Bio-carbon

Field Trials;
 I am field testing for the 09 corn season with JMU and consultation  Dr. Hepperly at Rodale Institute.

Ten research priorities were identified at the IBI conference, The following priorities I hope to address:
• 1- Economy research/market research
• 2- plant+soil research depending on biochar
• 5- field trials
• 8- application to soil (depending on agricultural or other
systems/remediation`)

Planting date: June 24th.
Two split plots , which each are split into a 20% (27 tons/Ac) & 5% (7 tons/Ac) application rates,
All chars soaked in tarps for 1 month, all chars were mixed 1:2 by volume with finished poultry litter compost and roto-tilled to 5 inch depth.

3 treatment groups with 3 replications
Char+ Compost
Char+ Compost + soluble NPK (soaked in char)
MYC+Char+Compost ("Dr. Mike's" Mycorrhiza corn inoculent)
Charcoal #1: Alterna Energy Biocarbon
Charcoal #2: Cowboy Hardwood Lump Charcoal

Soil Testing:
Dr. Mike Amaranthus of Mycorrhiza Applications ( http://www.mycorrhiza.com/ ) has  supplied his granular corn MYC , applied at planting, and lab support for harvest root analysis.
Dr. Kristine Nicoles of ARS, their head glomalin researcher, will also run soil test at Harvest
Lynn Rogers of Microbial Matrix will be testing for functional microbe groups

Total wet weight of corn biomass will be collected for each treatment group.

Much Thanks to:

 James Madison University / I.S.A.T., Dr. Wayne Teal - for providing a student for work and help in publication.

Local farmers Keith Sheetz and Andy & Jack Dixon

Dr. Paul Hepperly of Rodale Institude in PA. for consultations and his sister study in cow-peas.

Special thanks to Ecotechnologies Group for funding both of our studies.  http://www.ecotechnologies.com/index.html

The soil carbon bond can lead to an integration of organic and commercial agriculture practices. Biochar is a tool for both, for organic to increase its already-sustainable credentials, for chemical agriculture to at least halt soil carbon mining and seriously reduce nutrient runoff. The carbon sequestration bond can lead to a marriage of the best practices from both systems of agriculture to build soil into a biologically vital synergistic organism.

I hope to demonstrate this in my field trials with Roundup-ready corn, with the consultation of the Rodale Institute. Soil test for the full spectrum of food web organisms should ferret out the affinity of BioChar with these organisms in the context of standard chemical agricultural practices, and at Rodale with organic practice.

Erich J. Knight
Eco Technologies Group Technical Adviser
University of California Riverside advisory board member
Shenandoah Gardens (Owner)
1047 Dave Barry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
540 289 9750

Gasifier Charcoal as a Substitute for Vermiculite in Container Growing Media
Tom Miles, August 22, 2009
P Pine Seedlings in 25% Biochar
Our second trial of biochar as a substitute for vermiculite in container media for growing tree seedling has proved successful. These tests are by a private nursery to determine if charcoal from a gasifier heating system can be used in container growing media.

Last year weathered charcoal was collected from forest fire burns, milled, and used as a direct substitute for vermiculite in up to 50% of the container mix. Some of those trees have been retained in containers for a second year and still look good. At that time the forest tree nursery concluded that the biochar could be used for up to 50% of the mix with some adjustments to plant nutrition.
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/charcoalmedia

This year the nursery filled a larger sample with media containing 25% biochar from a gasifier.

During gasification the char is made as wood (mixed Pine and Douglas Fir from the California Coast range) is subjected to temperatures of 1000 C (1832 F) in an oxidizing atmosphere and 850C (1562 F) in a reducing environment. Tars are volatilized and combusted to carbon dioxide and water. Tars are completely consumed in the process. The CO2 reacts with the devolatilized charcoal to form a gas rich in carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The gas will be used in place of propane to heat greenhouses.

Water is condensed from the gas. The recovered water (condensate) could probably be used to supplement irrigation. It is clear to light lemon colored and has a faint odor. It has a pH of 7.1 and is highly saline with an electrical conductivity (EC) of 5.1 mS/cm. It will be analyzed for composition.

Less than 5% of the dry fuel is recovered from the gasifier as a charcoal residue. The charcoal residue is still being characterized. It is small in size and puffy with powdery fines that are like a confectioner’s sugar. Due to the conditions of carbonization it is likely that it has very low labile (volatile) carbon, high surface area, high CEC and high pH. (High pH does not appear to have affected nutrient availability in previous trials even up to 50% charcoal in the container mix.) It was tested at the nursery as biochar.

Ponderosa pine seedlings grown in 25% gasifier charcoal since June were identical in root development and plant growth as those grown in the vermiculite mix. Two of each are shown in the attached image.

Future trials will use biochar in media to grow other tree species.
Condensate from Wood Gas

Third year results: Fourth Corner Nurseries Soil/Biochar Study
Richard Haard, Plant Propogationist, July 31, 2009

This study predates the coining of the term biochar and I claim grandfather rights to use the word charcoal.

Third year results, Fourth Corner Nurseries soil/biochar study

Summer 2009 Biochar plot studyresults are showing some trends I have had difficulty measuring with the last two years of cropping these plots. The use of buckwheat, a short season cover crop plant makes a visual view of performance reflecting nutrition, quite vivid. In spite of the dips in the plots due to deer browse.

This image is a merged sequence of pictures taken at same distance. Background may be confusing because of perspective. These plots are the first set, (south end), of treatments laid out in a systematic way. Results from the north set are similar and will be presented in a final poster

This plot study included: compost ( a wood based commercial compost of sewage solids)
charcoal 1 ( about 1/2 inch minus), charcoal 2 ( powder from John Flottvik's pyrolyser).
fertilizer: a complete, chemical fertilizer

These additives were only used once. In 2008 and 2007 all plots were given a light treatment of urea, none in 2009, although the early spring cover crop was legume.

Quirks shown in pictures: upper right dips in each of 3 plots due to deer browse. Bump in production in compost plot that is consistent with every year and a odd drop in plant height in fertilizer plus charcoal 2 plot. Also the soil analysis of the north set of plots is better than the south part, and this also shows in the charcoal 2 only plot at the north end of the south set.

This said there are some interesting trends showing in this third year of this experiment.

Compost is still showing benefit even after continuous cropping.

This year the strategy was to duplicate our farm soil management strategy of cover cropping after two years to build up organic matter and burn weed seed. First cover crop in March was vetch and fava bean. Buckwheat was planted immediately in May and will be tilled in within a few weeks to be replaced with another cover crop (oats or barley) before planting with transplanted native plants next spring.

The compost + charcoal and compost + fertilizer + charcoal plots are showing the best growth of all the plots. This to me is an indication of synergism or an additive effect of charcoal in combination with compost.

Fertilizer series. The first 2 years of cropping the benefit of fertilizer was shown. Now I am seeing a decline in production in these plots. The compost plus fertilizer plot mysteriously is not better than compost only.

Control set. Interesting that the growth in the charcoal 1 is less than the control. Perhaps indication the charcoal errr biochar is removing nutrients from the soil. As mentioned above charcoal 2 control set is in beginning of higher nutrition soil.

This image is original size that allows scrolling close up.
Here is an image that shows all plots full screen.

Rich Haard, Propagation Manager
Fourth Corner Nurseries
Bellingham, Washington

Third year results: Fourth Corner Nurseries Soil/Biochar Study
Richard Haard, Plant Propogationist, July 31, 2009

This study predates the coining of the term biochar and I claim grandfather rights to use the word charcoal.

Third year results, Fourth Corner Nurseries soil/biochar study

Summer 2009 Biochar plot study results are showing some trends I have had difficulty measuring with the last two years of cropping these plots. The use of buckwheat, a short season cover crop plant makes a visual view of performance reflecting nutrition, quite vivid. In spite of the dips in the plots due to deer browse.

This image is a merged sequence of pictures taken at same distance. Background may be confusing because of perspective. These plots are the first set, (south end), of treatments laid out in a systematic way. Results from the north set are similar and will be presented in a final poster

This plot study included: compost ( a wood based commercial compost of sewage solids)
charcoal 1 ( about 1/2 inch minus), charcoal 2 ( powder from John Flottvik's pyrolyser).
fertilizer: a complete, chemical fertilizer

These additives were only used once. In 2008 and 2007 all plots were given a light treatment of urea, none in 2009, although the early spring cover crop was legume.

Quirks shown in pictures: upper right dips in each of 3 plots due to deer browse. Bump in production in compost plot that is consistent with every year and a odd drop in plant height in fertilizer plus charcoal 2 plot. Also the soil analysis of the north set of plots is better than the south part, and this also shows in the charcoal 2 only plot at the north end of the south set.

This said there are some interesting trends showing in this third year of this experiment.

Compost is still showing benefit even after continuous cropping.

This year the strategy was to duplicate our farm soil management strategy of cover cropping after two years to build up organic matter and burn weed seed. First cover crop in March was vetch and fava bean. Buckwheat was planted immediately in May and will be tilled in within a few weeks to be replaced with another cover crop (oats or barley) before planting with transplanted native plants next spring.

The compost + charcoal and compost + fertilizer + charcoal plots are showing the best growth of all the plots. This to me is an indication of synergism or an additive effect of charcoal in combination with compost.

Fertilizer series. The first 2 years of cropping the benefit of fertilizer was shown. Now I am seeing a decline in production in these plots. The compost plus fertilizer plot mysteriously is not better than compost only.

Control set. Interesting that the growth in the charcoal 1 is less than the control. Perhaps indication the charcoal errr biochar is removing nutrients from the soil. As mentioned above charcoal 2 control set is in beginning of higher nutrition soil.

This image is original size that allows scrolling close up.
Here is an image that shows all plots full screen.

Rich Haard, Propagation Manager
Fourth Corner Nurseries
Bellingham, Washington

1. GEO BIOCHAR URINAL - PVC and 2. GEO BIOCHAR URINAL - CLAY

Biochar / charcoal can be used for tapping the Nitrogen and other useful elements. Simple urinals are designed http://e-biocharurinals.blogspot.com/ for tapping the nitrogen and other useful elements for using as a soil amending material for improving the quality of the soils, increasing crop production, addressing the global warming by reducing the NOx emissions, avoiding artificial fertilizers, keeping the toilets clean and odor free, etc.

Two sets of prototype Urinals - PVC urinal and Clay pot urinal are designed and being used by GEO.

The production of fertilizers require lots of energy, in many countries Natural gas is used for producing urea in large quantities. This demand is ever growing and we dont have enough energy to meet the demands. The complex fertilizers are also contributing to alkalinity of the soils.

From the below information we can see that there is a great potential to tap nitrogen from Urine, as biochar has an affinity to tap nitrogen, using charcoal for tapping the Nitrogen and other elements is a great opportunity to find solutions for many problems. Urine is a great source of Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium

For more details please see this blog: http://e-biocharurinals.blogspot.com/

Also see the following links: http://e-opentoilets.blogspot.com/ 

http://e-terrapretarooftopexp.blogspot.com/

Energy Cost of Charcoal
Bryce Nordgren, (Rev) March 26, 2009

Because I really had no idea about how much energy it takes to make
charcoal, I made a table from the specs of the Chinese equipment posted by
gordon eliot. Then I calculated the "Energy Cost" of each component in
(MJ/kg). Finally I aggregated the energy costs from the "suggested
charcoal plants" to get an idea of the energy cost of the entire system.
Note that all of their plants use the new high efficiency coal bar
machine. This should represent a best case scenario: maximum rated
charcoal production at rated power. If you make less charcoal and consume
the same power, the energy cost goes up.

Consider this a first step in understanding the energy efficiency of the
entire process. To complete the analysis, we would have to know the energy
content (MJ/kg) of the produced charcoal. The big question is: can you
power a 30kW generator with the syngas in order to take the small charcoal
plant off the grid?

I hope this comes thru. I'm pasting the tables as html into the mail
message. I'm also attaching the spreadsheet from whence these tables came
in OpenDocument format. I exported the OpenDocument spreadsheet into excel
(attached). This retains the equations so people can plug in their own numbers?
The "source" of the numbers is the Gongyi Sanjin Charcoal Machines Factory:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/message/5534.

Charcoal Plant Proposals
# Description Components (MJ/kg) Total
Crusher Drier Coal-bar
1 25-30MT per month 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.22
2 80-100MT per month 0.09 0.03 0.17 0.29
3 180-200MT per month 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.32

Note that the bigger crushers have a higher energy cost than the small
crushers. I would have expected the reverse. Also, the high-efficiency
energy saving coal bar machine is less efficient than the multi-function
coal bar machine. The net result is that larger charcoal plants appear to
be less efficient (have a higher energy cost) than smaller plants. As the
table shows, inefficiencies in the crusher overpower the efficiency gains
by the drier. The most efficient small scale plant would include the 11kW
coal bar machine instead of the "high efficiency" 15kW one.

This message is intended to give ballpark figures for the energy cost of
producing biochar using a sample of COTS equipment specifications. It
does not represent an endorsement or criticism of the vendor by any
agency, department, or program of the United States Government.

Bryce Nordgren
bnordgren@fs.fed.us

Munda tribals living in parts of Orissa, Jharkhand and West Bengal states, in India, use biochar for increasing the crop production. They mix charcoal with farm yard manure (pellets of small ruminants / cattle dung) and add to the red lateritic soils which are other wise less fertile. They cultivate vegetables and green salad in the well fenced plots of about 1 acre in size. The biochar is mostly a byproduct from the biomass cook stoves in use (most often three stone stoves / simple clay earth stoves). They have access to wood from the jungles, which is used as fuel.

For more details see the photos
http://picasaweb.google.com/saibhaskar.geo/TP_Sign_Keonjhor_Orissa#
http://picasaweb.google.com/saibhaskar.geo/TP_Sign_Keonjhor_Orissa?feat=...

and a small video film.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5144451319506748375
Latitude: 21.9722721074 Longitude : 85.2820737194

For more pictures see http://e-terrapreta.blogspot.com/

Charcoal in Container Growing Media
Tom Miles, January 11, 2009

P Pine Grown in Vermiculite (Left) and Charcoal (Right) Media

After visiting Richard Haard and Larry Williams in early 2007 I started discussing the use of charcoal with various nursery growers and researchers in the West. A commercial nursery in California became interested in substituting charcoal for vermiculite in a growing media - soilless substrate - for container grown tree seedlings.

There could be both financial and ecological benefits from using charcoal in place of vermiculite. Vermiculite is increasingly expensive, especially in the quantities used by commercial nurseries. Locally made charcoal should be cheaper. Vermiculite has a poor carbon footprint since it is heated to 1000 C (1832 F) in processing and transported long distances, often imported. Charcoal that is made locally as a byproduct of energy production could be used in growing media. Since it would be planted in the forest with the seedling the carbon sequestration would be permanent.

The nursery uses a growing media made of combinations of peat (50%), bark (20%) and vermiculite (30%). Bark is a common material in Northwest nurseries and has been studied extensively. (See Landis, Altland, Buamscha, Scagel). The grower tested seven mixtures substituting charcoal for vermiculite (up to 30% of the mix) and substituting compost for peat, another expensive substrate.

Each blend was placed in two Styrofoam blocks containing 112 plants for a total of 896 plants including the control. Ponderosa pine was grown in all containers.

Charcoal was gathered from mixed conifer burns in a local watershed. It was crushed and screened through a 1/4 inch (6 mm) screen.

The bulk density of the charcoal was 14.6 lbs/ft3 (0.23 g/cm^3 ) compared with vermiculite at 4-10 lb/ft3 (.06-.160 g/cm^3 ); bark at 0.17 to 0.20 g/cm^3 ; and peat at 0.08 g/cm^3. Perlite and pumice are also used in some nursery mixes. They are denser with perlite at 0.32-.4 g/cm^3 and pumice at .38-.66 g/cm^3 .

The density of the 30% charcoal mix 15.4 lb/ft3 (0.25 g/cm3) was similar to the control at 14.6 lb/ft3 (0.23 g/cm3). The other blends were somewhat heavier at 18-29 lb/ft3 (0.29-0.47 g/cm3).

Water availability was similar for the 30% char (67%) to the 30% vermiculite control (68%) and slightly less (48-60%) for the other mixes. 50% is typical. At loading it was noted that the char mix was "very hydrophobic."

Air-filled porosity was similar (14%) for the 30% charcoal to the 30% vermiculite control (16%) and in a similar range (14%-19%) for the other mixes. Typical is 12-15% with a maximum of 25%.

pH was 5.2 in the 30% vermiculite control mix and 6.1 in the 30% charcoal mix. Substitution of compost for peat in the mixes raised the pH to between 7.1 and 7.5.

At the time of my visit last week both plant health and root growth looked the same for the 30% char and 30% vermiculite. Root plugs were firm. The grower is both surprised and satisfied with the success of the charcoal substitution and will be doing further testing after a closer evaluation of the plants.

Tom Miles
www.terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/

Links:

Haard, Richard, FourthCorner Nursery, Washington, http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/taxonomy/term/229

Landis, T.,D., 1990. Containers and Growing Media,Vol 2, The Container Tree Nursery Manual, Agricultural Handbook 674, Washington,D. C.: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 41-5.
http://www.rngr.net/Publications/ctnm/Folder.2003-05-16.0558

Landis, T.D. and Morgan, N. 2008. Growing Media: Overiew and Update Preentation to Western Forest and Conservation Nursery Association, Missoula, MT. (attached)

Altland,J Baumscha G-Nutrient Availability from Douglas Fir Bark in Response to Substrate pH
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_11...

Gabriela Buamscha and James Altland, Pumice and the Oregon Nursery Industry
http://oan.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=162

Altland, J, Changing Container Substrate pH: What are the affects of peat moss, lime source and lime rate? http://oan.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=20

Buamscha, G, Container no-brainer, The physical properties of substrates play a big part in crop health and costs, Oregon Associationof Nurseries
http://oan.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=452
http://www.rngr.net/About/personnel

Scagel, Carolyn, Container Soilless Substrate Component Fertility for the Northwest Nursery Industry http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=412543
Publications: http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/docs.htm?docid=12357

Agricultural Applications for Biomass Pyrolysis
Jon Nilsson, Carbon Char Group, NJ, Presentation to UN, November 2008

Agricultural Applications

Soil Scientist, Jon Nilsson of the Carbon Char Group presented Agricultural Applications for Biomass Pyrolysis at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development Partnerships Fair earlier this year. This was part of the Partnership in New Technologies for Small Island Developing States. The powerpoint of this presentation is available here.

The Charming Bamboo Charcoal in Taiwan
Taipei Municipal Daan Vocational Industrial High School, Taipei, Taiwan, Taiwan, Cyberfair 2008, February 2008

Bamboo Charcoal Fertilized Vegetables

The Care for the Environment

The Project

Description of Our Community

In this community there are consumers like us who are interested in environment-friendly products, local business people who are trying to make use of natural resources, and research institutes who are helping make the economy and the environment better. Our project hopes to connect these three kinds of people so that we can know each other better and care more about our environment.

Summary of Our Project

Our project is about bamboo charcoal, its characteristics and functions in terms of environmental protection and applications to daily life. With its high utility, it is seen as a valuable natural resource for our future life.