<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">Four Lists, cc Kevin , <a title="karnask@hotmail.com" href="mailto:karnask@hotmail.com" target="_blank">jim
karnofski</a><br><br> 1. This is in large part to give thanks to Jim Karnofski, for his responses. I find little to disagree with in Kevin's remarks (for maybe the first time) - on the need for more information. But I don't think he is asking for the right information. And I think he is misinterpreting whatever he has been reading - as he seems to feel the Biochar community (only partly represented by these lists) are ready to endorse any form of char on any soil for any crop. I challenge Kevin to cite any example of the overselling he accuses biochar proponents of. I doubt there is any farmer anywhere on earth who is stupid enough to place a lot of unknown material on very much of his/her soil without the proof easily available from a few square meter test (following an even-easier few pot trial, and still easier germination tests).<br><br> 2. Kevin quotes one sentence out of the report Jim Karnofski has recommended, which reads <br><br><em> "Current knowledge about the effects of adding biochar to Australian agricultural soils is not</em><br style="font-style: italic;"><em>sufficient to support recommending its use."<br><br> </em>I hope that Kevin's intent was not meant the (cherry-picking) way it <span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">could</span> be taken - that current knowledge recommends <span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">against</span> its use<br><br>Indeed the very next sentence shows that was not the intent of the report authors:<span style="font-style: italic;"><br><br> "<span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">However</span>, international and Australian research will</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">aid decisions about its use when results become available."</span><br><br> Nobody I know in the Biochar world thinks we have the all the needed answers today. And again I ask Kevin (or anyone) for examples of over-selling by any Biochar proponent. A good place to send me is to www.biochar-international.org - which is listing 15 -18 new technical peer-reviewed articles <span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">every month</span>. Who among these authors (or any cite at the IBI site) are overly positive?<br style="font-style: italic;"><br> 3. But the real issue to me remains the fact that many (most?) biochar proponents believe that the sequestration benefits of Biochar justify (for moral and ethical reasons) transfer payments from developed to developing countries. Climate deniers reject this out of hand, it seems - as they have concluded for reasons I cannot comprehend that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax. This report, as does Kevin thankfully), acknowledges that there is plenty of evidence that Biochar can help in carbon negativity. So I think the main Biochar issue today is whether there is any cheaper, more socially beneficial, less costly means of removing excess atmospheric carbon. I think the experiments to date are mostly limited because of the active work of climate deniers to prevent funding. I hope someone can convince me there is another reason (with published citations I can research).<br><br> 4. To counterbalance Kevin's single-sentence quote,I think it would help in this dialog to give the complete <span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">"Conclusions"</span> section from the recent Australian report. I have emphasized the positives found in these three paragraphs - that (to me) justify the conclusion that Biochar is likely to have a very important role is world agriculture - and needs lots of experimentation from the experts and amateurs alike.<br><br> <span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;"> <span style="font-style: italic;">13 Conclusions</span></span><br style="font-style: italic;"><br><span style="font-style: italic;"> "Application of biochar to agricultural land for soil amelioration and agricultural productivity</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">improvements is <span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">not a new</span> phenomenon. Terra preta soils in the Amazonian Basin are</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">characterised by <span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">highly fertile</span> dark soils created from burning crop stubble and other</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">household wastes <span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">over thousands of years</span>. More recently, biochar production from agricultural</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">waste products has been assessed in an attempt to replicate these fertile soils.</span>"<br style="font-style: italic;"> <strong>(RWL: I think that the experience in the Amazon over millennia are the primary reason that most Biochar proponents use for justifying our enthusiasm for Biochar. Productivity improvement factors today of 2 and 3 and land value increases of 5 and 6 after 500 and more years ought to count for something.</strong> <strong> Why believe BFW or other detractors who say modern science can't duplicate that?</strong> <br><br> <span style="font-style: italic;">"A number of benefits have been identified within the literature; biochar </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">has been found</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> to</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">improve agriculturally significant soil parameters such as </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">soil pH, cation exchange capacity</span><br style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">and soil water holding capacity</span><span style="font-style: italic;">. Researchers have found the increase in these performance</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">parameters has improved </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">nitrogen use efficiency</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> and therefore </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">crop productivity</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> in limited</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">field trials. Further, biochar has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through</span><br style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">carbon sequestration</span><span style="font-style: italic;">, as well as potentially </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">decreasing methane and nitrous oxide emissions</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">from the soil.</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> (RWL: I have re-read Kevin's responses below - and don't find </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">ANY</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> of these benefits mentioned. Half that number of benefits would get most people excited.</span>)<br> <br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> "Although much research to date has been promising, knowledge gaps remain. Through</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">current government investment in large biochar projects, such as the Climate Change Research</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Program, researchers have </span><span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; font-style: italic;">amassed an impressive amount</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> of data and information, which</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">will form the </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">ideal base</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> to further research. With this information, the net benefits in both</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">plant productivity improvements and greenhouse gas reductions from using biochar may be</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">assessed before widescale application. However, further research is needed to identify optimal</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">application rates, biochar quality parameters and effects of biochar on chemical efficacy. Once</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;">further research</span> is undertaken and the </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">knowledge gaps closed</span><span style="font-style: italic;">, biochar may play a role in</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">improving productivity and environmental sustainability issues in Australian agriculture.</span><br> <span style="font-weight: bold;">RWL: at the recent Kyoto Biochar meeting ,Tom Miles and I and a few others on this list heard Dr. Evelyn Krull of CSIRO give an outstanding talk on what they are learning in Australia. She predicted generalizable results in a few more years. The data is coming - and as Jim Karnofski is emphasizing below, we should not be surprised that it hasn't happened immediately. This is by far the most complicated technical topic I have ever worked on. But the need for it, our good fortune that it was used for thousands of years in the Amazon, and the great progress made by the soil science community is enough for me to retain my enthusiasm for Biochar - until proven misplaced.</span><br><br> 5. There are about 100 references at the end of this report. Those who are derogatory toward Biochar (BFW and a few allies) have never published one (I think) in a peer-reviewed journal. I ask again for something/anything I can read to justify other than enthusiasm for rapidly expanding the little that we are doing in Biochar.<br><br><br> 6. <font face="Arial"> Kevin's last sentence below summarizes his view I think - so I will only concentrate on it:<br> <span style="font-style: italic;">"These reports are no way to sell a Farmer on
using biochar!! :-) Would you know of ANY URL's that would give a Farmer a
rational and economic basis for justifying a biochar test? Otherwise, the
Farmers are sure to be naysayers."</span><br> <span style="font-weight: bold;">(RWL: I maintain that Kevin is putting the onus on scientists who are (fortunately) too smart to give what he asks. This new Australian report, like virtually every one before it, gives plenty of reasons for any farmer who can get his/her hands on a lttile char (which is in short supply) to try a few experiments pertinent to his/her situation. The scientific literature is almost sure to not be pertinent (at this stage) to his/her specific char/soil/crop combination. Smart farmers and soil scientists all over the world are already doing these tests - and reporting generally positive results. Getting and reporting a negative result can be a big help as well - as clearly too many don't know at all what to do, or couldn't get the right char, etc. That is the nature of this type of very difficult research - vary the parameters and follow the leads the following year on what does best the first year. Only climate deniers, who are unable to see the true economics at play here, seem not to understand the need at this stage of knowledge for experiments - not prescriptions.<br> Again I ask for citations so I can understand any opposite view.<br></span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></font><span style="font-style: italic;">
</span><div style="font-style: italic;" dir="ltr"> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><br style="font-weight: bold;"></div><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ron</span><br> <br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Kevin" <kchisholm@seaside.ns.ca><br><b>To: </b>biochar@yahoogroups.com, stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><b>Cc: </b>biochar-production@yahoogroups.com, biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com<br><b>Sent: </b>Sunday, January 1, 2012 11:56:58 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon<br><br>
<div><font face="Arial">Dear Jim</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="karnask@hotmail.com" href="mailto:karnask@hotmail.com" target="_blank">jim
karnofski</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="biochar@yahoogroups.com" href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">Richard Hard</a> ; <a title="stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com" href="mailto:biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com</a>
; <a title="biochar-production@yahoogroups.com" href="mailto:biochar-production@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">biochar-production@yahoogroups.com</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 31, 2011 3:59
PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> RE: Biochar as an Agricultural
Tool Was: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled
Promises in Cameroon</div>
<div><br></div><span style="DISPLAY: none"> </span> <!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~-->
<div style="POSITION: relative" id="ygrp-mlmsg">
<div style="Z-INDEX: 1" id="ygrp-msg"><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEndT|**|-~-->
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p>
</p><div dir="ltr">Dear All,<br> <br>
<div>
<div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>
<hr id="stopSpelling">
From: <a href="mailto:karnask@hotmail.com" target="_blank">karnask@hotmail.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">biochar@yahoogroups.com</a><br>Subject:
RE: Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com:
Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon<br>Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011
19:54:53 +0000<br><br>
<div dir="ltr">I see Kevin as a thoughtful and skeptical, but not well-read
</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3"># I have been reading about Terra Preta
and Biochar for the past 6 to 8 years. Perhaps I have not been reading the
right material?</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">and Kevin seems to see agriculture as
a science with certainty as if it always has black and white
answers.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"># No. We do not need such "black or white"
answers... some good general and rational guidelines would
suffice.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3"></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr"> The more you know about soils, the more respect for
uncertainty you have as the chemical nature of soil is infinite.
<br> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3"># Agreed. However, we must be able to
quantify the areas where biochar could most likely be of benefit, and the
areas where it would least likely to be of benefit. At least, we would
then be able to do test work that had a higher likelihood of
success.</font></div><font face="Arial" size="3"></font>
<div dir="ltr"><br>As far as farm economics, time and testing will tell, but I
am certain the answer will be more pragmatic than some farmers can stand.
For instance, a recommendation might be, add biochar as you can afford,
building up to 1% in your lifetime and leave the next increment to the next
farmer over the next generation. The efficiency and effectiveness of the soil
is improved with the added carbon. And Carbon, by definition, is
organic. Carbon compounds need not be edible to be considered
organic.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3"># I would respectfully suggest that while
biomass matter is organic, biochar is organic matter that has been
mineralized. It does nor function in soil the same way that true organic
matter does. </font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>I encourage Kevin to carefully read the scientific table-top
research studies from Australia, <a href="http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/wareho%20use/biochar9abcm001/biochar9abcm00101/TR.2011.06_Biochar_v1.0.0.pdf" target="_blank">http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/biochar9abcm001/biochar9abcm00101/TR.2011.06_Biochar_v1.0.0.pdf</a><br> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3">.</font></div><font face="Arial" size="3"></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="3"># This 63 page report seems to be balanced and
sensible. I would draw attention to a quote from the
summary: <font face="MyriadPro-Light" size="2"><font face="MyriadPro-Light" size="2">
<p align="left"><font size="3"><strong>"Current knowledge about the effects of
adding biochar to Australian agricultural soils is not sufficient to support
recommending its use."</strong></font></p>
<p align="left"> <font size="3"># This would seem to support my inquiry for
more guidelines on where to consider using biochar, and where to avoid using
it. </font> <font size="3">All I am asking is for more
knowledge and guidelines to support recommending its
use. </font></p>
</font></font></font><p align="left"><font face="Arial" size="3"><font face="MyriadPro-Light" size="2"><font face="MyriadPro-Light" size="2"><font size="3"></font></font></font></font><br> and the
US, <a href="http://www.biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/biochar_report_lowres.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/biochar_report_lowres.pdf</a>,
for a reasonable up-to-date summary of the best known scientific
evidence of why it was used by the ancients for MILLENNIA. <br></p>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3"># Pages 3 to 5 of this 84 page report
give good insight into where biochar could be a benefit to Agriculture. The
bulk of this report extols biochar's energy and climate change advantages.
However, there is nothing specific that would enable a Farmer to make a
rational decision on whether or not to bother with a biochar
test.</font></div><font face="Arial" size="3"></font>
<div dir="ltr"><br>I am pragmatic enough to hedge on my own to incrementally add
biochar as I can.</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"># <font face="Arial">What were the reasons that led you to use
biochar? Which of biochar's features do you feel are of benefit to you?
Do you feel that you are getting a good financial return on your investment in
biochar additions? If so, what would you estimate the simple Return on
Investment to be? <br></font> <br>As far as having a clear
answer with diagnosis and intervention with organic soils,
intervention is going to be harder to achieve as the infinite nature of
an organic soil does not lend itself to the very simple Chemistry 101 of the
past Leibig-like "soil science". The present and future complex
soil science will consider the soil as an in finite mixture of compounds and
generally unknown bacteria, fungi, plasmids, prions, and elemental
compounds, with unmeasurable symbiotic interactions, requiring
meta-genetics, to get a glimpse as to what might be happening in any given
micro environment. Good luck with funding basic organic soil science as the
money is not there. It is the Agro-chemical-industrial complex that sets the
priorities with funding and that is not compatable with organic enhancing
measures like biochar. It may have to be up to us as Citizen Scientists to get
the job done during this stage of our societies growth and
development.<br></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3"># OK.... given the complex nature of
organic soils, and the probable difficulty of evaluating results in a
meaningful and transferable manner, would it be best to avoid biochar
application on organic soils, and focus biochar testing on soils with a
lower organic content? Concerning your suggestion that "Big Ag" is choking off
funding for biochar research, perhaps effort should be focused on finding ways
to make "Organic Fertilisers" incorporating biochar, as suggested by Anil
Rajvanshi?</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"></font><br>We should all get used to painting
with a broad brush, still using the Chem 101, but using a broad brush to
address problems. The ancients threw everything back into the soil, feeding it
like the soil is an omnivore, cultivating like it needed to respirate and
respecting it like their life depended upon it. <br></div><font face="Arial" size="3"></font>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3"># There is a huge message here. Terra
Preta is said to have worked wonderfully, and to have been extremely fertile.
You seem to have described "Organic Gardening with a Charcoal Addition." :-)
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>The soil has been treated lik e dirt for too long, just a
petri-dish medium with N-P-K needs, etc. One needs to treat it like the living
ecosystem that it is. Biochar has been proven to be effective and not
harmful in any soil for advancing the quantity and the diversity of life. So,
in my organic soil it is part of my compost regimen because it works well for
me as it seemed to have work well for others for thousands of
years.<br> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="3"># I would suggest that the attitude
"...treating soil like dirt..." outlook took hold with the advent of
industrially produced fertilizers, and the reduced attention to the importance
of soil organic matter.</font></div><font face="Arial" size="3"></font>
<div dir="ltr"><br>We need the naysayers, but they need to read and practice,
too. <br></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"># Well, if a Farmer that was interested in the
potential use of biochar on his farm read the above two Reports, he would
probably be left with the messages:</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">1: Australian Report: There are many unknowns,
and biochar is unlikely to be economically advantageous.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">2: American Report: Since only 3 out of 84 pages
in this report suggest a potential for agricultural benefit from using
biochar, it is probably not not worth considering it further at this
time.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"># These reports are no way to sell a Farmer on
using biochar!! :-) Would you know of ANY URL's that would give a Farmer a
rational and economic basis for justifying a biochar test? Otherwise, the
Farmers are sure to be naysayers.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">Thanks!</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">Kevin</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"> <br>Jim<br> <br></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br> </div></div>
<div>
<div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>
<hr id="stopSpelling">
To: stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br>CC: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com;
biochar-production@yahoogroups.com; biochar@yahoogroups.com<br>From:
kchisholm@ca.inter.net<br>Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:52:15 -0400<br>Subject:
Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com:
Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon<br><br><span> </span>
<div id="ecxygrp-mlmsg">
<div id="ecxygrp-msg">
<div id="ecxygrp-text">
<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.</font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote> <snip, as not covering the following><br></div></div></body></html>