?  Someone from SNV suggested they would not make good biochar but I don't think this SNV person is an expert on biochar.

 



 

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Ron,

 

Here is the SNV embers report.  It is very encouraging.  Pulling embers out of the fire resulted in a negligible increase in fuel usage.  The weight of the char exceeded the weight of the additional wood.

 

The problems (cook time, tending, smoke) referenced by SNV are not problems that have been expressed by the women in Africa.  We are exploring.

 

We are already training farmers to crush the char, mix with urine and ashes and apply to their fields.  This is at a small scale now but can be expanded easily.

 

I see great potential for this, especially where farmland is degraded, like most of SS Africa.  I'm talking with SNV about more testing.

 

We are shifting to metal tongs (35x2 cm).  They are simple to make, use very little metal (140 sq cm), are cheap ($0.15 - 0.20) and durable.

 

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:14 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,

 

We are seeing promise in this.  Tongs are made from bamboo, very cheap and easy.  Women pull the embers out as they cook.  Here is a photo.  A video is attached.

 

<Pile of char from tongs - Kasese.jpeg>

 

 

This woman collected 400g in a day.  She did not notice any change in fuel usage or smoke.  

 

SNV Vietnam is going to do a water boil test to determine whether there is a change in fuel usage.  It seems like it should require more wood.

 

 

Kevin McLean, President

Sun24

 

 


Re: Pull embers from three-stone cookstove to use as biochar.

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Ron,

Would be very interested in results. My understanding is that the problem with charcoal is that it never gets hot enough (a) to burn out all of the tars and other aromatics and (b) to form the carbons into the necessary sheets of ring structures. If this is not true, why are we so excited about biochar when the alternative of using charcoal is so close at hand?





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, Mar 28, 2021 at 8:18 AM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:
Michael,  cc Kevin

It should be fairly easy to test with seed sprouting at a kitchen window.

I view all char as pretty much the same (if. The interior reaches the same temperatures.  The reason is that all combustion is two-stage.  The first stage is char-mkaing - followed by a second stage where the char is combusted.  In the first stage, gases exiting through the outer layer of char prevents oxygen to get to the char itself.  After all the internal gases are released (as the interior comes up to a final temperature) - then the oxygen can finally hit the hot outer layer of char.

Ron


On Mar 27, 2021, at 8:02 AM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,

Michael thinks that because the char from three stone is not made without oxygen, it will not work as biochar.  What do you think?

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:45 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:
Kevin:

No.  Some soils will be wrong of course.  I think the temperature range produced by most TLUDs is like 3 stone fires and TLUDs have some good reports (thinking of Bangladesh)
.
I’m almost finished with.a drawing of new idea for replacing multiple stones below the wood supply. Can use your existing tripod potholders.   Might add 70-80%.   A skirt seems worthwhile and cheap here also.

Ron


On Mar 26, 2021, at 2:21 PM, K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:

Ron,

Do you know of any reason that embers pulled from three stone would not make good biochar?  Maybe not perfect biochar but good biochar?  Someone from SNV suggested they would not make good biochar but I don't think this SNV person is an expert on biochar.



On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:21 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:
Ron,

Here is the SNV embers report.  It is very encouraging.  Pulling embers out of the fire resulted in a negligible increase in fuel usage.  The weight of the char exceeded the weight of the additional wood.

The problems (cook time, tending, smoke) referenced by SNV are not problems that have been expressed by the women in Africa.  We are exploring.

We are already training farmers to crush the char, mix with urine and ashes and apply to their fields.  This is at a small scale now but can be expanded easily.

I see great potential for this, especially where farmland is degraded, like most of SS Africa.  I'm talking with SNV about more testing.

We are shifting to metal tongs (35x2 cm).  They are simple to make, use very little metal (140 sq cm), are cheap ($0.15 - 0.20) and durable.
Metal Tongs.jpeg

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:14 AM K McLean <kmclean56@...> wrote:
Hi Ron,

We are seeing promise in this.  Tongs are made from bamboo, very cheap and easy.  Women pull the embers out as they cook.  Here is a photo.  A video is attached.

<Pile of char from tongs - Kasese.jpeg>


This woman collected 400g in a day.  She did not notice any change in fuel usage or smoke.  

SNV Vietnam is going to do a water boil test to determine whether there is a change in fuel usage.  It seems like it should require more wood.


Kevin McLean, President
Sun24



CharMin Mushrooms

mikethewormguy
 

Good Day,

Posted some shroom content on our Green Quest website  www.onagreenquest.net  that some may find of interest. Let us know if you questions.

Mike



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


New Particulate Matter Emissions Requirements in New York State: Could They Affect Your Facility?

Tom Miles
 

New air permit requirements in New York will impact most small scale biochar systems which are in the heat input range greater than 1 MMBtuh. (1055 MJ/hr, 294 kW).

https://bit.ly/3w50Ek5

 

Effective February 25, 2021, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) finalized proposed revisions to the particulate matter (PM) emissions limits in Title 6, Part 227-1 of the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (6 NYCRR 227-1) for stationary combustion installations.  The revisions are intended to help maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM.  However, the rule’s requirements could trigger significant operating, and potentially, capital costs.

KEY CHANGES TO THE RULE

  1. Reduced PM Emissions Limit. The PM limits in the prior version of the rule varied by the heat input of the stationary combustion installation.  For example, the PM limit for a biomass boiler with a rated heat input of 30 million British Thermal Units of heat input per hour (MMBtu/hr) is 0.42 pounds of PM per MMBtu of heat input (lb/MMBtu) and the PM limit for a biomass boiler rated at 10 MMBtu/hr was 0.60 lb/MMBtu of heat input.  The new rule revised these heat input-based emissions limits downward to 0.10 lb/MMBtu of heat input for stationary combustion installations with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than:
    • 1 MMBtu/hr firing any amount of solid fuel (such as biomass); or
    • 50 MMBtu/hr firing oil or oil in combination with other liquid or gaseous fuels.
  1. There is an Exemption. The rule does not apply if a more stringent Federal emissions limit applies.  This is regardless of whether the stationary combustion installation is located at a Major Source or Area Source of Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions.  Consider a new biomass boiler having a heat input equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr and less than 30 MMBtu/hr, located at an Area Source of HAP emissions, and subject to the requirements for a new boiler 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Sources).  The new boiler would be required by Subpart JJJJJJ to meet a filterable PM limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu and would therefore have to meet the lower and more stringent, Federal limit instead of the state limit.
  1. Performance Testing. Facilities must perform an initial compliance test to measure filterable PM via U.S. EPA Test Method 5 within six months of commencing operation of a new affected stationary combustion installation and within four years of the promulgation date of the rule change (February 25, 2021) for an existing affected stationary combustion installation.
  1. Monitor Visible Emissions. Facilities must demonstrate compliance with opacity standards using a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), U.S. EPA Test Method 9 visible emissions observations, or “testing with any other credible evidence.”  The rule does not further define “testing with any other credible evidence,” but according to personal communication between ALL4 and NYSDEC, it can be addressed with NYSDEC on a case-by-case basis.
  1. Annual Tune-Up. All Facilities must perform a tune-up annually per manufacturer’s recommended procedure or per an approved specialist on their affected stationary combustion installations. 
  1. Aggregation of Combustion Sources. Facilities must aggregate the heat input of stationary combustion installations that share the same stack unless there is an air permit requirement prohibiting simultaneous operation of the stationary combustion installations.  For example, the PM limit of 0.10 lb/MMBtu would apply if a facility was currently operating or planning to install and operate two identical biomass boilers rated at 0.5 MMBtu/hour (heat input) each that operated simultaneously and shared the same stack.

 

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

While the proposed revisions will presumably reduce PM emissions released into the atmosphere, they could trigger significant additional compliance costs for existing and proposed stationary combustion installations.  For example, existing biomass boilers equipped with cyclone technology for PM control may have to install more effective PM control equipment such as an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) to meet the proposed emissions limit of 0.10 lb/MMBtu.  ESP capital costs could range from $150,000 to $350,000 for the institutional and commercial facilities in New York, and the rule does not include provisions for evaluating the economic feasibility of pollution control equipment.  In addition, facilities will incur the cost of performance testing which could range from $5,000 to $10,000 for a Method 5 test for one stationary combustion installation.

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

There is no better time than the present to start planning!  Here are a few things you can do:

  1. Determine if your stationary combustion installation is exempt from the rule.
  2. If your existing or planned stationary combustion installation is not exempt, evaluate whether it will meet the PM emissions limit without additional pollution control such as an ESP.
  3. If your existing or planned stationary combustion installation will not meet the emissions limit without a pollution control device, obtain quotes from pollution control equipment vendors and begin evaluating the cost and technical feasibility of installing pollution control equipment.
  4. Obtain vendor quotes for PM emissions testing, emissions monitoring, and tune-ups. Consider sponsoring in-house training for monitoring and tune-ups (oftentimes, this work does not need to be outsourced).

 

If you have any questions about Part 227-1 changes, please reach out to John Hinckley at jhinckley@... or by phone at (802) 359-7294.

 

 


Re: [EXTERN] [Biochar] Biochar-Compost analysis

Rick Wilson
 

Lakshmikantha,

I’ve attached a list of potential organic additives including fish products.
I would expect that the C/N is much lower than 22 and could be a suitable blend stock.  But you have to know what the specific material specs are, and do the blending math.

The CEC is fantastically high.  Biochar in general does not have a high CEC relative to compost and manure. But CEC for biochar increases over time when in the soil.
Perhaps the high CEC the rock phosphate, which I don’t use so I can’t tell you.

 don’t know the test method so I can’t speak to why you are not seeing the Ca show up in the analysis.  Do the math and see if it makes sense.

Rick


On Mar 26, 2021, at 12:23 AM, Lakshmikantha BL via groups.io <kanthabl@...> wrote:

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your valuable inputs.
I am thinking to improve C;N ratio by adding more Fish protein hydrolysate compost tea. Will that help ? 
The main reason I am adding gypsum to compost is to improve soil structure. 
Still, I am wondering with so much of Ca getting added via gypsum and rock phosphate, why it is not shown in the tests. Are these cations held up in Biochar, which is not reflected in Total, saturated or DTPA tests ? 
How about the reading of CEC? 

Regards
Lakshmikantha


Soils, sinks, and smallholder farmers: Examining the benefits of biochar energy transitions in Kenya

Tom Miles
 

Here is the link to "Soils, sinks, and smallholder farmers: Examining the benefits of biochar energy transitions in Kenya": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629621001262

Kenya: Soils, sinks, and smallholder farmers: Examining the benefits of biochar energy transitions in Kenya

 

Besides reducing fuel demands and indoor air pollution, pyrolytic cooking stoves produce a by-product (biochar) that can improve soil fertility and serve as a sink for carbon sequestration. Most smallholder farmers in Africa depend on wood for fuel, suffer from exposure to smoke and soils in their cultivated farms are deteriorating. Biochar (bio-charcoal) production has potentials to reduce energy requirement, diminish exposure to smoke, improve soil health and ease household activities traditionally associated with female labour. However, introducing new technologies and behaviours that tackle existing problems without creating new ones is a complex endeavour. Transitions need to be anticipatory, comprehensive and inclusive. Having this in mind, a trans-disciplinary study was conducted from 2013 to 2019 with 150 households in three agro-ecological zones of Kenya. The socio-economic conditions, the uses of fuels and stoves, the crops grown and fertilizers used, as well as the labour division within households were documented. Selected households were given pyrolitic cooking stoves and trained in applying biochar to the soil. After two years of using the cooking stoves and applying biochar, studies were conducted to assess the feasibility and preliminary impacts based on the households own perceptions and experiences. The results showed that the strategy represented a viable option to deal with fuel use efficiency, exposure to indoor smoke and soil degradation, as well as easing the burden on female labour.

 


Re: [EXTERN] [Biochar] Biochar-Compost analysis

Lakshmikantha BL
 

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your valuable inputs.
I am thinking to improve C;N ratio by adding more Fish protein hydrolysate compost tea. Will that help ? 
The main reason I am adding gypsum to compost is to improve soil structure. 
Still, I am wondering with so much of Ca getting added via gypsum and rock phosphate, why it is not shown in the tests. Are these cations held up in Biochar, which is not reflected in Total, saturated or DTPA tests ? 
How about the reading of CEC? 

Regards
Lakshmikantha


Re: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] Biochar-Compost analysis

Lakshmikantha BL
 

Hi Claudia,

Thanks for the papers, it's great to read. 
Gypsum is added to compost to balance out Ca:Mg ratio in the soil( after applying compost). Also hope Biochar is able to hold up more Ca and release when applied to the soil. My farm soil is sandy. Soil is also S deficient. 
In your experiment what is the CEC you noted for Biochar mixed compost? 

Regards
Lakshmikantha 

On Friday, March 26, 2021, 03:17:32 AM GMT+5:30, Claudia Kammann <claudia.kammann@...> wrote:


Hello Lakshmikanth,

 

One of the things that I noticed that may have been missing from your mixture is fresh plant material (leaf litter, residue, pruning with leaves, grass cuttings etc.) that the decomposing microbes can use as an easy source of degradable carbon. Cow manure: Carbohydrates have largely been already digested by the cow, so less “fuel” for a good composting process.

 

Why was the gypsum added, is there S deficiency in the soils where its use is intended?

 

In the attached paper and supplementary, we describe a mixture that provided a high-quality compost. Hope this helps –

 

Claudia

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Trevor Richards
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. März 2021 20:10
An: main@biochar.groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] Biochar-Compost analysis

 

Hi  Lakshmikanth,

Your mix of compost components does not appear to provide an ideal (labile)carbon-nitrogen ratio. More woody biomass would be better?

 

On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 04:04, Lakshmikantha BL via groups.io <kanthabl=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

 

I have tried for the first time to make a BioChar-Compost in India.

I did add the following components into the mixture 

1. Coconut shell waste biochar - 10 tons 

2. Gypsum -10 tons 

3. Cow manure - 12 tons 

4. Rock Phosphate - 2 tons 

5. Regularly enriched char with microbes ( waste decomposers ). 

 

I use to mix the mixture regularly for uniformity for 1 year.

I am planning to use the above biochar compost on 5 acres. I am attaching a test report of the mixture.

Do comment on the final product nutrient analysis. 

Do I need to worry about any nutrients high level( especially Na, chlorides, and Fe ). 

 

Regards

Lakshmikantha 

 

 

 


Re: [EXTERN] [Biochar] Biochar-Compost analysis

Rick Wilson
 

Claudia, these are greet papers thanks for sharing!

Lakshmikanth,  

I support a the largest soils companies in California, writing soil prescriptions.  We put millions of tons of amendments into the ground each year under my guidance.,

We have built and maintain a  soil blending linear program where we forecast how materials like yours impact soil properties and performance.   

Biochar is in the model, to the extent that it modifies physical properties (we require optimal levels in our blends, infiltration, air porosity). 
How biochar impacts nitrogen availability and carbon sequestration is still under development (although we have models for these also)

Here is my interpretation of your compost analysis:

C/N.  High, limited mineralization of nitrogen, 

This is the official CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture) guidance (for compost only).

C/N > 20 low nitrogen mineralization
C/N < 20 5% Nitrogen mineralization year one
C/N < 15 10% mineralization year one

Co-composted biochar may change this CDFA guidance - more nitrogen release at higher C/N (would be great to do the study, this is the question we should be asking).  

Chlorides, sodium, I assume these numbers are saturated extract?  What matters are the content after soil blending.
There are databases of plant chloride and ECE sensitivity.  In general < 150 ppm chlorides no problem. Most plants are OK at 350 ppm.  Saturated extract.

EC. If this is ECE (saturated extract), this material is not going to add to osmotic stress on the plant, below 2 for the SOIL is fine.
If this is EC 5, this could be a problem (need to convert EC5 to ECE because plant stress is characterized by saturated extract), and estimate the soil blended value.

ECE = 6.53*EC5 - 0.108 (Kargas, et al.)

Ph is optimal for many plant/soil systems. 

P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Mo, B.  What is the test method?  
  • There are long term stores of nutrients which have little impact on the soil (determined with nitric acid extraction) (Called TOTAL).  
  • Extractable. Nutrients, determined with ammonium bicarbonate / DTPA, which can be available within one year.  
  • Then there are soluble, which are immediately available
Conversion of total to extractable to soluble nutrients is facilitated by microbial activity and depends on the health of the soil, which biochar can help.

Boron 0.5-1.5 ppm in saturated extract is optimal.  Too little, its a nutrient, not good.  Too much, toxic. 

In general composts add Ca and Mg at a ratio above 2.0. which is optimal.  This is the key value driver for adding compost, because it fixes soil structure. 
Displacing sodium with Calcium and Magnesium.  Adding gypsum helps for the Calcium if there is not an ECE problem. (We add gypsum to almost everything)
Many soils in California have a low Ca/Mg level.  Most have sodium. Some level of clay in all soils. Compost, and gypsum, help these. 

There is a metric SAR, which tracked bad and good salts, ideally good salts dominate (SAR < 4).

Rick Wilson


On Mar 25, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Claudia Kammann <claudia.kammann@...> wrote:

Hello Lakshmikanth,
 
One of the things that I noticed that may have been missing from your mixture is fresh plant material (leaf litter, residue, pruning with leaves, grass cuttings etc.) that the decomposing microbes can use as an easy source of degradable carbon. Cow manure: Carbohydrates have largely been already digested by the cow, so less “fuel” for a good composting process.
 
Why was the gypsum added, is there S deficiency in the soils where its use is intended?
 
In the attached paper and supplementary, we describe a mixture that provided a high-quality compost. Hope this helps –
 
Claudia
 
Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Trevor Richards
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. März 2021 20:10
An: main@biochar.groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] Biochar-Compost analysis
 
Hi  Lakshmikanth,
Your mix of compost components does not appear to provide an ideal (labile)carbon-nitrogen ratio. More woody biomass would be better?
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 04:04, Lakshmikantha BL via groups.io <kanthabl=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,
 
I have tried for the first time to make a BioChar-Compost in India.
I did add the following components into the mixture 
1. Coconut shell waste biochar - 10 tons 
2. Gypsum -10 tons 
3. Cow manure - 12 tons 
4. Rock Phosphate - 2 tons 
5. Regularly enriched char with microbes ( waste decomposers ). 
 
I use to mix the mixture regularly for uniformity for 1 year.
I am planning to use the above biochar compost on 5 acres. I am attaching a test report of the mixture.
Do comment on the final product nutrient analysis. 
Do I need to worry about any nutrients high level( especially Na, chlorides, and Fe ). 
 
Regards
Lakshmikantha 
 
 
 

<Kammann-etal-2015_SciRep.pdf><Kammann-etal-2015_Suppl-Info_SciRep11080.pdf>


Re: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] Biochar-Compost analysis

Claudia Kammann
 

Hello Lakshmikanth,

 

One of the things that I noticed that may have been missing from your mixture is fresh plant material (leaf litter, residue, pruning with leaves, grass cuttings etc.) that the decomposing microbes can use as an easy source of degradable carbon. Cow manure: Carbohydrates have largely been already digested by the cow, so less “fuel” for a good composting process.

 

Why was the gypsum added, is there S deficiency in the soils where its use is intended?

 

In the attached paper and supplementary, we describe a mixture that provided a high-quality compost. Hope this helps –

 

Claudia

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Trevor Richards
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. März 2021 20:10
An: main@biochar.groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] Biochar-Compost analysis

 

Hi  Lakshmikanth,

Your mix of compost components does not appear to provide an ideal (labile)carbon-nitrogen ratio. More woody biomass would be better?

 

On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 04:04, Lakshmikantha BL via groups.io <kanthabl=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

 

I have tried for the first time to make a BioChar-Compost in India.

I did add the following components into the mixture 

1. Coconut shell waste biochar - 10 tons 

2. Gypsum -10 tons 

3. Cow manure - 12 tons 

4. Rock Phosphate - 2 tons 

5. Regularly enriched char with microbes ( waste decomposers ). 

 

I use to mix the mixture regularly for uniformity for 1 year.

I am planning to use the above biochar compost on 5 acres. I am attaching a test report of the mixture.

Do comment on the final product nutrient analysis. 

Do I need to worry about any nutrients high level( especially Na, chlorides, and Fe ). 

 

Regards

Lakshmikantha 

 

 

 


Re: Biochar-Compost analysis

Trevor Richards
 

Hi  Lakshmikanth,
Your mix of compost components does not appear to provide an ideal (labile)carbon-nitrogen ratio. More woody biomass would be better?


On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 04:04, Lakshmikantha BL via groups.io <kanthabl=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

I have tried for the first time to make a BioChar-Compost in India.
I did add the following components into the mixture 
1. Coconut shell waste biochar - 10 tons 
2. Gypsum -10 tons 
3. Cow manure - 12 tons 
4. Rock Phosphate - 2 tons 
5. Regularly enriched char with microbes ( waste decomposers ). 

I use to mix the mixture regularly for uniformity for 1 year.
I am planning to use the above biochar compost on 5 acres. I am attaching a test report of the mixture.
Do comment on the final product nutrient analysis. 
Do I need to worry about any nutrients high level( especially Na, chlorides, and Fe ). 

Regards
Lakshmikantha 



1121 - 1140 of 30803