[Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17

Thu Oct 27 07:19:37 CDT 2011

Frank,

Rice hulls biochar makes as excellent soil amendment, as numerous test have
shown.
Yields on rice, water spinach and other plants have increased roughly 3-fold
in the trials that were done in Vietnam and Cambodia.
If it is not the best biochar, I would be truly exciting to find something
better.

Paul Olivier

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Frank Shields <frank at compostlab.com> wrote:

> ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Paul;,****
>
> ** **
>
> I believe it should be called biochar. But I suggest the calculation be
> done differently. ****
>
> I suggest the biochar be tested for carbon and the percent carbon value
> used for quality range. That because there is not 56.59% ash in the biochar.
> There is 56.59 % ash in the sample we make by heating to 550 deg C (I
> suggest) where the cations like sodium go to NaCO3. Heaver than just sodium.
> And the carbon lost in the ash (CO3) is from the rice hull. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I suggest the >50% carbon as excellent biochar. I do not think rice hulls
> make the best biochar if we are thinking carbon or activity as the
> reference. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> I like the idea of a simple test like what you mention. But for quality
> rating, carbon credits etc. I think we need to follow more exact test
> methods. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> **Frank** ****
>
> ** **
>
> **Frank** Shields****
>
> Control Laboratories, Inc.****
>
> ****42 Hangar Way********
>
> ****Watsonville**, **CA**  **95076********
>
> (831) 724-5422 tel****
>
> (831) 724-3188 fax****
>
> frank at compostlab.com****
>
> www.compostlab.com****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:
> stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:31 PM
>
> *To:* **Discussion of biomass cooking stoves**
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol
> 14,Issue 17
> ****
>
>  ** **
>
> Let us suppose that the proximate analysis of a rice hull sample is:
> 15.80% fixed carbon
> 63.60% volatile matter
> 20.60% ash.
> If we remove all volatile matter, the remainder would be:
> 43.41% fixed carbon
> 56.59% ash
> Should this material not be called biochar?
>
> Paul Olivier****
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:54 AM, **Frank** Shields <frank at compostlab.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Dear Crispin, Tom,
>
> I think we need to define a minimum *carbon* content for a material to be
> called *biochar*. We can't call something a biochar if it has less than 1%
> carbon for example. So where do we draw the line? We need to include all
> natural biomass made into biochar like rice hulls. The material needs to
> have enough carbon to be useful. So I say 50% carbon a minimum to be
> 'excellent' biochar knowing that most all natural, clean biomass will
> produce a biochar with greater than 70% carbon. But open to other values to
> make a scale. This makes it a product with enough value for a grower to
> purchase and spread.
>
> I think the product should have the carbon content defined for quality (not
> DAF). We should not include the oxygen and hydrogen and ash. We should
> calculate the percent carbon content on the biochar sample dry weight (200
> deg C). If we base quality on percent fixed matter (C-H-O) after
> subtracting
> the ash I think there is a mistake. Because we 'make' more ash when we
> change the cations into carbonates (increasing weight) during the process.
> More cations from vegetative matter the more the problem. And this quantity
> of ash is not what we are spreading on the field. Also the carbon trapped
> in
> the ash (as CO3) is not included in the fixed carbon fraction - it should
> be
> because it comes from the organic carbon in the raw sample. These are just
> details and perhaps not that important. To do what I think is needed we
> must
> determine the carbon using a Leco CHN analyzer. More work with expensive
> equipment. But if we want to get carbon credits in the future we need to
> start off accurately measuring the potential CO2 we are fixing. When money
> is involved these details need to be addressed. Now is the time or we will
> be back here again at a later time.
>
> Just because the carbon content is 0.1% and the ash is 99.9% doesn't mean
> the product is not beneficial for an ag field. But I don't think we should
> call it biochar even if someone did add a spoonful into a soil mix. This
> rating has nothing to do with benefit to a field. That is site specific. It
> has something to do with label on the bag (or may in the future).
>
>
> Regards
> **Frank**
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vegatative plant material is 10 to 20 percent. We test a lot for nutrients.
> It is very hard to get the customer to bring us a clean sample as it takes
> so very little dust and dirt to bring the ash concentration up. I think
> harvesting biomass for biofuel and one will not be careful to harvest clean
> samples.
>
> If you have 15% ash in a dry organic material. Loose 60% of the organic
> fraction during pyrolysis you have something like 20+ percent ash. And, as
> you point out, there can be biomass with much greater than 20% ash.
>
> I suggested the 50% thinking this would be high enough to include most all
> biomass that is made into biochar. Thinking we need some limit that if
> there
> is less than 50% carbon****
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **Frank** Shields
> Control Laboratories, Inc.
> ****42 Hangar Way****
> ****Watsonville**, **CA**  **95076****
> (831) 724-5422 tel
> (831) 724-3188 fax
> frank at compostlab.com
> www.compostlab.com
>
>
> ****
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Crispin
> Pemberton-Pigott
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:42 PM****
>
> To: **Discussion of biomass cooking stoves**
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,Issue
> 17****
>
> Dear **Frank**
>
> Apart from the special case of rice hull, how could you get a 50% ash level
> in char?  Trees are about 0.5% ash. There is not much left of the fuel if
> the char is 1% of the initial mass.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> **Frank**,
>
> I see the ash/carbon content as a sliding scale with relative changing
> benefits rather than a threshold level. If biochar has less carbon than ash
> is there still an agronomic benefit?
>
> It is not clear how the IBI guidelines will be used. The guidelines should
> list those components that should be measured. The recommended levels of
> those components for different purposes could be separate recommendations
> from IBI to a certification agency.
>
> If the purpose is stability and carbon sequestration why limit counting
> recalcitrant carbon even if it is 0.1% carbon or, 99.9% ash?
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 27C ****Pham Hong Thai Street****
> Dalat
> ****Vietnam****
>
> **Louisiana** telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings ****Vietnam****)
> **Mobile**: 090-694-1573 (in ****Vietnam****)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
27C Pham Hong Thai Street
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111027/26a7f262/attachment.html>