[Gasification] Biochar et al.
David Murphy
djfmurphy at dodo.com.au
Mon Dec 9 20:51:52 CST 2013
Anand, thanks for your comments. I answer
them in the text below.
On 10/12/2013 12:13 PM, Anand Karve wrote:
> Dear David,
> rock dust is certainly a good additive to soil,
> but the ordinary soil in our fields is itself
> derived from the rocks underneath the soil layer
> and therefore soil contains more or less the
> same minerals that the rock contains.
> ***Anand**that's not quite correct and to
> explain what I mean would require quite a deal
> of space. Soil is one commiodity about which
> it is impossible to make blanket statements.*
> Secondly, you have quoted that according to John
> D. Hamaker the microbes produced enzymes which
> dissolved the minerals in the rock dust. *That's
> not correct either. I didn't credit JDH with
> that statement, it is a biological fac**t**.*
> That is true in the case of a few
> minerals which are in the form of calcium
> salts. But water is a universal solvent
> and all minerals are soluble in water to a small
> extent. *Anand, any mineral is soluble in water
> provided it is in a water soluble form.****In
> basalt - or any rock form - it is not water
> soluble and you rely entirely on enzymes. * They
> are taken up by the microbes directly, because
> the microbes absorb them through their entire
> cell surface, which is a more efficient manner
> of absorption than the plants,which absorb
> minerals only through their root hairs. *I'd
> like to read more of this - can you give me a
> credible reference please ? * The soil
> solution represents a saturated solution of the
> minerals. Therefore, any mineral molecule
> that is removed from the solution by either
> plants or microbes, gets replaced immediately
> from the pool of undissolved minerals in the
> soil. This property is called dynamic
> equilibrium. A 1 meter thick layer of soil
> has enough minerals to allow you to conduct
> agriculture for about 25000 years. *Not in
> Australia and many other countries !****"Soils
> ain't soils !". Australia, for example,
> missed the last Ice Age and a 1 metre thick
> slice of our soil won't keep your belly full for
> more than a couple of birthdays. Australian
> soils are deficient in most minerals and were
> almost entirely leached of P. Australian topsoil
> averages around 12mm thick. For this reason our
> agricultural productivity leapt ahead once we
> accessed the P in guano from Christmas Island
> and then from Nauru. Then we set up
> superphosphate manufacturing and the rest in
> history. Australia is not unique.****But some
> areas here are quite mineral rich and you can
> add rock dust as heavy and as aften as you like
> and get no result, because it doesn't need
> minerals. But most other areas do need it and
> you differentiate through soil analysis.*
> *Bu**t, all our soil and soils of the world
> desperately need more Organic Matter.* *Our
> national average is under 1%, where 5% is a
> desired minimum.
> *
* For general interest**have a look at
http://rfcarchives.org.au/Next/CaringForTrees/Remineralisation3-94.htm
Got to go ! DJM.
*
> Yours A.D.Karve
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:45 AM, David Murphy
> <djfmurphy at dodo.com.au
> <mailto:djfmurphy at dodo.com.au>> wrote:
>
> Joe, you might find it of interest to look
> up John D. Hamaker on the net. He was an
> American Mechanical Engineer who turned his
> mind (and subsequently devoted his life) to
> improving soil by the addition of rock dust.
> He saw global warming as a precursor to the
> next ice age. He saw an ice age as essential
> refurbishment of the earth's resources.
> His argument has a lot of good solid logioc
> to it and it's worth adding to your store of
> knowledge on the general topic. If he's
> proven right, then we're in a lot of trouble
> ! If you want to study it further I have
> a DVD I made from a tape he produced I could
> let you have.
>
> Rock dust is a storehouse of minerals, all
> of which are essential to growth. First
> to plants and then to the animals which eat
> them - including us humans. Rock dust is
> insoluble to water but not to enzymes which
> are produced by soil benevolent bacteria -
> bacteria which are present in soil with good
> OM and in compost. Many readers of this
> string will be aware of it's benefits when
> used as fertiliser.
>
> Seeking to remedy climate change purported
> to be caused by anthropomorphic global
> warming is an extraordinarily complex
> question. And seeking to make a
> contribution by sequestering carbon as
> charcoal is in itself another complex range
> of issues. The charcoal must be first
> ligneos carbon - wood - and it is probably
> almost as good to lock up some of that
> carbon in timber for building houses or
> making furniture.
>
> I'd promote the first step by making the
> sequestration of the carbon as part of a
> broader program of building building soil
> organic matter OM. This includes animate
> carbon as well as vegetative. At least
> get it up to 5% to plough depth, say 10
> inches (250mm) as a minimum, aiming at
> 20%. That in itself locks away a lot of
> carbon, but of a different nature, in that
> it's available to contribute to plant
> growth, growth without the need for chemical
> or artificial fertilisers.
>
> Every 1% increase in soil OM (world wide)
> would be a lockup of around 30 billion
> tonnes of carbon in a world which generates
> now (probably) 20 million tonnes
> annually. Just for the record, the
> biggest emitter of CO2, bigger than every
> other agency combined - every factory,
> airplane, car truck tractor etc and so on -
> is the soil of the earth as it respires.
> So, the more land we put down under crop to
> feed the increasing billions, the more CO2
> we produce and put into the atmosphere.
>
> So, it's a race against a proven runner - so
> called mother Nature - and she's a proven
> stayer.
>
> On the other hand, some of the wise owls are
> now saying it's not CO2 at all, but PCB's
> causing the damage. Maybe they're right -
> who knows _for sure ?_ Nobody I'm aware
> of despite what they say. It's all
> conjecture, some of it soundly based, but
> still conjecture relying on historical info
> compiled over a geological blink.
>
> Using charcoal and zeolite together is a bit
> like wearing belt & braces with
> self-supporting trousers. It certainly
> works !
>
> The easy and less costly way is to just get
> the OM into the soil and plant stuff to grow
> and suck up all the CO2 and N.
>
> But whatever you do, don't stop the good work.
>
> David Murphy.
>
>
> On 08/12/2013 12:33 PM, Joe Barnas wrote:
>> DAVID,
>>
>> Thankyou for the insightful overview of
>> biochar and comparative functionality of
>> Zeolite, of which I was not familiar.
>>
>> However one thing I am focused on is how to
>> address catastrophic global climate change
>> and for that having billions of gardeners
>> sequestering carbon, while building healthy
>> soil and hence healthy food is not
>> something that Zeolite can provide. It is
>> another tool in growing food, yes, but
>> let's not lose sight of the long term
>> benefit of promoting biochar. I might even
>> try mixing some with biochar just to gain
>> the N adsorption benefits.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM, David
>> Murphy <djfmurphy at dodo.com.au
>> <mailto:djfmurphy at dodo.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Greetings Biochar/Gasifier people !
>>
>> Everybody & his dog seems to have
>> something to say about
>> charcoal/biochar/biochar-compost mix
>> and so on. Well, here's another dog
>> to bark his piece !
>>
>> Biochar is often seen as the great
>> agricultural panacea, but _it is
>> not_.Biochar is a name given to plain
>> ordinary charcoal to indicate that it
>> is destined for use in soil
>> improvement, but basically it is still
>> plain ordinary charcoal, just crushed
>> into smaller particles. In some
>> circumstances it is a very beneficial
>> tool but it is not magical as some
>> proponents seem to think. Just
>> remember, all charcoal has a bio-origin
>> - wood.
>>
>> In some Ag. trials in Australiait
>> significantly improved crop volume
>> (treble in one case) but in other
>> instances, nothing worth writing home
>> about.It depends on what the soil is
>> like to start with.
>>
>> Charcoal is stable.That means it does
>> not take part in any composting system
>> (which is one primarily of bacterial
>> digestion) and it is indigestible so
>> that when offered as a dietary
>> supplement (in poultry food for
>> example) it passes through the
>> digestive system physically unchanged
>> but will adsorb a high proportion of
>> the gases and some toxins produced in
>> the process of digestion, because that
>> is what charcoal does. For this
>> reason, it's adsorption capability,
>> poultry will generally do better on a
>> little charcoal.
>>
>> Quite a few pages could be filled on
>> the beneficial services provided by
>> charcoal as it travels through the
>> digestive system, but it does it as
>> charcoal only and as nothing else. By
>> all means use a little in the feed, you
>> can only benefit.
>>
>> The only physical way to change the
>> nature of charcoal is to burn it.
>> That is why it lasts in soil (or
>> wherever it is) for thousands of years.
>>
>> It has an incredibly high surface area
>> of 360 m^2 (varies) and is a mass of
>> minute tunnels which in turn means a
>> very high volume and gases become
>> trapped in these tunnels.It does not
>> _ab_sorb, it _ad_sorbs and traps
>> only.The difference between absorb and
>> adsorb is the same as the difference in
>> liquids of suspension and solution.Clay
>> particles will be in suspension, sugar
>> and salt go into solution.
>>
>> Charcoal is useful in an aerobic
>> composting system because again of the
>> entrapment of air in the tunnels.A
>> composting system goes well if there is
>> enough oxygen bearing air available to
>> the bacteria which are a significant
>> part of the system.The more air, the
>> higher the population of bacteria
>> (other factors being OK). The charcoal
>> itself is inoperative, and doesn't
>> change, nor is it a catalyst, it simply
>> provides a service. It will only
>> provide a haven for soil benevolent
>> bacteria if there is something trapped
>> in the tunnels which the bacteria can eat.
>>
>> Charcoal is a good adsorber of gas and
>> liquid simply because that is what it
>> does.Zeolite on the other hand, can
>> have an even higher surface are per
>> gram and has a propensity to entrap
>> gases, most particularly nitrogen in
>> it's various forms -- as gas --
>> ammonium for example -- and in liquids
>> as a salt of NO_3 .It actually draws
>> them in (like a magnet attracts ferric
>> objects) where charcoal just takes it
>> as it comes. It is easy to see also
>> why charcoal is so effective as a
>> filter, but if you have a solution rich
>> in nitrogen, run it through Zeolite and
>> the N will be removed. Add some to the
>> litter in poultry grower sheds, there
>> will be fewer mortalities because the
>> ammonia which sometimes will asphixiate
>> small birds will be absorbed.
>> Zeolite will take N out of solution,
>> charcoal will not. There's 40
>> natural forms of Zeolite and more than
>> another 150 can be synthesised, so
>> choose carefully for the one most
>> appropriate to your problem. Zeolite
>> can perform an amazing range of
>> actions. Once used and applied as
>> fertiliser, Zeolite subsequently will
>> release the N slowly and remain in the
>> soil as a balancer of N. Too much, it
>> will take it in (so that the soil pH is
>> not lowered) and release it as required.
>>
>> Charcoal's great stuff though, it's
>> easy to make and holds answers to a lot
>> of problems - but not all !
>>
>> David Murphy.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the
>> email address
>> Gasification at bioenergylists.org
>> <mailto:Gasification at bioenergylists.org>
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List
>> Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Gasifiers, News and
>> Information see our web site:
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe Barnas
>> Portland, OR
>> 541-525-1665
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> Gasification at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Gasification at bioenergylists.org>
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email
> address
> Gasification at bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:Gasification at bioenergylists.org>
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings
> use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Gasifiers, News and Information
> see our web site:
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
> --
> ***
> Dr. A.D. Karve
> Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural
> Technology Institute (ARTI)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Gasification at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20131210/3eb5cf78/attachment.html>
More information about the Gasification
mailing list