<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19170">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear All</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Biochar is not a panacea, contrary to what its
enthusiastic supporters infer. It works, and is beneficial in some
circumstances, and it fails to be beneficial in others. Charcoal that is used in
Agriculture as a soil amendment is called "Biochar", yet it has taken on a life
of its own, as a "Climate Improvement Tool". The "Climate Improvement People"
seem to assume that biochar is beneficial to agriculture, and don't seem to have
much interest in whether or not biochar is an economically sound investment as
an "agricultural additive."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>What would be vital to know are the circumstances where it
is sensible to consider the use of biochar to improve agricultural productivity.
Agricultural Science can analyze a soil and say, for example: "This soil needs
1.0 tons of N and 3.5 tons of Ca per acre to turn it into a good
garden soil." As far as I know, there is no way to make a sound and rational
recommendation on how much biochar to add per acre. It is totally irresponsible,
in my opinion, to recommend a general addition of (say) 10 tonnes per hectare;
some soils may attain optimal benefit with 1 tonne/Ha, while other soils may
require 20 tonnes per Ha</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Some people say that "Biochar improves moisture retention
characteristics of soil." Just how much moisture can biochar retain? Are
there better ways to retain moisture in the soil? For example, a kG of peat can
retain about 7 kG of water. Biochar is notoriously difficult to wet, and it is
thus difficult to get it to absorb or retain moisture. Perhaps the best way to
retain moisture is to simply add the organic matter, from which biochar
could be made, directly to the soil? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>We are told that "Biochar is better than organic matter
because it lasts 1,000+ years in the soil." Sure! Because it does not provide
feed for soil organisms! A key concept in Organic Agriculture is "Feed the soil,
and the plants can look after themselves.". Biochar does not "feed the
soil."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>We are told that "Biochar is a haven for soil microbes."
Well, in many cases, any microbes that can enter the char pores would be
smothered by the microbes that would cover the outer surface of the individual
charcoal grain. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>We are shown really nice photos of how roots head for
charcoal lumps, and are told "See how charcoal promotes plant development!" The
reality may be that the charcoal robs the nutrients from adjacent soil and
concentrates it within the charcoal. The kid looking for candy goes into the
candy store, rather than looking on the pavement outside it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>We are also told that "Biochar is organic matter." If it
can't feed soil microbes, it is not organic matter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The only thing I know for sure about biochar is that it
can sequester carbon. Does anyone know specifically how and why biochar is
beneficial to agriculture? Does anyone know the "soil circumstances" when and
how to apply biochar to a soil to improve upon or eliminate a specific soil
deficiency? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>A Farmer can take a soil sample, have it analysed, and
competent Soil Scientists can tell him exactly what he should add to the soil to
improve it. Are there ANY "soil circumstances" where a biochar addition would be
the best additive to cure a soil deficiency?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If so, what are they?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Now, biochar may be effective in curing a particular
condition, but there may be more economic alternatives for accomplishing the
same end result. Naturally, the sensible Farmer will want to employ them rather
than biochar, because he saves money.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The bottom line question seems to be: Are there any
circumstances where biochar additions are the best tool for the Farmer to use to
improve productivity and reduce costs?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If there are, then I would suggest that they should be
clearly identified, as a way to expand the use of biochar, and to benefit the
Farmer.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Kevin Chisholm</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=english@kingston.net href="mailto:english@kingston.net">Alex
English</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, December 31, 2011 10:35
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] [biochar]
allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Dear Anand,<BR>It is well documented how new drugs are often
compared in trials to treatments that are not the best current treatment. Thus
the not so surprising favorable results. <BR><BR>Physicist Richard Feynman
would ask to see the data, so he could draw his own conclusions, which could
differ from the primary author. <BR>"<B
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 19px; WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 13px; WORD-SPACING: 0px">Science
is the belief in the ignorance of experts" <BR><BR></B>What then is 'peer
review'?<BR><B
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 19px; WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 13px; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><BR></B>So
much of what we read about biochar sounds like a woefully inadequate recipe
for curry. Just add spices. Without differentiating char characteristics
and the conditions of treatment soils, all we can conclude is further research
is required, or go back and do it right. If you multiply those variables you
can put a high quantity on 'expert ignorance'. Add a pinch of time span,and
biology, then good and bad results become curiosities. Terra Preta may
be a fine wine now but what was it back then. <BR><BR>Unburned Char can have
value right now. Potting mix, sorption of nasties, crayons, even as insulation
under hydronic heating lines. Physics and chemistry are quick. Biology is a
chronic research pain that delights and confounds. <BR><BR>Repeatedly we see
reference to biochar being beneficial to 'highly weathered" tropical soils.
Would you characterize any of the soils you added charcoal to as being "highly
weathered"? <BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Alex<BR><B
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 19px; WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 13px; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></B><BR>On
31/12/2011 12:14 AM, Anand Karve wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:CACPy7SdfSJCj6zrWWQkhaG8EXtgaBT=iqx4Z0z0HShtyu4N2xQ@mail.gmail.com
type="cite">
<DIV>Dear Kevin, Crispin and Ron,</DIV>
<DIV>I have been conducting experiments, off and on, for almost a
decade on effect of charcoal applied to the soil. Most of the work
consisted of very preliminary experiments, just to find out if application
of charcoal gave positive results. I would have started a systematic
study, if the preliminary results had indicated that this was a useful
technology. I never got beyond the stage of preliminary experiments, because
they did not reveal to me any beneficial effects on crop yield. I never
reported the results in any formal publication, because the experiments were
of a very preliminary nature, not conducted in statistically approved
designs. Secondly, I want to say that It is generally the tendency among
scientists to cite references that support one's findings.
So picking and choosing of evidence that supports one's
point of view is quite common in scientific publications.</DIV>
<DIV>Yours</DIV>
<DIV>A.D.Karve <BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves mailing
list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://www.bioenergylists.org/<BR><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><A></A>
<P align=left color="#000000" avgcert??>No virus found in this
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus
Database: 2109/4714 - Release Date: 12/31/11</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>