New anti-biochar paper


Ron Larson
 

List:

A friend alerted me to a new paper out or soon to be out. No author's name on.the paper- only a group name.

I skimmed and decided it was so bad that I had to look at it carefully. And rebut. I have about 8 hour’s work in on it.

Later with guidance from him and another friend, I decided to just send this note. - saying my notes are available to anyone. If the paper's title comes up again on this or any list - I will repeat this offer to share a day’s worth of research - mostly on the citations.

Stopping short saves me about another 4- 8 hours. I write this to save other’s time.

The value to anyone on this list will be knowing what the worst is that a.biochar critic can come up with. It’s not much.

Ron


Frank Strie
 

Ron, the facts are that the many complex Pyrogenic Carbon opportunities, incl. Biochar are working.
Just look at the great list of resources that PYREG in Germany have put together via this link:

https://pyreg.com/downloads

Keep your time &  energy and stay well.
Best regards from under Down Under in Tassie
Frank again



-----Original Message-----
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ron Larson
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Biochar Listserv <Biochar@groups.io>
Subject: [Biochar] New anti-biochar paper

 

List:

 

              A friend alerted me to a new paper out or soon to be out. No author's name on.the paper- only a group name. 

 

              I skimmed and decided it was so bad that I had to look at it carefully.  And rebut.    I have about 8 hour’s work in on it.    

             

              Later with guidance from him and another friend,  I decided to just send this note. - saying my notes are available to anyone.  If the paper's title comes up again on this or any list - I will repeat this offer to share a day’s worth of research - mostly on the citations.

 

              Stopping short saves me about another 4- 8 hours.   I write this to save other’s time.

 

              The value to anyone on this list will be knowing what the worst is that a.biochar critic can come up with.   It’s not much.

 

Ron

 

 

 


 

Ignoring this nonsense could be dangerous.  And so is waging a battle a bit dangerous.  I hope these orange pastas rot soon.

David




David R Derbowka             Chief Executive Officer

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



On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 6:35 PM Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:
List:

        A friend alerted me to a new paper out or soon to be out. No author's name on.the paper- only a group name. 

         I skimmed and decided it was so bad that I had to look at it carefully.  And rebut.    I have about 8 hour’s work in on it.     

        Later with guidance from him and another friend,  I decided to just send this note. - saying my notes are available to anyone.  If the paper's title comes up again on this or any list - I will repeat this offer to share a day’s worth of research - mostly on the citations.

        Stopping short saves me about another 4- 8 hours.   I write this to save other’s time.

        The value to anyone on this list will be knowing what the worst is that a.biochar critic can come up with.   It’s not much.

Ron





Robert Lehmert
 

Ron,

Would you share the paper?  I'd like to read. Thanks. 


Ron Larson
 



On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:11 AM, Robert Lehmert via groups.io <roblehmert@...> wrote:

Ron,

Would you share the paper?  I'd like to read. Thanks. 


Ron Larson
 

List;

I goofed in responding to Robert - by unintentionally sending to the full list..  No real damage.  The only merit in anyone reading this in this rough incomplete form is seeing what BFW and their few allies are claiming about biochar.   

I didn’t do enough on the main text (I focussed on the cites) - and suppose I now should.   Plenty there to complain about also - since some (many) statements in the main text are in error and no cite was given.. 

  I am afraid that the several groups behind this message (part of a series) are believed by a substantial number of similar (mainly environmental) groups.

 I’d welcome guidance on any other next steps.
Ron



On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:28 AM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:



On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:11 AM, Robert Lehmert via groups.io <roblehmert@...> wrote:

Ron,

Would you share the paper?  I'd like to read. Thanks. 

<BFW Comments April 13-pdf.pdf>


Nando Breiter
 

I tangled with BFW in that 2008 + time frame. Can't believe they are still at it. At the time, someone traced their funding to a fossil fuel interest. As far as I can tell, they are being paid to produce disinformation, and they are fully aware that this is their assignment. Writing them to refute what they are putting out is futile. 

What I noticed at the time is that they formatted their output as if it was a scientific paper, to cloak their whatever you call it, propaganda, heavily weighted opinion, in a guise of credibility. Tricky.


On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 6:55 PM Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:


On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:11 AM, Robert Lehmert via groups.io <roblehmert@...> wrote:

Ron,

Would you share the paper?  I'd like to read. Thanks. 


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


Geoff Thomas
 

There seems to me to be two areas, one, that certain people can not get or choose to not get the concept that most carbon will return to the atmosphere, so any carbon that Biochar buries for long periods of time is a win, and any organic material that is burnt so it saves fossil fuels from being dug up and burnt is a win.
That argument is mainly winnable by careful explanation, it is after all, Correct, the only thing needed is clear thinking.

The other main area, - and this I first came across in a posting on a permaculture site by a very respected member of the permaculture movement, a geneticist. https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/11/18/beware-the-biochar-initiative/
Although there was a lot of other now disproven stuff it is the speculation, voiced with lots of dire consequences arising therefrom, that some greedy capitalist would seize on the idea and 'clear fell' the forests of the world to make biochar.
Certainly that would be a very dire thing to happen, and it is a difficult one to refute because it is not a process of logical thinking although the direness is, but pure speculation based on fear, and only fear, in the ultimate analysis.
So because it is based on speculation, it can’t be totally disproved, - even though the greedy capitalists are chopping down trees all over the world, they usually just push them in piles and burn them, if there was lots of money in it they would be charring them.
However, that is logical, fear does not need logic to grow.

That the permaculture movement countenances such speculation also arises from a lot of permaculture practitioners that believe that Permaculture is the only way, so they see Biochar as a threat.
There are however lots of permaculture folk who don’t believe that sort of one-eyed stuff these days, as there is no reason at all why Biochar can not be used with Permaculture and to very good effect.

I received a petition the other day from some group or another, anti woodchipping, again not understanding my first point above, and streuth all te other crimes perpetrated by the wood chippers, - one speculation begets another.
ANyway I will forward that one to the list when I send this.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

On 14 Apr 2021, at 12:07 pm, David R Derbowka <david.derbowka@...> wrote:

Ignoring this nonsense could be dangerous.  And so is waging a battle a bit dangerous.  I hope these orange pastas rot soon.

David




David R Derbowka             Chief Executive Officer

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




On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 6:35 PM Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:
List:

        A friend alerted me to a new paper out or soon to be out. No author's name on.the paper- only a group name.  

         I skimmed and decided it was so bad that I had to look at it carefully.  And rebut.    I have about 8 hour’s work in on it.     

        Later with guidance from him and another friend,  I decided to just send this note. - saying my notes are available to anyone.  If the paper's title comes up again on this or any list - I will repeat this offer to share a day’s worth of research - mostly on the citations.

        Stopping short saves me about another 4- 8 hours.   I write this to save other’s time.

        The value to anyone on this list will be knowing what the worst is that a.biochar critic can come up with.   It’s not much.

Ron






Norm Baker
 

Ron;

Do you have a citation to this anti-biochar paper?

Norm


Hugh McLaughlin
 

I debated Rachael Smolker in 2011 on biochar at a NOFA event. It was like Wack-a-Mole. She never let logic get in the way of a amazing claim of doom and gloom. Often wrong but never in doubt. I still have the video, but it is poor quality.

- Hugh McLaughlin, PhD, PE

On Saturday, April 17, 2021, 11:34:29 PM EDT, Norm Baker <ntbakerphd@...> wrote:


Ron;

Do you have a citation to this anti-biochar paper?

Norm


Norm Baker
 

Guys;

If you think Beware the Biochar Initiative was egregious, read this paper - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-04-08/a-soil-scientists-perspective-carbon-farming-co2-certification-carbon-sequestration-in-soil/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-soil-scientists-perspective-carbon-farming-co2-certification-carbon-sequestration-in-soil&mc_cid=991ca20717&mc_eid=fb12a7056b By A. Beste, April 20121. A Soil Scientists Perspective - Carbon Framing, CO2 Certification and Carbon Sequestration in Soil. This is the modern version of Beware the Biochar Initiative.

There are so many "wacka mole" mistakes and misinterpretations (aka Hugh McLaughlin), it is incredible. I started to analyze in depth and decided it would be a waste of time. So, instead of confronting the mistakes and misinterpretations directly to some of my permaculture community members, I decided to look into the author. Google scholar shows quite a number of co-authored publications which appear to be quite reputable but altogether entirely too conservative for a reputable scientist. However if you dig deep enough, it seems she did her PhD thesis on soil sampling and has done extensive publishing. Go to https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/716/2/beste-a-2002-diss-en.pdf for her thesis work. This is a topic I know something about and the best that can be said is that this author has a predetermined conclusion that carefully cherry picks the scientific literature to support what she says. Of course, no single individual "can know at all about any given topic ", but what really surprises me is that she simply avoids  any information she did that does not support her personal conclusion. In the process, or perhaps I should say in a well-written manuscript, she seems to try to vacillate between accepted truths and but then draws an inappropriate conclusion. I understand that an opinion is what she is presenting, but no where does she refer to some very well established books and references on biochar.

Many of the points she makes are clearly arguable or perhaps I should say discussable. Four however are not. First, her assertion that biochar works only in tropical soils is flat out wrong. Sequim is at latitude 48° north and we most definitely have temperate soils. For several years I have been conducting experiments of biochar amended soils compared to no biochar amended soils compared to native soils. All growing operations are organic. The difference in productivity for biochar amended soils is astonishing and a manuscript is in progress. Second, we have to recognize that composting operations are actually an organic waste disposal mechanism that we have converted into a valuable usable soil amendment. Problem is the half-life of compost is somewhere between 1 1/2 years to 3 years. Compost then degrades to humus and Johannes Lehmann had something very useful to say about humus and I agree with his conclusions. Third, her list of the benefits of compost and her assertion they do not apply to biochar, shows she does not know what she is talking about. Fourth, many reputable scientists have documented the half-life of biochar in the soil and its environmental benefits for carbon sequestration to fight global warming. Other points could be argued or simply defeated easily, but these are the ones that stood out to me.

This publication I think is the result of simply not reading the scientific literature pertinent to soils.. Frankly it is the kind of publication I would have expected to be published about 2010 to 2012.

Norm


Ron Larson
 

Norm and list

1.  Thanks for the alert.

2.  Here is the first two of her last  four paragraphs  -that look like thery were an afterthought. 

"The global “biochar” market is no longer about “pioneers”. In 2019 it had a turnover of 1 billion dollars and strong growth [19].

Involved are corporations such as Diacarbon Energy Agri-Tech Producers, Biochar Now, Carbon Gold, Kina, The Biochar Company, Swiss Biochar, GmbH, ElementC6, BioChar Products, Black Carbon, Cool Planet and Carbon Terra. And it is no longer just a question of residual materials. In the meantime, wood (not residues), maize and wheat are used as raw materials [20]."


3.  Neither 19 or 20 are given in the article (nor in the original ARC2020 source).  The list of references is another giveaway on her knowledge. -  no recent cites at all 9except for the unknown 19 anad 20. Just like BFW.   ARC2020.could do a better job of reviewing what they print - and same for ‘Resilience.'

But I would like to see both 19 and 20 - in case any list member knows Dr.  Beste.    


4.  Norm;    I concur that not much biochar knowledge is displayed.  I remain much more worried about BFW - being bigger players, with a longer anti-biochar history.

Ron



On Apr 18, 2021, at 10:25 PM, Norm Baker <ntbakerphd@...> wrote:

Guys;

If you think Beware the Biochar Initiative was egregious, read this paper - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-04-08/a-soil-scientists-perspective-carbon-farming-co2-certification-carbon-sequestration-in-soil/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-soil-scientists-perspective-carbon-farming-co2-certification-carbon-sequestration-in-soil&mc_cid=991ca20717&mc_eid=fb12a7056b By A. Beste, April 20121. A Soil Scientists Perspective - Carbon Framing, CO2 Certification and Carbon Sequestration in Soil. This is the modern version of Beware the Biochar Initiative.

There are so many "wacka mole" mistakes and misinterpretations (aka Hugh McLaughlin), it is incredible. I started to analyze in depth and decided it would be a waste of time. So, instead of confronting the mistakes and misinterpretations directly to some of my permaculture community members, I decided to look into the author. Google scholar shows quite a number of co-authored publications which appear to be quite reputable but altogether entirely too conservative for a reputable scientist. However if you dig deep enough, it seems she did her PhD thesis on soil sampling and has done extensive publishing. Go to https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/716/2/beste-a-2002-diss-en.pdf for her thesis work. This is a topic I know something about and the best that can be said is that this author has a predetermined conclusion that carefully cherry picks the scientific literature to support what she says. Of course, no single individual "can know at all about any given topic ", but what really surprises me is that she simply avoids  any information she did that does not support her personal conclusion. In the process, or perhaps I should say in a well-written manuscript, she seems to try to vacillate between accepted truths and but then draws an inappropriate conclusion. I understand that an opinion is what she is presenting, but no where does she refer to some very well established books and references on biochar.

Many of the points she makes are clearly arguable or perhaps I should say discussable. Four however are not. First, her assertion that biochar works only in tropical soils is flat out wrong. Sequim is at latitude 48° north and we most definitely have temperate soils. For several years I have been conducting experiments of biochar amended soils compared to no biochar amended soils compared to native soils. All growing operations are organic. The difference in productivity for biochar amended soils is astonishing and a manuscript is in progress. Second, we have to recognize that composting operations are actually an organic waste disposal mechanism that we have converted into a valuable usable soil amendment. Problem is the half-life of compost is somewhere between 1 1/2 years to 3 years. Compost then degrades to humus and Johannes Lehmann had something very useful to say about humus and I agree with his conclusions. Third, her list of the benefits of compost and her assertion they do not apply to biochar, shows she does not know what she is talking about. Fourth, many reputable scientists have documented the half-life of biochar in the soil and its environmental benefits for carbon sequestration to fight global warming. Other points could be argued or simply defeated easily, but these are the ones that stood out to me.

This publication I think is the result of simply not reading the scientific literature pertinent to soils.. Frankly it is the kind of publication I would have expected to be published about 2010 to 2012.

Norm


Ron Larson
 

Norm: and list;


2.  Thanks to these other responses. - all equally concerned about BFW. 

 I’d love to read a pro-BFW rebuttal.   Here is the anti list so far;

Ron Larson · #29750 · Apr 13
David R Derbowka · #29752 · Apr 13
Frank Strie · #29751 · Apr 13 
Nando Breiter · #29759 · Apr 14
Geoff Thomas · #29760 · Apr 14
Hugh McLaughlin · #29776 · Apr 17
John Miedema · #29777 · Apr 18
Norm Baker · #29778 · Apr 18

New anti-biochar paper

On Apr 17, 2021, at 9:34 PM, Norm Baker <ntbakerphd@...> wrote:

Ron;

Do you have a citation to this anti-biochar paper?

Norm


Tom Miles
 

Norm,

 

Beste would be best informed by biochar experts in the European Union and in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Spain in particular. Your comment that she seems to be stuck in 2010-2012 seems appropriate. The lack of scientific review undermines her arguments, not to mention citing and then omitting a clearly fraudulent reference which imagines exaggerated values of biochar sales and lists companies that are no longer in business. She would do well to interview European farmers and scientists who use biochar to amend compost, for feed, and other beneficial applications. Sonnenerde and the Kaindorf Ecoregion would be a place to start, not to mention the excellent work at German Universities by Claudia and others. EU funding for biochar has been well spent. Perhaps she sees biochar as competition with compost for EU funding since she appears to be a lobbyist for organic agriculture at the EU. I wonder if others at her Institute for Soil Conservation & Sustainable Agriculture (Büro für Bodenschutz & Ökologische Agrarkultur) in Mainz share her views.

 

If biochar wasn’t useful nobody would be buying or making it. In the US there are vast quantities of compost that go unused where composting is a means of waste disposal rather then soil amendment. If that is also the case in Europe how does converting residues to biochar compete with composting?  It would seem to me that she should be quite interested in the practical results of biochar amended compost and in your use of biochar with rotational grazing. But I am reminded of the gentleman who sat next to me at the ETHOS conference a couple of years ago who was shouting at you that biochar had no value while you were patiently explaining how much value you were creating with it. You might as well have been talking to an empty chair. That may be the case with Ms Beste.  

 

Tom  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Norm Baker
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 9:25 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] New anti-biochar paper

 

Guys;

 

If you think Beware the Biochar Initiative was egregious, read this paper - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-04-08/a-soil-scientists-perspective-carbon-farming-co2-certification-carbon-sequestration-in-soil/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-soil-scientists-perspective-carbon-farming-co2-certification-carbon-sequestration-in-soil&mc_cid=991ca20717&mc_eid=fb12a7056b By A. Beste, April 20121. A Soil Scientists Perspective - Carbon Framing, CO2 Certification and Carbon Sequestration in Soil. This is the modern version of Beware the Biochar Initiative.

 

There are so many "wacka mole" mistakes and misinterpretations (aka Hugh McLaughlin), it is incredible. I started to analyze in depth and decided it would be a waste of time. So, instead of confronting the mistakes and misinterpretations directly to some of my permaculture community members, I decided to look into the author. Google scholar shows quite a number of co-authored publications which appear to be quite reputable but altogether entirely too conservative for a reputable scientist. However if you dig deep enough, it seems she did her PhD thesis on soil sampling and has done extensive publishing. Go to https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/716/2/beste-a-2002-diss-en.pdf for her thesis work. This is a topic I know something about and the best that can be said is that this author has a predetermined conclusion that carefully cherry picks the scientific literature to support what she says. Of course, no single individual "can know at all about any given topic ", but what really surprises me is that she simply avoids  any information she did that does not support her personal conclusion. In the process, or perhaps I should say in a well-written manuscript, she seems to try to vacillate between accepted truths and but then draws an inappropriate conclusion. I understand that an opinion is what she is presenting, but no where does she refer to some very well established books and references on biochar.

 

Many of the points she makes are clearly arguable or perhaps I should say discussable. Four however are not. First, her assertion that biochar works only in tropical soils is flat out wrong. Sequim is at latitude 48° north and we most definitely have temperate soils. For several years I have been conducting experiments of biochar amended soils compared to no biochar amended soils compared to native soils. All growing operations are organic. The difference in productivity for biochar amended soils is astonishing and a manuscript is in progress. Second, we have to recognize that composting operations are actually an organic waste disposal mechanism that we have converted into a valuable usable soil amendment. Problem is the half-life of compost is somewhere between 1 1/2 years to 3 years. Compost then degrades to humus and Johannes Lehmann had something very useful to say about humus and I agree with his conclusions. Third, her list of the benefits of compost and her assertion they do not apply to biochar, shows she does not know what she is talking about. Fourth, many reputable scientists have documented the half-life of biochar in the soil and its environmental benefits for carbon sequestration to fight global warming. Other points could be argued or simply defeated easily, but these are the ones that stood out to me.

This publication I think is the result of simply not reading the scientific literature pertinent to soils.. Frankly it is the kind of publication I would have expected to be published about 2010 to 2012.

Norm


Norm Baker
 

Ron;

I agree that BFW is a bigger player but what worries me is when people like Beste do not observe the scientific doctrine and post an opinion they should have recognized as incomplete just because of the inconsistencies you pointed out. For me that is scientifically irresponsible.

Norm


Frank Strie
 

Hello Norm and others discussing natural processes and essential components in and above soil  / underground via the roots  and above the ground via the shoot / sprout of plans may also like to consider the wide ranging  information:

Roots for Resilience - Joel Williams. Soil Biology Conference 2021

604 views

Mar 3, 2021



Joel
is an independent plant and soil health educator and a healthy soil advocate. He provides lectures, workshops and consultation on soil management, plant nutrition and integrated approaches to sustainable food production.
He earned a Bachelor of Agricultural Science in Australia specializing in plant and soil dynamics and has a particular interest in managing soil microbial ecology along with crop & soil nutrition to optimize plant immunity, soil function and soil carbon sequestration. More recently, Joel has been working in the UK and Europe with both conventional and organic farming systems, integrating soil chemical & biological assessments, along with plant nutritional analyzes as a joined-up strategy for managing crop production. He has a passion for teaching and sharing both scientific and practical knowledge on agroecological growing practices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmnQLksk42A

When Joel visited Tasmania for a Regenerative Farming event in 2019, I asked him after his presentation, why he did not also provide the link to the role of  Pyrogenic Carbon / Biochar. He was “not against Biochar” just that the local and affordable availability for farmers need to be considered also. So this is where we come in as we explore that missing link to upcycling of otherwise wasted opportunities with biomass and bioenergy cogeneration at the appropriate scale according to local and regional conditions, needs and feedstock availability.

In a couple of weeks from now we will exhibit the complex opportunities and issues around production and use applications at Agfest 2021 over 4 days: https://www.agfest.com.au/agfest-2021. This year we will provide the opportunity to about 40,000 visitors (limited to 10,000/day due to Corona precautions)
https://www.agfest.com.au/agfest-2021 .
Here a few photos from our exhibition site in May 2019:  
https://www.terrapretadevelopments.com.au/terra-preta-display-at-agfest-2019
Our latest mobile kiln models and also industrial scale stationary pyrolysis and gasification info will be provided.
Circular economic and community conversations will bring about the shift to make the cheap, ignorant anti-biochar paper writers irrelevant.
We collaborate with farmers and landcarers in our region, on our island and with our neighbours in New Zealand and also with Christer and his action team of Circle Carbon Labs in Mallorca Spain:
https://circlecarbon.com  .

Linking site specific, restorative forest management with regenerative farming and renovative water catchment management - underpinning the growing circular biocarbon economy. Education, information sharing and demonstrating = doing it will lead to climate and community positive change.
Cheers to all
Frank again



 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Norm Baker
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:25 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] New anti-biochar paper

 

Guys;

 

If you think Beware the Biochar Initiative was egregious, read this paper - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-04-08/a-soil-scientists-perspective-carbon-farming-co2-certification-carbon-sequestration-in-soil/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-soil-scientists-perspective-carbon-farming-co2-certification-carbon-sequestration-in-soil&mc_cid=991ca20717&mc_eid=fb12a7056b By A. Beste, April 20121. A Soil Scientists Perspective - Carbon Framing, CO2 Certification and Carbon Sequestration in Soil. This is the modern version of Beware the Biochar Initiative.

 

There are so many "wacka mole" mistakes and misinterpretations (aka Hugh McLaughlin), it is incredible. I started to analyze in depth and decided it would be a waste of time. So, instead of confronting the mistakes and misinterpretations directly to some of my permaculture community members, I decided to look into the author. Google scholar shows quite a number of co-authored publications which appear to be quite reputable but altogether entirely too conservative for a reputable scientist. However if you dig deep enough, it seems she did her PhD thesis on soil sampling and has done extensive publishing. Go to https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/716/2/beste-a-2002-diss-en.pdf for her thesis work. This is a topic I know something about and the best that can be said is that this author has a predetermined conclusion that carefully cherry picks the scientific literature to support what she says. Of course, no single individual "can know at all about any given topic ", but what really surprises me is that she simply avoids  any information she did that does not support her personal conclusion. In the process, or perhaps I should say in a well-written manuscript, she seems to try to vacillate between accepted truths and but then draws an inappropriate conclusion. I understand that an opinion is what she is presenting, but no where does she refer to some very well established books and references on biochar.

 

Many of the points she makes are clearly arguable or perhaps I should say discussable. Four however are not. First, her assertion that biochar works only in tropical soils is flat out wrong. Sequim is at latitude 48° north and we most definitely have temperate soils. For several years I have been conducting experiments of biochar amended soils compared to no biochar amended soils compared to native soils. All growing operations are organic. The difference in productivity for biochar amended soils is astonishing and a manuscript is in progress. Second, we have to recognize that composting operations are actually an organic waste disposal mechanism that we have converted into a valuable usable soil amendment. Problem is the half-life of compost is somewhere between 1 1/2 years to 3 years. Compost then degrades to humus and Johannes Lehmann had something very useful to say about humus and I agree with his conclusions. Third, her list of the benefits of compost and her assertion they do not apply to biochar, shows she does not know what she is talking about. Fourth, many reputable scientists have documented the half-life of biochar in the soil and its environmental benefits for carbon sequestration to fight global warming. Other points could be argued or simply defeated easily, but these are the ones that stood out to me.

This publication I think is the result of simply not reading the scientific literature pertinent to soils.. Frankly it is the kind of publication I would have expected to be published about 2010 to 2012.

Norm


Norm Baker
 

Tom;

I absolutely agree with every comment you made about the German soil scientist. Could not agree more.

As I recall you have a home in Anacortes? Sometime, enroute from Portland to Anacortes why don't you stop by my place and I will give you the $0.25 tour of what we have accomplished with biochar as a soil amendment for agriculture. You are welcome anytime. Frankly anyone on this blog is welcome to the $0.25 tour if you are ever in the area. There are so many examples here at our place on the value of biochar nutrient balancing rotational grazing using chickens and common sense composting that, we still find it astonishing how productive our family garden is.

If you say please I will show you version 22 of my TLUD which I think we will be testing for emissions at Aprovecho probably in August.

Norm


Heide Horeth
 

Hello, I ran into Gary Piazzon and he said I'd be welcome to see what you are doing this Thurs/Fri at PRI (?). Can you please tell me what time your biochar talk is and how approximately long it will last?

Thank you,
Heide

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:35 AM Norm Baker <ntbakerphd@...> wrote:
Tom;

I absolutely agree with every comment you made about the German soil scientist. Could not agree more.

As I recall you have a home in Anacortes? Sometime, enroute from Portland to Anacortes why don't you stop by my place and I will give you the $0.25 tour of what we have accomplished with biochar as a soil amendment for agriculture. You are welcome anytime. Frankly anyone on this blog is welcome to the $0.25 tour if you are ever in the area. There are so many examples here at our place on the value of biochar nutrient balancing rotational grazing using chickens and common sense composting that, we still find it astonishing how productive our family garden is.

If you say please I will show you version 22 of my TLUD which I think we will be testing for emissions at Aprovecho probably in August.

Norm