New anti-biochar paper section 4 please start on section 1 below

Geoff Thomas

Finally the last half dozen pages, and glad to finish, - hopefully some will find it helpful, and of course please feel free to criticise my comments exactly.

Geoff Thomas..

section 4.

Compost much more effective than “biochar”
The positive effect of carbon-rich fertilisers in the soil is highly dependent on the form in which the carbon is introduced into the soil. Not every organic fertiliser is suitable for soil life (for example, slurry or large amounts of fresh matter are not beneficial to soil life). Compost is particularly well suited to improve soil, increase its humus content and its fertility. And it is much more effective than “biochar”.
It is probably as effective as biochar in several of those categories but very unlikely to be better, and definitely not as good as With Biochar.
Several positive effects of compost (without “biochar” enrichment) on the soil have been well established for many years [15]:
Increase of aggregate stability, improved soil structure
Increase in pore volume with simultaneous improvement in water storage and filtration capacities
Increased biological activity
Increased humus content
Reduced risk of erosion, flood protection
Increase in mycorrhization and improved nutrient supply
Reduced N leaching
Improved disease resistance in crops
According to current knowledge, of this list, “biochar” was "known to provide, Bestes article is quite old,  provides at most 1-3 positive effects (results in the existing studies vary greatly [16]). So, if uncontaminated biomass is available, it is far more effective for soil and climate to use it for the production of quality compost rather than pyrolysis charcoal. Furthermore, in pyrolysed charcoal/”biochar” the pollutant potential persists. In pyrolysis technology, organic material is carbonised at temperatures of 350°C and oxygen contents of < 2%. The higher the temperatures, the more stable the carbon will be. Largely independent of the starting materials, a variety of aromatic organic substances will always be formed during the process of pyrolysis. Among them are a number of pollutants that are difficult to break down, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are carcinogenic and mutagenic [17].  We found that to be a tiny unimportant fraction, as many on this list will recall.Therefore, applying “biochar” includes a potential hazard to soils.
Regarding “biochar”, the report by the Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production (EGTOP) at the EU Commission comes to the following conclusion:
“The principles of organic farming state that soil fertility should be based on a ‘living soil’, that means by enhancing soil microbial activity. Consequently, the majority of fertilisers used in organic farming are feeding soil micro-organisms. By contrast, biochar does not directly feed soil organisms. There are alternative ways of recycling organic materials, such as composting. If biochar were applied at a large scale (as it would be necessary for having an impact on climate), the use of biomass for biochar production would compete with the traditional uses of biomass (e.g. for composting) and other plant residues (straw), which are necessary for building up humus. The Group reports that composted material has beneficial effects on the soil, and in specific cases can be more effective in comparison with biochar.[18]”I would say that I have already answered this claim but Ms Beste is welcome to substantiate it in her own words, if possible.. 
A global market – with an eye on subsidies
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].
But production is very complex and expensive, which makes “biochar” unattractive to potential customers – farmers in particular. Therefore, subsidies for “carbon farming” would be ideal from the perspective of the corporations in the market. More from the perspective of the farmers.
We should not fall for the next greenwashing technology Biochar has been developing in the west for approximately 20 years that I know of and by indigenous folk for at least 7,000 years, and is widely proven. with high promises, which leads to funding being diverted away from holistic systems such as organic farming with many advantages in saving ecosystem services and shifted to technological pseudo-solutions such as the burial of “biochar” with a bunch of question marks about sustainability. The bunch of questions arise from an attachment to earlier ways, and are no longer germaine.
It appears to me that funding would be better to be directed to Biochar with Compost because it has the advantages of both and can help eliminate Severe Climate change bigtime, as well.

end of section 4
Geoff Thomas

On 21 Apr 2021, at 7:46 pm, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:

Firstly  to Rick, , I gather from what you were saying, - although I am not in your class of chemistry by a long shot, that Ms Beste’s faith in going just organic was not taking into account the Nitrogen requirements? - whereas Biochar could? something like that?

On 21 Apr 2021, at 2:02 pm, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:

Section 3, 

Climate relevance of carbon sequestration in soils
During the 2015 UN climate conference in Paris, a global programme for humus building was initiated. The “4-Permille Initiative” (4 pour 1000) aims at an annual increase of carbon storage in soils by 4 permille. The assumption is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be offset almost completely.
No one will object to building humus in the world’s soils. With very few exceptions, and when done correctly, it will have a positive effect on soil structure and substance exchange. However, it is highly questionable to justify the necessity for more humus in soils by arguing that other industrial sectors should be exempted from doing their homework and reduce CO2 emissions. This line of argument reduces humus building to a tool in the CO2-certificate logic and that is not an expedient argument, at least not for agriculture. It does not do justice to the huge relevance humus building has for the maintenance of soil fertility, for soil eco-system services and for global food security. To ensure soil fertility, we need living soils with high biological activity and diversity – and this diversity would not exist without decomposition processes.

In 2012, the Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries (Thünen) in Germany wrote in regard to the potential of carbon sequestration in soils for the purpose of climate protection:
“The additional storage of soil organic carbon in the course of sustainable humus management is generally limited in time and quantity because the humus reservoir develops a new equilibrium. Once soil management is changed again, even organic carbon that may have been stored for decades can be mineralised in a short time” [6].
The Thünen Institute draws the conclusion that building humus is important for soil fertility, erosion protection, groundwater formation and flood protection and it renders agriculture more climate resilient. But it is not suitable for CO2 certificates. This point is reiterated in the Thünen Institute’s 2018 response to the “4-Permille Initiative” [7].
“CO2 certificates for the sequestration of atmospheric carbon in soils: methods, measures and limitations” [8] is the title of a 2020 study within the “BonaRes”- project (soil as sustainable resource for the bio economy) funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research. It, too, highlights the limitations of CO2 certificate trading. Storage is subject to strong fluctuations, it is reversible, and measurement is difficult. At present, the authors of the study evaluate the instrument of CO2 certificates critically. Although they deem using good management practices to raise the carbon content in agricultural soils as positive in regard to agriculture and climate protection, they conclude that the instrument of private CO2 certificates may be unsuitable.
Ms Beste is reporting that due to some difficulties, underlined above, Private C02 certificates "may be unsuitable", hopefully she will simplify that change appropriately.

What is particularly important here is that an increase in soil carbon content is not necessarily synonymous with a sustainable agricultural model and the building of high-quality humus. Some measures can have a negative impact on soils or can introduce potential pollutants into soils (e.g. “biochar”). Therefore, a narrow focus (?) on aspects of climate protection in agriculture can actually harm other environmental media [9]. 
Yet another example from Biochar critics of 'argument by perhapses’.  

The German Thünen Institute concluded in 2012:
“Climate change measures in agriculture should be implemented first in areas where large synergies with other environmental goals and environmental policies exist”.
No reason for “biochar” euphoria
The introduction of carbon into soils by means of pyrolysis carbon/“biochar” is much discussed in this context. Those lobbying for it say it is particularly stable and does not degrade so quickly. However, support for techniques that aim to store carbon in the soil for as long as possible while stabilising it against depletion overlook the fact that – at least in temperate climates – it is primarily soil life that is responsible for functioning ecosystem services of soils.
Whether in fact support overlooks is not proven.
Only a high level of biological activity will result in good soil properties and healthy plant nutrition as well as biopores for water storage and purification. This active biology implicates in general a humus build-up but also a decomposition process [10]. Dead biochar, which delays the decomposition process does not support this high biological activity. This is a highly speculative assertion and is even more not proven.
The strong effects of charcoal in the so-called “Terra Preta” soils occur because tropical soils contain hardly any nutrient exchangers and humus formation is difficult. Humus formation in Tropical soils is not difficult, stopping it from breaking down and the carbon disappearing is difficult, fortunately the Biochar retains much of the goodness. The situation in soils in temperate zones is completely different. And, without prior inoculation of the “biochar” with nutrients the strong nutrient storage capacity contributes to nutrient immobilisation, which is extremely counterproductive, especially in organic farming [11]. So would be using raw materials of compost etc.
A critical meta-study reviewed a large number of publications (>300) and concluded that there is insufficient empirical evidence to support the potentials of plant carbon/”biochar” application in climate change mitigation [12]. To really have an impact on the climate, vast amounts of “biochar” would have to be applied. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander, it would have to take a much larger amount of compost to acheive the same thing and would not last more than a few years. Numerical modelling showed that about 1 % of Germany’s greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030 could be achieved through the production of “biochar”. However, this would require all of the biomass available in Germany to be processed into “biochar” [13].  I looked up [13] despite my hatred of ‘"argument by links, because it seemed to me such a preposterous thing to say, - it was in German and from 2014, so probably nothing.
In terms of humus building and positive effects on soil ecology, the introduction of “biochar” into the soil is clearly inferior compared to techniques such as a balanced crop rotation with diverse and deep root penetration, permaculture, agroforestry, the recycling of organic matter through the application of solid manure, crop residues and compost [14}. All of these techniques have been tried and tested in agriculture for hundreds of years and organic farmers have optimised them further.
Whilst this section is true, the addition of Biochar would not reduce these things nor their result, but probably just improve them greatly, - all one needs is an open mind to accept that that proposition is worth exploring.
Again, a quote from the Thünen Institute for Agricultural Climate Protection from the 2018 soil condition report:
“Does the use of biochar have potential? Biochar from the process of pyrolysis proves to be highly stable in soils and could thus contribute to the stable fraction of permanent humus. With biochar, positive yield effects have so far only been demonstrated in nutrient-poor tropical soils, but not in the more nutrient-rich soils of temperate climate zones. I think Ron? answered this one already.
Open questions remain, regarding the availability of suitable initial substrates for biochar, its pollutant content, profitability and the legal framework as well as the overall energetic and ecological assessment Over the last few years, these aspects have been explored minutely, - often to answer anti biochar papers, and there are very few doubts in these areas, - none major, and currently they stand in the way of a positive evaluation of the use of biochar in our arable soils.” So they do not stand in the way of a positive evaluation of the use of Biochar in our soils so that is why it has been done and found worthy of proceeding with.

End of my comments on section 3, 
Next, section 4, the last, 
Compost much more effective than “biochar”

On 21 Apr 2021, at 2:24 pm, Rick Wilson via <rick012@...> wrote:

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. 


<N C-N Ratio.jpeg>

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!

Geoff Thomas.
Section 1

y Andrea Beste, originally published by ARC2020
April 8, 2Print
Ed. note: This article first appeared on 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:

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.