New anti-biochar paper section 2 please start on section 1 below


Geoff Thomas
 

Section 2

The priority – Reducing GHG emissions in Agriculture 

Bagged commercial fertiliser preparation
Some facts. The lion’s share of climate gasses in the atmosphere is caused by the extraction of fossil carbon deposits in solid or gaseous form (energy for industry, transport, heating, cooling, etc.). According to the IPCC report on land use and the World Agriculture Report [2] agriculture is both a driver of climate change as well as its dramatic victim. And, depending on the type of agricultural system, it has a crucial mitigation potential too.
Another fact is rarely discussed is that agriculture’s largest contribution to climate change stems from the production and application of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser [3]. By reducing the use of chemical fertilisers and substituting it with high-quality organic fertilisers, half of all agricultural greenhouse gas emissions could be prevented while simultaneously building humus.
Another major intervention point is the reduction of animal numbers, by linking animal numbers to the available acreage and promoting pasture grazing. Because of the humus stored underneath grasslands, this measure in particular would contribute to climate protection. Apart from soils in permafrost regions, peatlands and grasslands contain the largest part of the carbon stored in soils. Protecting these biomes must be a priority. Next to forests, grasslands are the largest biome on our planet and cover about 40 percent of the vegetated land area [4].

Ruminants are essential for the protection of grassland because only grazed grassland will persist and the more regularly it is grazed, the more humus is built up. Therefore, ruminants cannot just be evaluated according to their methane emissions: broaden the frame for the assessment and – compared with the use of chemical fertilisers – the balance shifts considerably; because ruminants are grazing, they are active climate protectors [5].
Healthy agricultural soils contribute substantially to the functioning of our ecosystems. What is needed are a high humus content and an active soil life. However, it cannot be the task of agriculture to “capture” greenhouse gases caused by industrial production and permanently store them in soils. An active soil life means humus is built but also always decomposed and transformed (processes that will also release CO2 as well). Soils are not suitable to serve as permanent storage for carbon sequestered from the air. That’s why, CO2 certificates are not the right instrument for agriculture.

This starts off with a general series of statements which apply as equally to Biochar as anything else, however only biochar or pyrolised cellulose fed to ruminants reduces methane as it is produced, so it should be included.
However, her subsequent argument on healthy soils, and that they will eventually lose their carbon suddenly jumps to therefore they can’t be used to store carbon, - because they don’t? - this is a non-sequitor, no doubt based on her earlier attempt to remove Biochar from the set of possibilities. 
  - In fact, Biochar has not been proved to reduce soil fertility if it is properly prepared, - as would be the case with any compost additive to soils. 
Indeed much soil is composed of decomposed grains of rocks etc, the which much of could be replaced by Biochar as it adds to the functionality of the biological life and water holding where degraded sand usually does not.
This has been proved in many many cases so CO2 certificates would be not only appropriate but as Biochar improves the soil, not just sequesters carbon, it is highly desirable to encourage the sequestration side, - hence certificates or such.
The sequestration can not be discounted because it doesnt fit in with somebodys purist assessment of soil function, and that making it have economic value should not be tied to other, - non-farmers, producing carbon dioxide.
The problem is for the whole planet, and the more help from everybody, the greater the slim chance that we will survive.

It is also very questionable that modern agriculture would survive without industrial production of at least farm implements so although that is another question, it is still tied in with everything else.

Thus ends my comments on section 2, section 3 starts with, 

Climate relevance of carbon sequestration in soils

On 21 Apr 2021, at 12:34 pm, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:


 I think it is quite doable to answer this anti Biochar paper, some of it is simply mistaken set theory, - you have all probably heard errors of same, - eg, all rats have 4 legs, - you want me to ride a rat?
Putting it into sections might make it easier, then we can just answer the bits in each section under that section, I plan to do all sections, have removed all photos, advertising, etc etc. my comments in red, if you follow them directly yours should be also red. 
I have also taken the liberty of numbering the sections, so replies and comments from all will make sense, hoping everyone will agree to that structure!

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.
Section 1

y Andrea Beste, originally published by ARC2020
April 8, 2Print
Ed. note: This article first appeared on ARC2020.eu. ARC2020 is a platform for agri-food and rural actors working towards better food, farming, and rural policies for Europe. 
Carbon farming is a new buzz word, hotly debated in the EU Commission, in European Ministries and Chambers of Agriculture, and the subject of numerous projects and movements. It is in fact proposed as an ecoscheme by the Commission.  So far, however, there is no binding definition of “carbon farming” and there seem to be many different understandings of the term. What most approaches have in common is the objective of storing carbon in the soil in some way. Soil Scientist Dr. Andrea Beste unpacks some important points for this contested approach to soil and land management.
So that was the editors note, he uses 8 conflict mentions, - sounds a bit like a cigarette defence, - whatever.. G

"In 2018, the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation (LULUCF) [1] was adopted. Its commitments are to be included in the new EU energy and climate policy framework for the period of 2021 – 2030. The expectation is that this will contribute to the EU target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. In this context, the EU Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy supports CO2 certificates for agriculture.
In my opinion, this is neither constructive nor productive. When it comes to humus and soils, the focus must be on soil fertility, ecosystem services and greater resilience to climate change, and not on CO2 sequestration, certificate trading and carbon storage. Considering an isolated factor within an agricultural ecosystem in purely economic terms does not put enough value on ecosystem services and risks incentivising the adoption of one-sided measures.

This is an opinion, although the article was given a lot of beat-up. however she is making several contestable arguments, the which need to be dealt with at the same level, - firstly those in bold, where she lays out her argument that for humus and soils various things are important and other things not, - it is important to mention that the entire discussion is not just about humus and soils, - she is trying to use a very small set to leverage her arguments, the which are about at least global climate change, world soil health, and probably survival of our civilisation.
Therefore she does wrong by saying that CO2 sequestration, certificate trading and carbon storage are not part of the discussion, at least without any proof whatever, and also in that naming implies other like solutions would be unable to help.
Her final sentence, (my underline) puts out a series of personal values, - eg about economics, that are neither defensible nor explicated, particularly when it contains incentivising the adoption of one-sided measures'
Thus ends section 1, next section is


The priority – Reducing GHG emissions in Agriculture (to be continued)


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





Rick Wilson
 

Hi Geoff,

I wanted to comment on your focus on substituting nitrogen fertilizers with organics.  
This is a particular challenge with short rotation crops, where feeding the plant with chemical nitrogen when it grows gives you the largest plant.
Organics can’t compete. The issue is that the C/N ratio of organic fertilizers is too high which limits its release rate.  See below.

One option, move our consumption away from short-rotation crops. 

I’ve been wondering of the new trend towards indoor vertical farming is actually a bad thing.  No longer growing food in the soil.   
I am not an expert in vertical farming, but I am told the economics, water use, and fertilizer use are far superior to conventional farming.
If that is so, then we can allow the farm land cleared to farming to revert back to forests?

(Besides formulating substitute organic fertilizers from food waste extract for companies in California), I’ve been focused on getting biochar into landscapes, 
In particular, parks,  California has 1.5 million acres of them.  Perfect place for no till, and accumulating carbon. 

Rick






On Apr 20, 2021, at 9:02 PM, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:

Section 2

The priority – Reducing GHG emissions in Agriculture 

Bagged commercial fertiliser preparation
Some facts. The lion’s share of climate gasses in the atmosphere is caused by the extraction of fossil carbon deposits in solid or gaseous form (energy for industry, transport, heating, cooling, etc.). According to the IPCC report on land use and the World Agriculture Report [2] agriculture is both a driver of climate change as well as its dramatic victim. And, depending on the type of agricultural system, it has a crucial mitigation potential too.
Another fact is rarely discussed is that agriculture’s largest contribution to climate change stems from the production and application of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser [3]. By reducing the use of chemical fertilisers and substituting it with high-quality organic fertilisers, half of all agricultural greenhouse gas emissions could be prevented while simultaneously building humus.
Another major intervention point is the reduction of animal numbers, by linking animal numbers to the available acreage and promoting pasture grazing. Because of the humus stored underneath grasslands, this measure in particular would contribute to climate protection. Apart from soils in permafrost regions, peatlands and grasslands contain the largest part of the carbon stored in soils. Protecting these biomes must be a priority. Next to forests, grasslands are the largest biome on our planet and cover about 40 percent of the vegetated land area [4].

Ruminants are essential for the protection of grassland because only grazed grassland will persist and the more regularly it is grazed, the more humus is built up. Therefore, ruminants cannot just be evaluated according to their methane emissions: broaden the frame for the assessment and – compared with the use of chemical fertilisers – the balance shifts considerably; because ruminants are grazing, they are active climate protectors [5].
Healthy agricultural soils contribute substantially to the functioning of our ecosystems. What is needed are a high humus content and an active soil life. However, it cannot be the task of agriculture to “capture” greenhouse gases caused by industrial production and permanently store them in soils. An active soil life means humus is built but also always decomposed and transformed (processes that will also release CO2 as well). Soils are not suitable to serve as permanent storage for carbon sequestered from the air. That’s why, CO2 certificates are not the right instrument for agriculture.

This starts off with a general series of statements which apply as equally to Biochar as anything else, however only biochar or pyrolised cellulose fed to ruminants reduces methane as it is produced, so it should be included.
However, her subsequent argument on healthy soils, and that they will eventually lose their carbon suddenly jumps to therefore they can’t be used to store carbon, - because they don’t? - this is a non-sequitor, no doubt based on her earlier attempt to remove Biochar from the set of possibilities. 
  - In fact, Biochar has not been proved to reduce soil fertility if it is properly prepared, - as would be the case with any compost additive to soils. 
Indeed much soil is composed of decomposed grains of rocks etc, the which much of could be replaced by Biochar as it adds to the functionality of the biological life and water holding where degraded sand usually does not.
This has been proved in many many cases so CO2 certificates would be not only appropriate but as Biochar improves the soil, not just sequesters carbon, it is highly desirable to encourage the sequestration side, - hence certificates or such.
The sequestration can not be discounted because it doesnt fit in with somebodys purist assessment of soil function, and that making it have economic value should not be tied to other, - non-farmers, producing carbon dioxide.
The problem is for the whole planet, and the more help from everybody, the greater the slim chance that we will survive.

It is also very questionable that modern agriculture would survive without industrial production of at least farm implements so although that is another question, it is still tied in with everything else.

Thus ends my comments on section 2, section 3 starts with, 

Climate relevance of carbon sequestration in soils

On 21 Apr 2021, at 12:34 pm, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:


 I think it is quite doable to answer this anti Biochar paper, some of it is simply mistaken set theory, - you have all probably heard errors of same, - eg, all rats have 4 legs, - you want me to ride a rat?
Putting it into sections might make it easier, then we can just answer the bits in each section under that section, I plan to do all sections, have removed all photos, advertising, etc etc. my comments in red, if you follow them directly yours should be also red. 
I have also taken the liberty of numbering the sections, so replies and comments from all will make sense, hoping everyone will agree to that structure!

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.
Section 1

y Andrea Beste, originally published by ARC2020
April 8, 2Print
Ed. note: This article first appeared on ARC2020.eu. ARC2020 is a platform for agri-food and rural actors working towards better food, farming, and rural policies for Europe. 
Carbon farming is a new buzz word, hotly debated in the EU Commission, in European Ministries and Chambers of Agriculture, and the subject of numerous projects and movements. It is in fact proposed as an ecoscheme by the Commission.  So far, however, there is no binding definition of “carbon farming” and there seem to be many different understandings of the term. What most approaches have in common is the objective of storing carbon in the soil in some way. Soil Scientist Dr. Andrea Beste unpacks some important points for this contested approach to soil and land management.
So that was the editors note, he uses 8 conflict mentions, - sounds a bit like a cigarette defence, - whatever.. G

"In 2018, the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation (LULUCF) [1] was adopted. Its commitments are to be included in the new EU energy and climate policy framework for the period of 2021 – 2030. The expectation is that this will contribute to the EU target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. In this context, the EU Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy supports CO2 certificates for agriculture.
In my opinion, this is neither constructive nor productive. When it comes to humus and soils, the focus must be on soil fertility, ecosystem services and greater resilience to climate change, and not on CO2 sequestration, certificate trading and carbon storage. Considering an isolated factor within an agricultural ecosystem in purely economic terms does not put enough value on ecosystem services and risks incentivising the adoption of one-sided measures.

This is an opinion, although the article was given a lot of beat-up. however she is making several contestable arguments, the which need to be dealt with at the same level, - firstly those in bold, where she lays out her argument that for humus and soils various things are important and other things not, - it is important to mention that the entire discussion is not just about humus and soils, - she is trying to use a very small set to leverage her arguments, the which are about at least global climate change, world soil health, and probably survival of our civilisation.
Therefore she does wrong by saying that CO2 sequestration, certificate trading and carbon storage are not part of the discussion, at least without any proof whatever, and also in that naming implies other like solutions would be unable to help.
Her final sentence, (my underline) puts out a series of personal values, - eg about economics, that are neither defensible nor explicated, particularly when it contains incentivising the adoption of one-sided measures'
Thus ends section 1, next section is


The priority – Reducing GHG emissions in Agriculture (to be continued)


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






mikethewormguy
 

Rick,

In Califonia Organic certified short cycle (around 35 days) leafy green crops often use composted laying hen manure as their typical N source. It has a 2 week release time thus is put out as a pre-plant 15 days before seeding. Typical NPK is 4-4-2. 

An additional source of nutrients for a follow on  crop is the biomass that is tilled under from the previous crop.

Only 40% of the biomass from the original crop is harvested off. The remaining 60% is tilled in.

my 2 cents,

Mike


Rick Wilson
 

Mike, yes certainly organics do not use chemical nitrogen fertilizer.  
The problem is that typical yields are lower for organics, see below.  That also means organic uses more water per pound of production, water being a big cost, and challenge in CA.
Rick




On Apr 21, 2021, at 4:44 AM, mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy@...> wrote:

Rick,

In Califonia Organic certified short cycle (around 35 days) leafy green crops often use composted laying hen manure as their typical N source. It has a 2 week release time thus is put out as a pre-plant 15 days before seeding. Typical NPK is 4-4-2. 

An additional source of nutrients for a follow on  crop is the biomass that is tilled under from the previous crop.

Only 40% of the biomass from the original crop is harvested off. The remaining 60% is tilled in.

my 2 cents,

Mike


mikethewormguy
 

Rick,

I have yet to hear from my CA conventional/organic leafy green growers that they use more water on organic than conventional. 

Regarding the celery,  if the celery on the right is organically fertilized than I want to buy that celery with the stalks in a tight bunch..

Mike







Stephen Joseph
 

Hi Guys

We know biochar is synergistic with compost and that it increases its efficacy but we also know that if you engineer biochar you can  increase the amount of N that is fixed from the atmosphere

But I agree if you react chemical fertilisers with biochar and minerals you get enhanced growth without the downside of adding a straight chemical fertiliser.

So for soil health profitability and yield a mixed biochar mineral organic matter  chemical fertiliser may be the best solution.  Each soil and each plant needs a different combination.

I have used this strategy in my own garden where I add small amounts of chemical fertiliser with my biochar (these are biochar compound fertiliser granules where I have reacted biochar with minerals and  DAP/Urea P acid ammonium sulphate) and vermicompost when I see some deficiency.

My 5 cents
Stephen


On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 9:44 PM mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Rick,

In Califonia Organic certified short cycle (around 35 days) leafy green crops often use composted laying hen manure as their typical N source. It has a 2 week release time thus is put out as a pre-plant 15 days before seeding. Typical NPK is 4-4-2. 

An additional source of nutrients for a follow on  crop is the biomass that is tilled under from the previous crop.

Only 40% of the biomass from the original crop is harvested off. The remaining 60% is tilled in.

my 2 cents,

Mike


mikethewormguy
 

Stephen,

Your 5 cents is worth a bit more .  Biochar as a chem-lite bridge is a something to noodle from.

Mike


Paul S Anderson
 

Stephen,

You wrote:

But I agree if you react chemical fertilisers with biochar and minerals you get enhanced growth without the downside of adding a straight chemical fertiliser.

 

Please describe what are the options to “…react chemical fertilizers with biochar and mineral…”     
“react” is not sufficiently specific.

 

Thanks,

 

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 Stephen Joseph via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 5:14 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] New anti-biochar paper section 2 please start on section 1 below

 

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

Hi Guys

 

We know biochar is synergistic with compost and that it increases its efficacy but we also know that if you engineer biochar you can  increase the amount of N that is fixed from the atmosphere

 

But I agree if you react chemical fertilisers with biochar and minerals you get enhanced growth without the downside of adding a straight chemical fertiliser.

 

So for soil health profitability and yield a mixed biochar mineral organic matter  chemical fertiliser may be the best solution.  Each soil and each plant needs a different combination.

 

I have used this strategy in my own garden where I add small amounts of chemical fertiliser with my biochar (these are biochar compound fertiliser granules where I have reacted biochar with minerals and  DAP/Urea P acid ammonium sulphate) and vermicompost when I see some deficiency.

 

My 5 cents

Stephen

 

 

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 9:44 PM mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Rick,

In Califonia Organic certified short cycle (around 35 days) leafy green crops often use composted laying hen manure as their typical N source. It has a 2 week release time thus is put out as a pre-plant 15 days before seeding. Typical NPK is 4-4-2. 

An additional source of nutrients for a follow on  crop is the biomass that is tilled under from the previous crop.

Only 40% of the biomass from the original crop is harvested off. The remaining 60% is tilled in.

my 2 cents,

Mike


Geoff Thomas
 

Hi Paul, can you see any merit in the structure I suggested to answer this Beste lady?
So much total obliteration of some of her stuff, - can we put it somewhere? 
 (arguments against?)

Do you hate the suggested structure? or suggest another? - I like the floating comments eg Rick and Stephen, above the structure, inputted, although they do not answer her arguments, except they do,.. devastatingly,  - should we bother?

Cheers,
Geoff

On 22 Apr 2021, at 1:12 pm, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Stephen,
You wrote:
But I agree if you react chemical fertilisers with biochar and minerals you get enhanced growth without the downside of adding a straight chemical fertiliser.
 
Please describe what are the options to “…react chemical fertilizers with biochar and mineral…”      
“react” is not sufficiently specific.
 
Thanks,
 
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 Stephen Joseph via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 5:14 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] New anti-biochar paper section 2 please start on section 1 below
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Hi Guys
 
We know biochar is synergistic with compost and that it increases its efficacy but we also know that if you engineer biochar you can  increase the amount of N that is fixed from the atmosphere
 
But I agree if you react chemical fertilisers with biochar and minerals you get enhanced growth without the downside of adding a straight chemical fertiliser.
 
So for soil health profitability and yield a mixed biochar mineral organic matter  chemical fertiliser may be the best solution.  Each soil and each plant needs a different combination.
 
I have used this strategy in my own garden where I add small amounts of chemical fertiliser with my biochar (these are biochar compound fertiliser granules where I have reacted biochar with minerals and  DAP/Urea P acid ammonium sulphate) and vermicompost when I see some deficiency.
 
My 5 cents
Stephen
 
 
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 9:44 PM mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Rick,

In Califonia Organic certified short cycle (around 35 days) leafy green crops often use composted laying hen manure as their typical N source. It has a 2 week release time thus is put out as a pre-plant 15 days before seeding. Typical NPK is 4-4-2. 

An additional source of nutrients for a follow on  crop is the biomass that is tilled under from the previous crop.

Only 40% of the biomass from the original crop is harvested off. The remaining 60% is tilled in.

my 2 cents,

Mike



Geoff Thomas
 


On 22 Apr 2021, at 2:31 pm, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:

Hi Paul, can you see any merit in the structure I suggested to answer this Beste lady?
So much total obliteration of some of her stuff, - can we put it somewhere? 
 (arguments against?)

Do you hate the suggested structure? or suggest another? - I like the floating comments eg Rick and Stephen, above the structure, inputted, although they do not answer her arguments, except they do,.. devastatingly,  - should we bother?

Cheers,
Geoff

On 22 Apr 2021, at 1:12 pm, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Stephen,
You wrote:
But I agree if you react chemical fertilisers with biochar and minerals you get enhanced growth without the downside of adding a straight chemical fertiliser.
 
Please describe what are the options to “…react chemical fertilizers with biochar and mineral…”      
“react” is not sufficiently specific.
 
Thanks,
 
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 Stephen Joseph via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 5:14 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] New anti-biochar paper section 2 please start on section 1 below
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Hi Guys
 
We know biochar is synergistic with compost and that it increases its efficacy but we also know that if you engineer biochar you can  increase the amount of N that is fixed from the atmosphere
 
But I agree if you react chemical fertilisers with biochar and minerals you get enhanced growth without the downside of adding a straight chemical fertiliser.
 
So for soil health profitability and yield a mixed biochar mineral organic matter  chemical fertiliser may be the best solution.  Each soil and each plant needs a different combination.
 
I have used this strategy in my own garden where I add small amounts of chemical fertiliser with my biochar (these are biochar compound fertiliser granules where I have reacted biochar with minerals and  DAP/Urea P acid ammonium sulphate) and vermicompost when I see some deficiency.
 
My 5 cents
Stephen
 
 
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 9:44 PM mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Rick,

In Califonia Organic certified short cycle (around 35 days) leafy green crops often use composted laying hen manure as their typical N source. It has a 2 week release time thus is put out as a pre-plant 15 days before seeding. Typical NPK is 4-4-2. 

An additional source of nutrients for a follow on  crop is the biomass that is tilled under from the previous crop.

Only 40% of the biomass from the original crop is harvested off. The remaining 60% is tilled in.

my 2 cents,

Mike




Laurent Chabanne
 

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:13 PM, Stephen Joseph wrote:
We know biochar is synergistic with compost and that it increases its efficacy but we also know that if you engineer biochar you can  increase the amount of N that is fixed from the atmosphere
Hi Stephen,

That sounds very interesting. Are those results published?

Laurent


Stephen Joseph
 

yes

1.     Darby I., Xu C-Y. M. Wallace H., Joseph S., B. Pace B. & Bai S.H. (2016) Short-term dynamics of carbon and nitrogen using compost, compost-biochar mixture and organo-mineral biochar. Environ.  Sci Pollut Res. Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 11267-11278

 

2.     Ye J., Zhang R., Nielsen S., Joseph S., Huang D., Thomas T. (2016)  A combination of biochar-mineral complexes  and compost improves  soil bacterial processes, soil quality and plant properties.  Frontiers in Microbiology March 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 372

 Regards

Stephen


On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:16 PM Laurent Chabanne via groups.io <laurentbiochar=yahoo.fr@groups.io> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:13 PM, Stephen Joseph wrote:
We know biochar is synergistic with compost and that it increases its efficacy but we also know that if you engineer biochar you can  increase the amount of N that is fixed from the atmosphere
Hi Stephen,

That sounds very interesting. Are those results published?

Laurent


Laurent Chabanne
 

Brilliant, thanks, Stephen!

Regards,
Laurent