transect points

Note: Bio-char, agrichar, and charcoal are interchangeable terms when it comes to the intentional use of charcoal in the garden.

The argument for encouraging biochar use as a ubiquitous household practice is compelling: Improved garden soil will increase food production where it has the most impact on energy demand. Implementing charcoal manufacture at a household level draws in a supply of yard prunings and workbench scraps that otherwise would be lost to non-charcoal alternatives.

Unfortunately, finding even the most basic information on how to implement biochar use as a personal sustainability practice is discouragingly time consuming. In response I have started up a FAQ, a collaborative wiki, building on the efforts of the TP enthusiast community (1, 2, 3). Maybe you, the concerned gardening public, can help us thresh out the most important questions that need asking. Leave a comment here or at the FAQ. Here's my favorite bit from what has been posted so far:

2.05 What are some less smokey approaches to making charcoal for the gardener?

Choose your feedstock wisely. No matter what technique you use to make charcoal, choosing uniformly sized, dry woody material produces the highest yields. Uniformity is one reason that colliers will routinely use coppiced hardwoods.

Inverted Downdraft Gassification. For a cleaner burning configuration, consider a Top Lit Updraft (TLUD) technique, also referred to as an inverted downdraft gassification. The technique looks simple but in reality it involves some fairly sophisticated principles (PDF). That doesn't prevent success using common materials and dead simple design. Take that same open barrel configuration, tweak the design per the aforementioned sophisticated principles, and now light it from the top instead of the bottom. This takes a different skill set than lighting from the bottom but its also not that difficult to master. A little vaseline or ethanol on a cotton ball can work wonders for starting up. Once the fire gets going, the top layer of wood burns, creating charcoal, naturally. The heat from the top layer burning warms the wood below it releasing combustible and noncombustible gases which flow up into the charcoal layer. Glowingly hot charcoal has a wondrous ability to strip oxygen molecules from of anything that passes over it, so it converts the water into hydrogen, and the carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide. These two gases are flammable. They join with the other flammable gases released from the fuel. These ignite as they mix with air coming into the top of the open barrel above the charcoal layer. The result is a scrubbed gas-fed flame that is much more controlled, and which burns substantially cleaner and hotter than can be achieved with the bottom lit burn barrel. (Source). Insufficient oxygen below the combustion zone impedes loss of the charcoal despite the high temperature flame immediately above it. This allows charcoal to build up faster than it is consumed, at least until the pyrolysis zone reaches the bottom of the fuel column. The downside is that, while wondrously clean burning, a TLUD is challenged to achieve yields above 20% charcoal-to-fuel.

Folke Günther's simple TLUD-fired Retort. A retort works by restricting the air supply to the target feed stock for the duration of the burn. An outside heat source pyrolyzes the retort contents, small openings in the retort allow wood gas to escape, but restrict the flow of oxygen in. While retorts are capable of very high yield efficiency, the open flame used to fire the retort is not as clean as can be achieved with a gasifier. In small retorts, a further inefficiency is that wood gas generated from the retort can end up blowing by the combustion zone without being burned. Folke Günther's elegant solution is to combine a TLUD with a retort. This is easily the cleanest burning and highest yielding method we know of to make garden-sized batches of charcoal.

(Source)

The Hypography Science Forum has upgraded the terra preta discussion from a long, 43 page thread to a forum, with separate threads for charcoal making, gardening experiences, news, etc. The new location is here.

A recent message posted to the forum, from Janice Thies, Cornell University, is most interesting:

I am extremely heartened by the very positive response to the idea of using of biochar in agriculture and horticulture and appreciate your desires to put it to immediate beneficial use in these systems.

My name is Janice Thies. I am a soil microbial ecologist. I have been working with Johannes Lehmann at Cornell University for the past 6 years on various aspects of terra preta (microbial ecology in its natural state) and agrichar (how microbial populations respond to adding biochar to soil). It took us three years to convince the National Science Foundation that we were on to something here and to obtain funding for some of the basic research that is necessary for us to provide the data needed to answer your questions with confidence. Hence, we are several years behind where we could have been if funding had been available earlier. Even now, we continue to seek support for doing the types of tests many of you are most interested in. The results of our NSF funded research are just now being published or written up, but we are still a long way from being able to answer everything.

Currently, there are 10 research laboratories around the world that are testing char made from bamboo that was prepared at 5 different temperatures in the range we believe is likely to provide char that will be most beneficial for both plant production and C sequestration purposes. Rob Flannigan prepared the char in China and has engaged us all to do a wide range of testing on it. So, we should have some news about what temperature range might be best reasonably soon, but it is still early days.

One of the reasons that Dr. Lehmann recommends caution in the use of biochar can be seen in the paper recently published by Christoph Steiner et al., mentioned in previous messages. He did get excellent plant growth responses to adding biochar - as long as mineral fertilizer was also used. When you look at plant growth in the biochar only treatment, growth was worse than doing nothing at all (check plots). In the nutrient-poor and highly leached soils of the tropics, the added biochar likely bound whatever nutrients were present in the soil solution and these became unavailable for plant uptake. These results should make you cautious as well. How fertile a soil needs to be for biochar not to reduce plant growth or exactly how much fertilizer and/or compost should be added to be sure there is good, sustained release of nutrients, will likely vary soil to soil and we simply do not have these data available at present to make proper recommendations. So, keep this in mind as you do your own trials with your own soils or mixes. Try to follow good design practices for your trials, with replicates, so that you can judge for yourself what amount and type of biochar works best in combination with what amounts and types of fertilizers or composts you use (depending on the philosophy behind your cultural practices).

As to the 'wee beasties' or 'critters' as I like to call them, we have made progress on this front over the last several years. Brendan O'Neill and Julie Grossman in my laboratory, Sui Mai Tsai, our Brazilian collaborator at CENA and the University of Sao Paulo, and Biqing Liang, and many others in Johannes Lehmann's laboratory have been characterizing microbial populations in three different terra preta soils and comparing these to the adjacent, unmodified soils near by to them. Brendan found that populations of culturable bacteria and fungi are higher in the terra preta soils, as compared to the unmodified soils, in all cases. Yet, Biqing found that the respiratory activity of these populations is lower (see Liang et al., 2006), even when fresh organic matter is added. This alone means that the turnover of organic matter is slower in the terra preta soils - suggesting that the presence of black C in the terra pretas is helping to stabilize labile organic matter and is itself not turning over in the short term. All good news for C sequestration. However, since the respiratory activity is lower (slower decomposition), this may lead to slower release of other mineral nutrient associated with the fresh organic inputs. In some circumstances this is a good thing (maintaining nutrient release over the growing season), in other circumstances (more immobilization), perhaps not. We need more work on this to understand the implications of these results more fully.

Julie Grossman, Brendan O'Neill, Lauren McPhillips and Dr. Tsai have all been working on the molecular ecology of these soils along with me. So far, what we know is that both bacterial and fungal communities differ strongly between the terra pretas and the unmodified soils, but that the populations are similar between the terra preta soils. These results are both interesting and encouraging. First, that the terra preta soils (sampled from sites many kilometers apart) are more similar to each other than to their closest unmodified soil (sampled within 500 m) tells us that the conditions in the terra pretas encourage the colonization of these soils by similar groups of organisms that are adapted them. Our group has been working on cloning and sequencing both isolates from the terra preta soils and DNA extracted directly from them. A number of bacteria that were isolated only from the terra preta soils are related to the actinomycetes, but have not yet been described yet and are not very closely related to other sequences of known organisms in the public genetic databases. This is also very interesting. Some of you will know that actinomycetes have many unusual metabolic capabilities and can degrade a very wide range of substrates. Also, many are thermophilic and play important roles in the composting process. We have yet to fully characterize these organisms, but are optimistic that in time we can make some recommendations about what organisms or combinations of organisms might make a good inoculant for container-based biochar use. Two papers describing these results are in their final editing stages and will be submitted for publication in the journal 'Microbial Ecology' within the next few weeks. So, keep an eye out for them in several months time.

I want to add a word of caution about getting too excited about glomalin. Another of my students, Daniel Clune, has been working on this topic and his work suggests that the glycoprotein referred to as 'glomalin' in the literature - operationally defined as the protein extractable in a citrate buffer with repeated autoclaving - is not what it has been purported to be. First, the proteins extractable by this method are from a wide range of sources, not just arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Second, it has a shorter turnover time than has been suggested. Third, in a test with hundreds of samples taken from field trials varying in age from 7 to 12 to 34 years, its relationship with aggregate stability is suggestive at best. Dan's work is also being written up right now and should also be submitted for publication soon.

Some field trials with bamboo char have been conducted in China, with very positive results. Look for upcoming papers from Dr. Zheng of the Bamboo Institute in Hangzhou. Another student in my laboratory, Hongyan Jin, is working with the soils from this experiment to characterize the abundance, activity and diversity of the soil bacteria and archaea. Her first results will be presented at the upcoming conference on Agrichar to be held in Terrigal, NSW, Australia, at the end of April/beginning of May this year. Please be sure to see her poster should you attend this conference.

Lastly, from my personal gardening experiences, I use spent charcoal from the filters of the 14 aquaria I maintain for my viewing pleasure. I combine it as about 5% of my mix with 65% peat moss, 10% vermicompost (from my worm bin in my basement where I compost all my household kitchen waste - aged and stabilized, not fresh!), 5-10% leaf mulch (composted on my leafy property in NY), 5-7% perlite to increase drainage, decrease bulk density and improve water retention and percolation, and some bone meal and blood meal (to taste :-) ). This makes an excellent potting mix for my indoor 'forest'. I am very much still playing around with this.

I hope this very long posting helps those of you feeling frustrated and wanting answers. Many labs are working on many fronts, but it is early days and we are trying to answer some fundamental questions first and then use the information to guide our field tests and recommendations.

I hope to meet some of you at the Agrichar Conference (see details at the conference website) http://www.iaiconference.org/images/IAI_brochure_5.pdf
The Cornell work and that of many of our colleagues in Brazil, China, the US, Australia and elsewhere will be presented, along with that of many others actively working on agrichar production and use around the world.

Good luck with your own testing and kind regards,

Janice Thies - jet25 at cornell.edu
719 Bradfield Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853

The role that soil microbes (archaea, bacteria, and fungi) play in soil nutrient availability is an interesting area, one where we have much to explore. Biofertilizers are increasingly available commercially, meaning those of us outside the academic community will have increasing opportunity to conduct our own reseach. From Montana State University:

Some soil bacteria and fungi can access otherwise unavailable phosphorus, and some are commercially available. In a study on barley, one of these bacteria increased phosphorus availability by about 10 percent. In another study, a phosphate-solubilizing fungus was found to increase spring wheat grain yield by nine percent. "For both studies, the economics need to be considered to determine if these increases are worthwhile, and additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these products for different crops and soils," Jones said.

My anticipated copy of "Teaming with Microbes" has arrived. While I can't comment on the full text with any authority yet, I can say that it is well organized and has an extensive index (8 pages). It pleased me no end to see "soil science 28 - 42". There is also a valuable guide to labs and suppliers (4 pages). A supplier of mycorhhizal fungi here in Spokane is going to be getting a new customer.

My current soil obsession, bio-char, the foundational ingredient in terra preta nova, is disappointingly not mentioned. I have gotten the impression that Elaine Ingham, who has achieved demi-goddess standing in soil-web circles, was unswervingly skeptical of charcoal in large volumes as a soil amendment at the time the book went to publication, so I am not particularly surprised. In the post I saw, she based her concern on charcoal's high C:N ration putting soils out of balance. I'm chalking this up to fear of the unfamiliar. Too bad. Elaine Ingham is highly influential. When she comes around, her endorsement will save lives.

My restaurateur grandfather had a personal test to see if a chef was up to his standards: if the butter dish arrived without ice, he lowered his expectation that anything else could be properly prepared. I make similar menu-wide judgements on my orders of eggs-over-easy and chile rellenos. My acid test for an elightened organic gardening book is the treatment of glomalin (recalcitrant mycorhhizal fungally produced glycoprotein that accounts for 1/3 of world soil carbon). It is mentioned on page 37 (see familiar glomalin photo on page 39), so things are looking up at this point.