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

Kevin kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Thu Oct 27 09:01:20 CDT 2011


Dear Paul

Is it the biochar component, or the fertilizer component that is primarily responsible for the great results the Farmers get with Rice Hull Biochar?

Best wishes,

Kevin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Olivier 
  To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
  Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,Issue 17


  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/



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4575 - Release Date: 10/26/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111027/496f4497/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list