Scientists Promote Benefits of Black Magic Soil (Global Warming)

[420inTN]

Scientists Promote Benefits of Black Magic Soil
By Corey Binns
Special to LiveScience
posted: 22 February 2006
11:14 am ET


ST LOUIS—Black soil created by humans long ago could brighten the future of modern farming and help curb global warming.

The dark earth, called terra preta, was produced by Amazonian people who slowly burned their waste by smoldering it, thousands of years ago.

{snip}

Scientists say terra preta can do much more than a box of Miracle-Gro. The process of making it pulls carbon out of the atmosphere, and can reduce global warming.

"The knowledge we can gain from studying the Amazonian dark earths, found throughout the Amazon River region, not only teaches us how to restore degraded soils, triple crop yields and support a wide array of crops in regions with agriculturally poor soils, but also can lead to technologies to sequester carbon in soil and prevent critical changes in world climate," said Johannes Lehmann, a biogeochemist at Cornell University.

more, full story here

[oneighty]

1. I think Japan

cut out the middle man and the smoldering and all that.

Not anymore of course.

180

[shanti]

7. ahhh, the honey pot

i lived in japan at one point and remember them well.

[oneighty]

8. Benjo Buckets

Where and when did you live there? I was there 52-55, Yokosuka.

Do not eat the vegetables we were warned. Hahahaha. I visited a farm once.whooo oooo Kusai yo.

180

[shanti]

14. i was there

in yokota (dad was AF) from 60-64, from age 5-9. i still remember lots tho. dad got an autographed honey pot from his coworkers when we left japan.

[oneighty]

17. Check your PM

180

[Mojorabbit]

29. I lived there in the late 70's in Misawa

Biggest damn carrots I've ever seen

[papau]

2. Great Post - DO CHAR- AND DO NOT BURN - but will Bush fund this?

http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm

Bio-char
Soil Biogeochemistry
Johannes Lehmann

Bio-char: the new frontier

Inspired by the fascinating properties of Terra Preta de Indio, bio-char is a soil amendment that has the potential to revolutionize concepts of soil management. While "discovered" may not be the right word, as bio-char (also called charcoal or biomass-derived black carbon) has been used in traditional agricultural practices as well as in modern horticulture, never before has evidence been accumulating that demonstrates so convincingly that bio-char has very specific and unique properties that make it stand out among the opportunities for sustainable soil management.

The benefits of bio-char rest on two pillars:
1- The extremely high affinity of nutrients to bio-char
2- The extremely high persistence of bio-char

These two properties (which are truly extraordinary - see details below) can be used effectively to address some of the most urgent environmental problems of our time:
1- Soil degradation and food insecurity
2- Water pollution from agro-chemicals
3- Climate change

"Soils with bio-char additions are typically more fertile, produce more and better crops for a longer period of time."

THE TWO PILLARS OF BIO-CHAR PROPERTIES

Nutrient Affinity
All organic matter added to soil significantly improves various soil functions, not the least the retention of several nutrients that are essential to plant growth. What is special about bio-char is that it is much more effective in retaining most nutrients and keeping them available to plants than other organic matter for example common leaf litter, compost or manures. Interestingly, this is also true for phosphorus which is not at all retained by 'normal' soil organic matter.
Reading:
Sombroek, W., Nachtergaele, F.O. and Hebel, A.: 1993, ‘Amounts, dynamics and sequestering of carbon in tropical and subtropical soils', Ambio 22, 417-426.
Mikan, C.J. and Abrams, M.D.: 1995, 'Altered forest composition and soil properties of historic charcoal hearths in southeastern Pennsylvania', Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 25, 687-696.
Lehmann, J., da Silva Jr., J.P., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W. and Glaser, B.: 2003a, ‘Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments', Plant and Soil 249 , 343-357.
Lehmann, J., Kern, D.C., German, L.A., McCann, J., Martins, G.C. and Moreira, A.: 2003b, ‘Soil Fertility and Production Potential', in J. Lehmann, D.C. Kern, B. Glaser and W.I. Woods (eds.), Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management , Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 105-124.


Persistence
It is undisputed that bio-char is much more persistent in soil than any other form of organic matter that is commonly applied to soil. Therefore, all associated benefits with respect to nutrient retention and soil fertility are longer lasting than with alternative management. The long persistence of bio-char in soil also make it a prime candidate for the mitigation of climate change as a potential sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide. The success of effective reduction of greenhouse gases depends on the associated net emission reductions through bio-char sequestration. However, a net emission reduction can only be achieved in conjunction with sustainable management of biomass production. During the conversion of biomass to bio-char 50% of the original carbon is retained in the bio-char, which offers a significant opportunity for creating such a carbon sink.
Reading:
Pessenda, L.C.R., Gouveia, S.E.M. and Aravena, R.: 2001, ‘Radiocarbon dating of total soil organic matter and humin fraction and its comparison with 14 C ages of fossil charcoal', Radiocarbon 43 , 595-601.
Seifritz, W.: 1993, ‘Should we store carbon in charcoal?', International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 18 , 405-407.
Schmidt, M.W.I. and Noack, A.G.: 2000, ‘Black carbon in soils and sediments: analysis, distribution, implications, and current challenges', Global Biogeochemical Cycles 14 , 777-794.
Shindo, H.: 1991, ‘Elementary composition, humus composition, and decomposition in soil of charred grassland plants', Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 37 , 651-657.

Bio-fuel production through low-temperature pyrolysis
"Combining bio-energy production with bio-char application to soil offers one of the most exciting perspectives of future land-based production technologies."

other Groups that are very active in exploring bio-char as a soil amendment through greenhouse and field experiments (not comprehensive, please excuse any important omissions):

- Marco Rondon: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia

- Bruno Glaser: Institute of Soil Science, University of Bayreuth, Germany

- M. Ogawa: Kansai Research Institute, Japan

- Danny Day, Christoph Steiner: EPRIDA, Athens, GA, USA (www site)

- Stephan Haefele: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), The Phillippines

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-55516.html

[420inTN]

3. Potential use for cow, pig, and poultry excrement...

Another cash crop for agribusiness?

[papau]

5. It truly is a great cash crop - waste removal w/ good soil &energy

as items you can sell.

:-)

[mom cat]

19. Here is some more facinating info. How to make it and info on the

indigenous peoples of the Amazon area and the evidence of widespread agriculture and the continual enrichment of the soil: a process stopped by European invaders. Here is a snippet, but I highly encourage you to read the rest:


Pre-Columbian Amazon supported millions of people
The Virgin Forest? Amazon Myths and New Revalations
Tina Butler and Rhett Butler
mongabay.com
October 18, 2005



Modern day agriculture in the Amazon.


Controversial evidence uncovered over the past decade suggests that the Amazon rainforest was once home to large sedentary populations of people. Besides the well-known empires of the Inca and their predecessors, the Huari, millions of people once lived in the forests and shaped the environment to suit their own needs.



snip

Scientists believe terra preta was created through a process one specialist calls the "slash-and-char" method. Essentially, instead of completely burning trees to ash, pre-Colombian farmers merely smoldered organic matter to form charcoal, and then stirred the charcoal into the soil. The added benefit of this method was that far less carbon was released into the air than now common slash-and-burn method. Carbon emissions, or rather an imbalance of carbon emissions, has a well-recognized negative effect on forests, so this ancient method was truly efficient and environmentally sensitive. Charcoal is capable of retaining its carbon in the soil for close to fifty thousand years.

Today, scientists and local inhabitants alike recognize the value and importance of terra preta. The earth is excavated and sold as potting soil known for its impressive productivity. Some individuals work it for years with only minimal fertilization. There is a wide range of estimates for the remaining quantity of terra preta. Estimates vary between 0.1 - 10 percent of the Amazon basin may harbor the soil. Ten percent encompasses an area the size of France. The largest collections of terra preta are located on low bluffs at the edges of floodplains, typically covering 5 to15 acres. The thickest layers of the material hover around six feet deep. Soil ecologists do not recognize a natural pattern for these bands of soil, suggesting that terra preta is indeed a man-made or directed substance. There are also typically broken ceramic pieces within the soil, further link it to a human design.

What all this information infers is that these inhabitants were essentially terra-forming the Amazon into a highly productive, sustainable agricultural region, managing a heady task that had evaded Europeans for centuries. Unfortunately, for the natives of the New World, the Old World arrived and both intentionally and unintentionally destroyed all they had worked toward.

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1017-amazon.html

[papau]

24. Thanks :-)

:-)

[mom cat]

32. I am so excited about this. I am going to try and make some. I will

have to find out more about making charcoal.

[mom cat]

11. Man! This is hot shit!

I have got to try and make some of this stuff.

[mom cat]

12. Here is a good link on the subject:

http://www.eprida.com/
Check out the comparitive pictures!

[Pathwalker]

4. Why am I not surprised? Compost is magical stuff!

:bounce:

[Ignis]

6. Hmm, strange approach.

Slash-and-burn horticulture proved to be a very adaptive food-raising method for Amazonian cultures because of the paucity of minerals and nutrients in most rainforest soils and the relatively quick growth of the plants cycled in after a burn.

I was very surprised to see this method espoused in other climates, as it just hasn't been used throughout human history in many other climates--even when a population is starving.

[Marthe48]

10. as I understand terra preta is different

from slash and burn. if you google the term there are websites

[htuttle]

15. Terra Preta is what you can get from "slash and burn"

"Slash and burn" refers to one of many ways of making 'terra preta'.

In our society's case, using waste materials would be the obvious way of doing it.

[papau]

25. Slash and Char is the good way - slash and burn is the bad - in terms of

global warming, greenhouse gas, etc.

[htuttle]

28. True --That's an important distinction

What I think is really important about this technique isn't so much the global warming implications, but rather offers a possibility of keeping a few billion more people alive once petroleum fertilizer becomes too expensive. Most importantly, it's a very low tech, highly effective technology. That means everyone can use it.

Global warming-wise, over the long term, just planting things that amass a LOT of biomass (and keep it), would make the most difference. Planting biomass just to char it might help agriculture, but not global warming so much as a good deal of the carbon does end up being released during the 'smoldering' phase. Not as much as if you burned it completely, but far more than if you'd left the plant matter alive (in the case of an oak tree or large bamboo plant, for example).

On the other hand, I think that the process of growing a plant (that extracts CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows), then charring the resulting plant matter and burying it might actually sequester almost half the carbon content of the plant (with the rest released back into the atmosphere). If done on a widespread scale, it might actually make some progress over a few centuries. It's better than no plan at all, in any case. 50% sequestered is better than nothing.

[Marthe48]

9. read a book titled 1491 by Charles Mann (?)

about American cultures before Europeans --terra preta was well-discussed, an amazing book, and pretty cool the concept is hitting the news so soon after I read the book (in Jan)

[Turn CO Blue]

13. Intriguing! K & R n/t

[mike_c]

16. I'm a biologist and I don't get this....

What does carbon in the soil have to do with plant productivity? Nitrogen and phosphorous I can see, but looking at some of these links makes me wonder whether I'm missing some major piece of soil productivity info (and I STUDY soil restoration processes, among other things) or someone is confusing carbon with mineral nutrients. Plants do not take in any appreciable amount of carbon through their roots. Pretty much nada. They absorb carbon as CO₂ through their LEAVES.

on edit-- I've got to run to a seminar-- I'll check back later....

[AlienGirl]

18. I don't think the carbon in the soil is the productivity-increasing agent

Looking at that site, it seems to me that the fixing of carbon and putting it into the soil is incidental, but a possible side benefit (reducing greenhouse gases), and that it is mineral nutrients in the terra preta that are the thing that makes the plants get huge.

Tucker

[Marthe48]

21. in 1491 (the book)

the author mentioned that terra preta was also full if pottery shards. I got the idea from his description that it was a combination of charcoal, pottery and other enhancements that made this soil better than the natural soil found in the Amazon basin.

The book is about the horticultural accomplishments of the native cultures in the Amwericas (and populations, decimation and other theories) very controversial, but what a terrific read it was.

[Selteri]

30. My guess is the carbon works more like a filter

giving the roots purer water while also the less charred material underneath it becomes more easily broken down by the roots and other stuff.

[WestMichRad]

20. What they have here is

...probably organic-derived nutrients adsorbed onto carbon, where they are available to plant roots but do not leach out from moisture soaking through the soils. The reduction in volume that you get when making charcoal makes the material very rich in minerals and nutrients.

You are right in that plants obtain most of their carbon by uptake of CO2. A very bogus claim in the original post is (trying to remember what was stated) that it will reverse greenhouse emissions by uptake of atmospheric CO2. No way - while surely making charcoal will result in less CO2 (and carbon monoxide) emissions than full combustion of the biomass, there's just no way you don't have significant CO and CO2 emissions when making charcoal. SOME of the biomass must be oxidized, and the bulk of that biomass is carbon.

While this may be an excellent organic nutrient source for agriculture, it's still sad if they are reducing native tropical forests to fertilizer, IMO.

Better to keep (or begin) composting. Remember: Act locally, think globally.

Peace.

[mike_c]

22. that's pretty much what I thought-- someone has their soil chemistry...

...bas-ackwards, which doesn't do much for their credibility. Oxidation of wastes makes mineral nutrients available-- the retention issue is something else, especially in lateritic soils, and I don't recall whether charcoal actually modifies things like cation exchange capacity (i'm dubious)-- but the carbon is meaningless otherwise. AND it ALL ends up as CO₂ in the atmosphere, whether by combustion or by decomposition. Releasing those mineral nutrients from biomass necessarily results in CO₂ emissions. There is NO way around that. Carbon CANNOT be sequestered in the soil unless decomposition is halted, and that would be catastrophic for nutrient cycling. And in warm, wet tropics? This is just slash and burn agriculture with nutrient subsidies from additional wastes. In tropical forests those nutients are most likely to end up polluting the rivers unless they can be captured in new biomass pretty quickly. Can you say eutrophication?

on edit-- clarifying what I said above-- carbon IS stored in soils, especially in temperate and boreal forest soils, but that's only because 1)decomp is slower, and 2)humic acids are not leached quickly. Neither of those apply in much of the wet tropics. And there is no reason to believe that there is a great deal of excess storage capacity-- after all, if there were, oil and coal would still be formed....

[mike_c]

27. self reply because it's too late to edit....

OK, I've read some of Johannes Lehmann's work now, and it's hard to imagine that he seriously thinks soil storage could be a significant carbon sink, but maybe he's floating the idea to attract grantors? I think it more likely that someone else is misinterpreting what he's saying. Anyway, my comments about in the previous post are unlikely to apply to Lehmann himself.

[papau]

26. activated charcoal perhaps - drawing the good stuff toward the plant?

just a guess -

:-)

[anotherdrew]

23. with all the chemicals in our food, it'll look a lot like Miracle-Gro. n/t

[Up2Late]

31. This isn't Science, this is stupid! It's not the way it's being sold here.

This will not work here in Amerr-rica, because someone in big business will screw it up by only half understanding it.

Basically, what this means is, don't cut down all the trees in the Rain-forest and Burn them completely, just burn them part of the way, and then mix the unburned part into the soil. but you still end up with de-forestation.

SO, you are not taking Carbon OUT of the atmosphere, you are just putting less in.

To use the same backward logic, let's say you trade in your 10 MPG SUV in and get a 15 MPG SUV to replace it. Does driving the 15 MPG SUV remove Carbon from the atmosphere? NO, but kinda-sorta, yes.

Yes it is burning 50% less Gasoline, which is putting 50% less carbon into the atmosphere, but you really have to be twisted to argue that you are taking 50% of the Carbon OUT of the atmosphere.

This is BS. :freak: This is what we on the left call "Organic Farming," it's nothing new, I do this with my lawn almost every year.