[Stoves] Capturing carbon in the timber industry (now from soils perspective)

[rongretlarson at comcast.net]

Tom, Kevin, Crispin, John Nissen and four lists (having added two): 

1. I tend to think (can't yet prove) that John Nissen was hinting at the right track with his opening comment in this thread about a lot of left over material he saw at clear-cut sites in New Zealand: Biochar production. The advantages of course are more displacement of fossil fuels, improvement (postulated) of the soil, and (guaranteed) removal of CO2 from the atmosphere - with people ready to pay for all three benefits. 

2. Next, Kevin questioned the second benefit saying (below): saying leaving is "probably" and "seems to be" best.. His are comments related only to the middle (soils) benefit. I submit the belief that at best the term should be "possible" - not "probable or "seems". The reasons for questioning Kenin's premise are these 
a) we need also to replace fossil fuels 
b) we need also to remove CO2 
c) there is a huge mass of roots and microbe/fungus in the soil under the fallen branches and bark - to supply plenty of nutrients as they rot and decay. I have seen no evidence for a recently a clear-cut forest that leaving as-is is preferable to return as Biochar. 
d) a good bit of the branch/bark/litter nutrient value can be returned to the same spot through (very long-lived) Biochar, with moisture-retaining benefits that may be more critical than the minerals and "dying microbe/fungus food" (dying because the above ground biomass is no longer supplying enough nutrients. 
e) I guess (can't yet prove) that a portion (maybe half?) of the produced char would be better used to revegetate a different piece of barren and unproductive land - thinking of an optimum from the perspective of more than that of the single plot that John saw. For example, any char removed in year one can be thought of as borrowed - and similar char from the benefitted land can be returned in some other future out year. 
f) we aren't ever going to be able to scrape clean all the debris from a clear-cut. Maybe trying to optimize the cost of the human labor part of the clean up (taking bigger pieces only) is the right optimization? That could (?) still leave a lot of debris and nutrients. 

3. I also guess that the right optimization for removal of clear-cut debris depends a lot on the type of soil under consideration, what form of re-forestation is being planned and probably a few other factors like slope, rainfall, type of tree, proximity of other natural forest, proximity of people, etc. 

4. I think the right group to be talking of this is the Biochar-soil group. I have added Biochar-policy as a group that may also have given this some thought or seen a pertinent citation. 

5. Christoph Steiner has a piece of his web site devoted to photos of fallen logs (and similar) that he would like to see turned to Biochar. Not quite the same issue, but I would tend to trust Christoph on this topic. Christoph has spent a lot of time around Terra Preta soils - and it would seem that they did a lot of converting of cleared-forest biomass to char - with pretty darn good results (many centuries later). 

6. Crispin shortly ago also had a question after Tom's message below on where nutrients reside - and I look forward to that discussion. I am not sure that the answer matters a lot if a good part of the Biochar is returned (reasons given above). That is, I wonder how much of the nutrients can be returned in the Biochar, how accessible when in Biochar form, and what portion obtained in growth of the tree reside in the (decaying) roots, and how difficult is it for microbes/fungi to replenish from the soil? 

Other thoughts for John? 

Ron 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com> 
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, biochar at yahoogroups.com 
Cc: "Biochar-production" <Biochar-production at yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:11:12 PM 
Subject: [biochar-production] RE: [Stoves] [biochar] Capturing carbon in the timber industry 









We have burned plantation residues in industrial boilers in New Zealand. In order to make a clean fuel the nutrient laden bark, limbs and branches are pretty well stripped and left in the soil. I think that amounts to about 20% of the total biomass. 



Tom 







From: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin 
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 8:31 PM 
To: biochar at yahoogroups.com 
Cc: Biochar-production; Discussion biomass 
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] Capturing carbon in the timber industry 




Dear John 





Leaving the tops, limbs, and stump on site after harvesting is probably a good thing, especially if the slash is driven over by the harvesting machinery. Crushing it down helps it to return organic matter to the soil, and minimize the fire hazard if it is allowed to dry without contact with the ground. 





Something like 90% of the nutrients in a tree are in the branches and leaves or needles, and it is a big mistake to remove them from the site. It can lead to rapid nutrient depletion. Removing the stumps for their biomass loosens the ground excessively, and can aggravate possible erosion problems. 





"Natural" stands, in contrast to plantations, invariably have a range of tree species, some of which have commercial value, and some of which don't. It makes sense to harvest the "unmerchantable stems" for fuel or charcoaling purposes. However, leaving the tops, limbs, leaves/needles and stumps seems to be a good step toward sustainable forest management. 





Best wishes, 





Kevin Chisholm 







----- Original Message ----- 


From: John Nissen 


To: biochar at yahoogroups.com 


Cc: Ron Larson ; Biochar-production ; Discussion biomass ; Ron Larson 


Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 6:21 PM 


Subject: [biochar] Capturing carbon in the timber industry 










Hi all, 

I've just had a month's holiday in New Zealand, where forestry is big 
business, and was horrified by the way they apparently left wood debris 
on the ground after taking the timber away. They also left stumps in 
the ground to rot away. Has any thought been given into capturing the 
carbon left after the timber is removed? It must be a major source of 
CO2 and methane. 

Cheers, 

John 






No virus found in this message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3323 - Release Date: 12/18/10 


__._,_.___ 

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic ( 1 ) 
Recent Activity: 


Visit Your Group 
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: Text-Only , Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 


. 

__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101219/65a88849/attachment.html>