BioEnergy Lists: BioChar (or Terra Preta)

Charcoal and Carbon Storage in Forest Soils of the Rocky Mountain West
The Wilderness Society, October 2007

"Charcoal produced during wildfire events represents an important form of long-term Carbon storage in forest ecosystems. Forest management practices, such as salvage logging or thinning without prescribed fire, may reduce soil charcoal content and, thus, long-term Carbon storage in mineral soils.

Conclusions

Charcoal represents an important component of the soil organic matter pool in temperate grasslands and forests. It contributes to the total water-holding capacity, ion exchange complex, and surface area of the soil environment.

Once deposited in soil, charcoal is highly stable, having mean residence times 30–100 times longer than that of woody materials and 5–12 times greater than humic materials. Contributions to this pool are dependent upon the occurrence of fire events in which biomass is partially consumed. The amounts of charcoal formed during a given forest-fire event is highly variable and dependent upon fire severity and fuel composition; however, a safe estimate would be 1 to 4 Mg charcoal as C . This stable form of C may be ultimately mixed into the mineral soil or it may be lost, either to biomass burning in a subsequent fire event or an erosion event.

Erosion represents a loss only from the immediate ecosystem, as it will ultimately be deposited in a lake or marine environment, where it may remain for millions of years.

The role of charcoal in the forest ecosystem is just now being explored. The long-term implications of fire exclusion and the elimination of charcoal deposition in forests are not well understood. Timber harvest without prescribed fire may be applied as a forest restoration tool; however, under these conditions, charcoal, as a passive C contribution to the soil system, will be eliminated and will lead to a modest, but long-term loss of C from the forest ecosystem.

Conversely, restoration harvests that incorporate prescribed fire will more effectively emulate natural fire events and deposit charcoal across the activity unit. The importance of charcoal in soils and its contribution to long-term C storage requires greater consideration during ecological assessment, C modeling, and in forest management.

This report appeared in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, a publication of the Ecological Society of America. The report was authored by Tom DeLuca and Greg Aplet of The Wilderness Society."

Report-CharcoalAndCarbonStorageInForestSoils.pdf

See: Wilderness Society wilderness.org

Soils ain’t soils: NSW DPI on the front foot with carbon sequestration potential in soils.
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Australia, 13 Feb 2009

With the potential for carbon sequestration in Australian soils such a hot topic at the moment, NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has dedicated two up-to-date and informative web pages to the issue.

The first web page (www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/areas/resources-research/soils-recycled-orga...) highlights a 28-page Scoping Paper: Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) Sequestration Potential for Agriculture in NSW, authored in 2008 by NSW DPI scientists Yin Chan, Annette Cowie, Georgina Kelly, Bhupinderpal Singh and Peter Slavich.

The second web page (www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/topics/biochar) provides a comprehensive background to biochar, a carbon-rich material produced from the slow pyrolysis of biomass, which has great capacity to sequester carbon in the soil. This page also outlines the research being conducted by NSW DPI into the potential for this material.

Regarding impact of Pottery shards in the soil there were several questions. I had been searching for pottery shards in the agricultural fields and most often and I got to see some pottery shards in the field. Where ever agriculture was the main livelihood, high densities of populations existence, civilization at the helm and space was a constraint, innovations were adopted by humans, and such practices are sustainable even now.
For more photographs and relevant links see
http://e-potteryshardssoil.blogspot.com/

The charcoal and pottery shards are the two most common by-products of human habitats. At least some charcoal / biochar along with ash was contributed by the people living in habitations in the past (see table in the above link). The availability of the quantity of such by-product, ingenious use, management and development are the aspects still to be discovered. If charcoal / pottery shards did not occur in certain areas in spite of human settlements existence, than there must be some reason yet to be discovered. But both charcoal and pottery existence as a result of human activities was beyond history, so there is no reason why these things are not seen.

The fired pottery made up of clay is most popular. Still the poor people in rural villages in parts of India cook in the clay pots. The pots used for drinking water collection is most common, even today millions of pots are produced and used all over India every year, the usage would be more especially during summers. The evaporation of the water from the fine pores of the pot cool the water inside the pot. The temperature would be at least 5 deg centigrade less than the surrounding air temp. The cooling effects would be very high under less relative humidity conditions. The roofs made up of clay tiles also provide cool shelter, and very much useful in the tropics where temperatures are very high during summers. For majority of the main festivals pots or pottery items are used. From Birth to death, for all important occasions pottery items are used.

Use of biochar (charcoal) to replenish soil carbon pools, restore soil fertility and sequester CO2

Submission by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
4th Session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the
Convention (AWG-LCA 4), Poznan, 1-10 December 2008
Submission containing ideas and proposals on Paragraph 1 of the Bali Action Plan:
Use of biochar (charcoal) to replenish soil carbon pools, restore soil fertility and sequester CO2

Abstract

The world's soils hold more organic carbon than that held by the atmosphere as CO2 and vegetation, yet the role of the soil in capturing and storing carbon dioxide is often one missing information layer in taking into consideration the importance of the land in mitigating climate change. Extraordinary demands are being placed on agricultural systems to produce food, fiber and energy and yet the inevitable changes in the flow of carbon into or out of soils have significant effect on a global scale. Biomass burning and the removal of crop residues reduce carbon in soil and vegetation, which has implications for soil fertility and the global carbon cycle.
The land has an unparalleled capacity to hold carbon and to act as a sink for green house gases making it imperative to focus on activities that enhances rehabilitation, protection and sustainable management of degraded lands. Conventional means to increase soil carbon stocks depend on climate, soil type and site specific management. Over the years, most efforts to manage greenhouse gases have involved planting trees, since the amount of carbon that can be sequestered in this way is substantial. However, the drawback of conventional carbon enrichment is that this carbon-sink option is of limited duration. The associated humus enrichment follows a saturation curve, approaching a new equilibrium level after some 50 to 100 years. The new carbon level drops rapidly again as soon as the required careful management is no longer sustained.

There exist opportunities to include sustainable land management processes and in particular the use of biochar into the CDM negotiation process through focused policy actions that include institutional synergy as well as better understanding of the sustainability cost-benefit of Biochar. This process could be undertaken starting in Poznan and towards the Copenhagen agreement.
Pyrolysis (of agricultural residues resulting in charcoal and energy production) with biochar carbon sequestration provides a tool to combine sustainable soil management (carbon sequestration) and renewable energy production. The process of pyrolysis or carbonization is known globally and can be implemented at both small scale (e.g. cooking stove) and large scale levels (e.g. biorefinery).

About 50% of the carbon can be captured if biomass is converted to biochar. Charcoal enriched soils like Chernozems and in particular Terra Preta soils are among the world’s most fertile soils and prove that soil organic carbon enrichment beyond the maximum capacity is possible if done with a recalcitrant form of carbon such as biochar.

The soil properties determine the different capacities of the land to act as a store for carbon that has direct implications for capturing greenhouse gases. Biochar offers unique options to address issues emerging from the conflicts and complementarities between cultivating crops for different purposes, such as for energy or for CO2 sequestration or for food and the impacts on food security, land/soil degradation, water, and biodiversity. The fact that many of the drylands soils have been degraded means that they are currently far from saturated with carbon and their potential to sequester carbon may be very high (Farage et al 2003) making the consideration of Biochar, as a strategy for enhancing soils carbon sequestration, imperative.

Required policy actions

The global carbon trade market must be made accessible to land managers, especially in the tropics where sustaining SOC and soil fertility is most challenging and CO2 emissions due to land use change are highest.

All stakeholders need to engage in the dialogue for the post 2012 climate regime. This approach of soil organic carbon restoration constitutes a significant adaptation tool to climate change, in addition to sequestering carbon. This could be a strong link between the three Rio conventions as it simultaneously addresses climate change, desertification and biodiversity issues.

There is the need to include into the negotiation agenda of UNFCCC practical approaches such as biochar-related mitigation (CDM) and other LCA adaptation initiatives, focusing on increased land productivity, which simultaneously takes into account the issue of climate change, desertification and biodiversity issues.

According to the IPCC biochar management would be a valid C sink in the current and post 2012 LULUCF guidelines. However, the following policy action is urgently required:

1. Raising awareness on the role of the land on mitigation and adaptation to climate change and in particular the importance of Biochar in enhancing the sequestration of carbon in the soils.
2. Inclusion of biochar in the CDM mechanism along with currently already included afforestation and reforestation (A/R).
3. Revision of the additionality rules in order to take into account the fact that biochar is a permanent means of carbon capture that has more value than the potentially reversible (A/R).
4. In view of item 3 above, increase the level of CERs that an annex I Party can use towards meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets from the current 1% to a higher percentage. This would result in large financial flows for both mitigation and adaptation to developing countries where use of this technique would result in the highest returns, due to the high losses of SOC.
The Values of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)

According to Sombroek et al. (1993) it is important to separate effects due to organic matter per se (maintenance and improvement of water infiltration, water holding capacity, structure stability, retention of nutrients, healthy soil biological activity) from those due to decomposition (source of nutrients). The SOC pool is an important indicator of soil quality, and has numerous direct and indirect impacts on it such as, improved structure and tilth, reduced erosion, increased plant-available water capacity, water purification, increased soil biodiversity, improved yields, and climate moderation (Lal 2004). This is essential to sustain the quality and productivity of soils around the globe, particularly in the tropics where there is a greater proportion of nutrient poor soils with a greater susceptibility to carbon loss.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Agriculture

The global SOC pool in the upper 1 m for the world’s soils contains 1220 gigatons (Gt, 109 = billion tons) carbon, 1.5 times the total for the standing biomass (Sombroek et al. 1993). The total soil carbon (organic and inorganic) is 3.3 times the size of the atmospheric carbon pool (Lal 2004). As most agricultural soils have lost 50 to 70% of their original SOC pool (Lal 2003) they represent a considerable carbon sink if efforts are made to restore SOC, but also a huge source of GHG if soil management and deforestation rates are not changed. There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades (25-90% between 2000 and 2030) (IPCC 2007).

Replenishing SOC Pools and the Global Potential of Biochar Carbon Sequestration
Increasing SOC with conventional means e.g. conservation tillage, use of manures, and compost, conversion of monoculture to complex diverse cropping systems, meadow-based rotations and winter cover crops, and establishing perennial vegetation on contours and steep slopes can sequester carbon. The sequestration potential depends on climate, soil type, and site specific management. SOC of cropland increases only if either SOC additions are enhanced or decomposition rates reduced (Sauerbeck 2001). Accumulating crop residues in the field can cause considerable crop management problems (increasing the susceptibility to wildfire, insect attach and disease, increasing N2O and CH4 emission). Therefore many farmers find it more expedient to burn crop residues than to incorporate them into the soil. Worldwide, the total carbon release from fire is of the order of 4-7 Gt of carbon per year. This flux is almost as large as the rate of fossil fuel consumption (about 6 Gt per year in 1990) (Goudriaan 1995).

Reduced decomposition is an advantage of charcoal (biochar). Biochar formation has important implications for the global carbon cycle. In natural and agroecosystems residual charcoal is produced by incomplete burning. As the SOC pool declines due to cultivation, the more resistant charcoal fraction increases as a portion of the total carbon pool (Zech and Guggenberger 1996, Skjemstad 2001, Skjemstad et al. 2002) and may constitute up to 35% of the total SOC pool in ecosystems (Skjemstad et al. 2002). Carbon dating of charcoal has shown some to be over 1500 years old, fairly stable, and a permanent form of carbon sequestration (Lal 2003).

An anthropogenically-enriched dark soil found throughout the lowland portion of the Amazon Basin and termed Terra Preta de Índio is one example how soil management can increase the productivity of soils for centuries (Woods 1995). These soils contain high concentrations of charcoal (Glaser et al. 2001); and significantly more plant available nutrients than in the surrounding soils (Lima et al. 2002). The existence of Terra Preta proves that infertile soils can be transformed into permanently fertile soils in spite of rates of weathering 100 times greater than those found in the mid-latitudes.

Systems (pyrolysis) converting biomass into energy (hydrogen-rich gas and bio-oil) and producing biochar as a by-product offer an opportunity to combine renewable energy production, carbon sequestration and soil restoration. Biochar can be produced by incomplete combustion from any biomass, and it is a by-product of the pyrolysis technology used for biofuel and bioenergy production. If the demand for renewable fuels by the year 2100 was met through pyrolysis, biochar sequestration could exceed current emissions from fossil fuels (Lehmann et al. 2006).

Biochar and Soil Fertility

The recalcitrant nature of charcoal makes biochar rather exceptional. Recent studies showed that soil biochar amendments are indeed capable of increasing soil fertility by improving chemical, biological, and physical properties. Biochar significantly increase plant growth and nutrition (Lehmann et al. 2003, Steiner et al. 2007). Lehmann et al. (2003) and Steiner et al. (2008) found
improved efficiency of nitrogen fertilizers on biochar containing fields. The effects on soil biology seem to be essential as biochar has the potential to alter the microbial biomass (Steiner et al. 2004) and composition (Birk 2005) and the microbes are able to change the biochar’s properties (Glaser et al. 2001). The majority of experiments conducted show that biochar soil amendments result in enhanced colonization rates my mycorrhizal fungi (Warnock et al. 2007). Rondon et al. (2007) found increased biological nitrogen fixation by common beans through biochar additions. Lehmann and Rondon (2006) reviewed 24 studies with soil biochar additions and found improved productivity in all of them ranging from 20 to 220% at application rates of 0.4 to 8 tons carbon ha-1.

Advantages of Biochar Carbon Sequestration

• No competition between SOC restoration, bio-fuels and food production

Numerous researchers warn of deleterious effects on soil fertility if crop residues are removed for bio-energy production (Sauerbeck 2001, Lal 2004). Pyrolysis with biochar carbon sequestration provides a tool to combine sustainable SOC management (carbon sequestration), and renewable energy production. While producing renewable energy from biomass, SOC sequestration, agricultural productivity, and environmental quality can be sustained and improved if the biomass is transferred to an inactive carbon pool and redistributed to agricultural fields. The uses of crop residues as potential energy source or to sequester carbon and improve soil quality can be complementary, not competing uses.

• Pyrolysis or gasification with biochar carbon sequestration

Bioenergy with biochar carbon storage facilitates the generation of carbon-negative energy. Biochar producing gasifiers can have a broad range in size and in technological complexity. Biochar can be produced as a byproduct from cooking (biochar producing kitchen stoves). Decentralized small scale projects are feasible and large capital investments are not necessary. As biochar is a byproduct of gasification, no carbon capture technology is necessary. There is no risk of harmful CO2 leakage from biochar.

• Fast SOC buildup beyond the maximum sequestration capacity

From biomass to humus a considerable fraction of carbon is lost by respiratory processes, and also from humus to resistant soil carbon. Only 2-20% of the carbon added as above ground residues and root biomass enters the SOC pool by humification. The rest is converted to CO2 due to oxidation, and furthermore the SOC pool is not inert to oxidation (Lal 2004). Soils can only sequester additional carbon until the maximum soil carbon capacity, or soil carbon saturation, is achieved, which requires a steady input of biomass and careful management practices. In contrast, about 50% of the carbon can be captured if biomass is converted to biochar (Lehmann et al. 2006).

The existence of Terra Preta proves that SOC enrichment beyond the maximum capacity is possible if done with a recalcitrant form of carbon such as biochar. These soils still contain large amounts of biochar derived SOC in a climate favorable for decomposition, hundreds and thousands of years after they were abandoned.

• Reduced deforestation

Only re-growing plant biomass can establish a carbon sink. The carbon trade could provide an incentive to cease further deforestation; instead reforestation and recuperation of degraded land
for fuel and food crops would gain magnitude. As tropical forests account for between 20 and 25% of the world terrestrial carbon reservoir (Bernoux et al. 2001), this would reduce emissions from tropical forest conversion which is estimated to contribute globally as much as 25 % of net CO2 emissions and up to 10 % of N2O emissions to the atmosphere (Palm et al. 2004).

• Easy accountability and reduced risk

Current CDM projects dealing with charcoal aim either at reduction of methane emissions during charcoal production or substitution of fossil fuels by burning charcoal. In both cases the charcoal does not reduce GHG in the atmosphere.

Biochar as a soil amendment would provide a large permanent carbon sink. Potential drawbacks such as difficulty in estimating greenhouse gas removals and emissions resulting from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), or destruction of sinks through forest fire or disease do not apply to biochar soil amendments. Furthermore, the biochar carbon sink is easily quantifiable. Biochar production transforms carbon from the active (crop residues or trees) to the inactive carbon pool. Biochar is a formally authorized soil amendment in Japan and is discussed to be part of Australia’s emissions trading scheme. New Zealand invested in research development and commercialization of biofuel and biochar. The 2008 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2008) was passed by the U. S. Congress and establishes the first federal-level policy in support of biochar production and utilization programs in the world, and is one of a handful of new, high-priority research and extension areas.

The avoided emissions of greenhouse gases are between 2 and 5 times greater when biochar is applied to agricultural land than used solely for fossil energy offsets. The potential revenues from carbon trading alone can justify optimizing pyrolysis to produce biochar for application to land (Gaunt and Lehmann 2008).

References (click on story title to see more)

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

Hi, my name is Adam O'Toole. I am a Masters student (International Environment Studies) at the University of Life Sciences in Norway www.umb.no

I am interested in doing research on biochar for my thesis, and am looking for opportunities that may be available.

If you are in need or could suggest possible topics, please email me at adamotoole@gmail.com

I am Australian, and hoping to do my research in Northern NSW, but I am also open to other parts of the world.

Kind Regards

Adam O'Toole
adamotoole@gmail.com

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.

Soil Secrets: Humic Acids
Dr. Melendez, Soil Secrets, Courtesy Daved Yarrow December 2008

How Humic Acid is Created

Humus is the common name used by most of us and it’s a term that lumps the stable molecular acids called Humic acids together with the not fully decomposed soil organic residue that is broken down into parts too small to identify it’s origins. Together this conglomerate of Humic acids which are bio-chemicals and the polymorphic Soil Organic Matter define the presence and sustainability of a top soil. Soil Organic Matter has a calorie value and will rapidly decompose or cycle into Carbon dioxide while the Humic acids are not rapid cycling, have no calorie value and therefore will have a chemical half life measured in many decades if not centuries. The term ‘Humic substances’ is often used interchangeably with Humic acids which addresses the most essential and long lasting carbon bank of substances that has a true bio-chemical benefit to a Soil’s Terrestrial Biosphere. In nature the riches sources of these substances are found in a rich top soil, peat, lignite coal, and Leonardite and the Humate formations of NW New Mexico.

Leonardite, is a highly oxidized form of organic matter, and is technically a low rank coal between peat and sub-bituminous. It was formed during a time of ancient salt water inland seas while Humate was formed when that North Western region of New Mexico was thick in huge tropical carboniferous forests and fresh water inland swamps.

Humic acids have a definable molecular structure of which a fragment is illustrated below.
The Humic acids of soil are a product of soil chemistry of which the precursor to humus formation is protein. The Humic acids are not organic matter in the true since as they have a definable molecular structure and are no longer decomposing organic biomass such as rotting roots or compost. It can be said that the Humic acids are essential for a healthy and productive soil.
Part of the chemical structure of the Humic acids has been oxidized away providing broken bonds which create places on the molecules where micronutrient ions can be absorbed. The oxidized sites give the entire molecule a negative charge enabling it to absorb micronutrients. The organic structure of Humic acid is naturally oxidized, as shown by the asterisks, giving it a negative charge.
Positive ions, attracted to broken bonds at the site of the oxidation, create sites for micronutrients and micro-flora to attach.

How Humus (Humic Acids) Work

Clay Disaggregation: Clay particles normally lay together flat as shown, but having a negative charge will repelled each other. When Salt (Na+) is present in minor amounts, the clay platelets will collapse.

Soils clay content can become so dense and compact that they may resist plant rooting because they lack good porosity with aerobic conditions needed by plant roots. This may happen for one of two reasons:

First, the salt in the soil has neutralized the negative electrical charges which normally cause clay particles to repel each other.
Salt overload causes clay platelets to attract each other.
When an excessive amount of salt is present, it neutralizes the negative electrical charges that normally cause clay particles to repel each other. The platelets move closer together. This is called soil collapse, a condition seen in irrigated regions world wide, where soil salinity is a growing problem.

Clay compaction

The percentage of clay in the soil can be so high that the positive charge on the edge of a clay particle combines with the negative charge on the flat surface of another, forming a tight three-dimensional structure as shown in in this image.
When the percentage of clay in the soil is very high, and especially when an excessive amount of salt is present, the positive charge on the edge of a clay particle combines with the negative charge on the flat surface of another, forming a tight three dimensional structure.
Water Penetration is Enabled with the help of Humic acids (Humus)
Humic acid causes the clay particles to stand on end, allowing water penetration. It does this in two ways.

1. First, it segregates salts (positive ions) and removes them from the surface of the clay particle. This restores a negative charge to the clay platelets causing the clay platelets to repel each other, therefore loosening the soil structure.

2. Second, a carbon group on the Humic acid molecule (carboxyl group) bonds with the edge of the positively charged particles. This breaks the attractive force between the positive charge at the edge of a particle and the negative charge or the flat surface of another.

This action, called protective colloidal action, loosens soil, letting roots penetrate more easily.
Micronutrient exchange is improved with Humus (Humic acids) in the soil.
Humic acid is extremely important as a medium for transporting nutrients from the soil to the plant.
Humic acid picks up positive ions. Since the root's negative charge is greater than Humic acid's negative charge, scientists theorize that the micronutrients are taken up by a plant's root and absorbed by the plant's circulation system.

Since the root system is negatively charged, when the Humic acid moves close to the root, the root's negative charge exceeds the acid's negative charge. The micronutrients are released from the Humic acid molecule and enter the root membrane.

Water Sequestration

Positive ions are more easily absorbed by a plant's root.

Humic acid holds cations in a way they can be more easily absorbed by a plant's root, improving micronutrient transference to the plant's circulation system.

Humic acid slows water evaporation from soils. This is especially important in soils where clay is not present or in a low concentration, in arid areas, and in sandy soils without the capability to hold water.

In the presence of water, cations absorbed by Humic acid partially ionize and move a short distance away from the Humic acid oxidation sites. This restores part of the bonded ion's positive attractive force. Since water is a dipolar molecule and electrically neutral, the end of the molecule containing the oxygen atom loosely bonds to the ion. The hydrogen or negative end of the water molecule is partially neutralized, and as a result, increases the hydrogen end's positive attracting force. The oxygen (or negative) end of another water molecule bonds with the hydrogen end and this continues until the attractive force of the water molecule is dissipated. This is called surface tension!

Humic acids can save up to 30% on water

The polar nature of water molecules allows them to bond to each other in groups and is associated with the high surface tension of water. The polar nature of the water molecule has many implications. It causes water vapor at sufficient vapor pressure to depart from the ideal gas law because of dipole-dipole attractions. This can lead to condensation and phenomena like cloud formation, fog, the dew point, etc. It also has a great deal to do with the function of water as the solvent of life in biological systems.

This effect reduces the evaporation rate by about 30%. Humic acid can significantly reduce water evaporation and increase its use by plants in non-clay, arid, and sandy soils.

Note:
i have a large .pdf file with powerpoint slides of useful information about humus, humic acids & the soil food web by dr. michael melendrez of www.soilsecrets.com. very useful information to better understand how biochar affects soil structure and character.

the file is 3.4mb -- to large to send through yahoogroups. i will email the file to anyone interested.

pasted below is the text from 9 of the 25 slides.

unfortunately, dr. melendrez doesn't know much about biochar and its effects in soils, and has formed a negative preliminary judgment about biochar -- seeing it as competitive and redundant to the humic acids he knows and loves. i respect his work, since he has perfected humus-building methods and materials that work very well in the alkaline and saline soils of the american southwest.

dr. melendrez first used the descriptor "soil food web" in a research paper he prepared in 1976 -- long before dr. elaine ingham in oregon coined the phrase to describe her own theories and insights.

for a green & peaceful planet,
David Yarrow
Turtle EyeLand Sanctuary
44 Gilligan Rd, East Greenbush, NY 12061
cell: 518-881-6632
www.championtrees.org
www.OnondagaLakePeaceFestival.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/carbon-negative
www.farmandfood.org
www.SeaAgri.com

Seattle Biochar Working Group / Urban Plot Testing Program
Art Donnelly, www.seachar.org , December 22, 2008

seacharfirstfire

Greetings,

As this dramatically historic year winds to an end, I am sending out this update of the Seattle Biochar Working Group's immediate plans. We have recently organized as a registered 501c3 non-profit corporation. Our mission is to gain widespread acceptance for the Biochar strategy for long term sequestration of atmospheric Co2. I realize that the large group of people, to whom I am sending this short note, have a range of familiarity with this topic. I also realize that this overview is very light on specifics. A more detailed proposal will be forth coming soon after the beginning of the New Year. I believe each of you can make a critical contribution to the success of this important work. I would like to follow up with each of you individually and continue a more specific conversation with you.

Let me very briefly outline the SeaChar.org's planned urban plot testing program in the metropolitan Seattle area:
• We are doing biochar educational outreach, in an effort to raise awareness and build a partnership network.
• We are recruiting existing urban and sub-urban landholding organizations to participate in an IBI www.biochar-international.org designed plot testing program (using a standardized char, which we would supply)
• We plan to use the Chardb online project developed by Terra Carbona. www.terracarbona.org to upload the results to an international plot testing data base.
• By the end of February we hope to have a network of partners committed to participating in this coming years growing season. We have a goal of a minimum of an acre (aggregated)
• Currently we can make limited "batch" amounts of char at one of our members shops, this will not give us a sufficient supply. We are currently looking for a source.
• We are planning on working with one of our plot testing partners to set up a small "CLEAN" biochar production, demonstration site. In the city. Where we can hold workshops and give char to gardeners willing to participate in a supported, home plot/pot testing program.
• In addition we hope to design and manage a calender of related garden tours, speakers and "stove" building classes
• During this period we will continue to design and develop a larger pilot municipal program: using "clean green" waste as our input and co-producing carbon negative bioenergy and biochar. This project will explore the potential to sequester Co2 in soils,performance landscape (swales, green roofs,etc.) and built infrastructure.
• Developing an understanding of: how biochar performs in our local soil types. Our educational outreach and plot testing program will lend our proposal the credibility of community support and real world experience.
I both hope and expect that you will all have questions. I look forward to discussing this further with you.

my best wishes,

Art Donnelly
Seattle Biochar Working Group
206-612-3018
www.seachar.org

"it's time to get positive about negative thinking"