Charcoal in agriculture: Experimental research at Fourth Corner Nurseries
Richard Haard, Fourth Corner Nurseries, Bellingham, Washington, January 3, 2008

Greetings

I just finished over the last few days organizing images and data from my charcoal experimental plots. I am presenting a new set of posters showing root systems of the native shrub, Lonicera involucrata or black twinberry that I used as an experimental subject in these treatment plots this summer.

This will be the last of a series of piecemeal postings about my findings on the terrapreta reading list. In time, I will prepare a summary of what I have accomplished this year, the shortcomings, what I feel I have learned from this work about using charcoal and my plans for continuing this experiment for 2 or more growing seasons.

Quick background - my employer, Fourth Corner Nurseries is a bare root native plant nursery. We grow more than 350 kinds of plants for environmental restoration and landscaping purposes. Our farm is 60 acres in 2 fields. Shown here is our east field. Formerly, I have been trying charcoal as a soil additive for several years and this season I attempted a controlled experiment. It did not go without a hitch.

What I established this year was a series of 28 - 17 foot long treatment blocks that are a pair of treatment sets consisting of untreated soil, charcoal only, fertilizer only compost only and combinations of charcoal, compost, fertilizer. In each treatment block 3 kinds of plants were installed: a native shrub, Lonicera; a native perennial - Aster subspicatus; and a vegetable - swiss Chard.
All were selected for their heavy nitrogen consumers and all production was removed from the plots, roots and tops, then the plots replanted and cropped again without further fertilizer, compost or charcoal.

The most detailed measurements accomplished this year is 2 sets of soil chemical analysis completed at a University laboratory. Plant response measurements this year, for several reasons was only visual observation. This set of posters I am presenting today shows subtle but interesting and positive additive effects of compost and charcoal.
Further analysis will be presented at a later date.

How it went. Early April while the plants were still dormant I took 2 year old bareroot Lonicera seedlings trimmed tops and roots and planted in peat/perlite mix in 4X4 inch containers. At these same time I planted
sprigs of Aster in the same manor. After the plants had firmly rooted into the containers and our field soil had warmed, I prepared a growing bed in our normal propagation field ( Field 13, row 8). The growing bed is about 4
feet wide and 500 feet long. I divided this into 17 foot beds with separate treatments in a systematic way. Here is charcoal 1, a fine powder that was donated by JF Waste energy systems. Here is charcoal 2 a lump and powder mix that
Larry Williams and I made with a top draft earth covered mound. I am using the lump charcoal because I can observe microbe utilization over time as Larry has been studying for several years.

Here are the charcoal test beds are they appeared before rototilling. In this image furthest is compost only, then compost/charcoal1,then compost/charcoal2,then compost/charcoal 1/fertilizer and so on in a systematic pattern repeating again in a second duplicate set on the north end of the field. In discussing these tests I sometimes discuss each set separately, are are called south set and north set.

Here are the plots immediately after rototilling. Note that the charcoal does not appear to be uniformly dispersed. After harvest with the
lifter-shaker charcoal is better mixed in the soil. Each bed received about 30 gallons of charcoal. Fertilizer and Composti were applied at rates normal for our farming practices.

We planted the plots in mid May and by late June they looked like this and this and this .

By the end of August the Swiss
Chard had matured and we had our first harvest. Yields were impressive but no trends specific to treatments were noticed.

Here you can see our plot method for measuring yields of swiss chard and also how the separate treatments, Lonicera, Asteri and swiss chard have grown together making assessment of total production rather difficult.
In late October I conducted a survey of the Lonicera component of the research plots. It was the end of the growing season but before the frost defoliated the plants.

Here is how the plots looked. My first look at the data that showed a subtle but encouraging trend of improvement from the use of charcoal 1.

In this set of images notice that the treatments with compost when combined with charcoal tended to be larger.
The same trend is also noticed in the compost/fertilizer/charcoal combinations. By mid November we were ready
to lift all the plant material from the plots, examine the roots and fall replant with a single species crop for next year. Here we have our lifter shaker harvesting the plants, Lonicera with charcoal staining roots and Rena picking up the plants. Later we replanted with our 4
row seeder and reseeding with another native shrub species, Oemleria cerasiformis, chosen because it too is an agressive nitrogen consumer.

Finally the posters I have prepared to compare top growth and root growth in each of the treatment sets. I have organized the images according to groups of treatments as follows: The links are to the larger size images for better viewing. Edit note root images were created 11/15 not 10/25

First Groups 1 and 2 the control sets that received no treatment or had charcoal only
Roots
Field View

Next Groups 3 and 4 fertilizer sets Edit Roots is labeled as Groups 1 and 2
Roots
Field
View

Next Group 5 South end plots compost set
Roots
Field
View

Next Group 6 North end plots compost set
Roots
Field
View

I think these findings will be encouraging information for John Flotvik and many thanks for his donation of charcoal from his pyrolyser and thanks again to Larry Williams , his thoughtful work and helping when it is most needed.

I am looking forward to another season of data from this set of test plots. Comments, ideas, criticism, discussion whatever are appreciated as I am now preparing my season end report.

Richard Haard, Fourth Corner Nurseries, Bellingham,Washington.

Copyright January 3, 2008
Permission for distribution of these materials and images is granted for entire text and images only so long as the author and initial place of publication;"http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/" is
cited. Individual images may be used by permission only from author.

Biochar Trials at Fourth Corner Nursery
Richard Haard, Fourth Corner Nursery, Bellingham, WA, December 6, 2007
Hello All - For your interest

I submitted to Tom for posting [attached] some initial soil analysis data from my charcoal block study. In am just beginning to compile a report on this work. When it is posted you will see soil analysis results averaged for each replication(2) for 2 dates , April and October. Listed are pH, Buffer pH, OM, Nitrate, Cation Exchange Capacity (CECi) and base exchange components, % Potassium, % Magnesium, % Calcium. Other soil analysis was taken but not presented here.

Keep in mind this is a 2 to 3 year study and no additional additions or treatments will be done other than continuous cropping and harvest of all growth, tops and roots, at our bare-root native plant nursery. It is my attempt to emulate Christoph Steiner, et al research in Manaus

Long term Effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/node/442

Our test was compost, charcoal (two sources) mineral fertilization and control and permutations as was done in experiment above. We're in the moist mild climate of the Pacific NW, USA on a sandy loam soil. It naturally carries very high levels of potassium and calcium found also in unfarmed soil.

I have never tried this kind of intensive soil testing before and am still learning about season to season changes and how to interpet the data. I am working now on photosets taken at harvest time and these will be posted as well as a concise statement on the experiment terms and what I think the results represent.

Rich Haard -
And thanks to Larry Williams for his work with me on this project and his critical comments.

POTENTIAL FOR PYROLYSIS CHAR TO AFFECT SOIL MOISTURE AND NUTRIENT STATUS OF A LOAMY SAND SOIL
J.W. Gaskin, Adam Speir, L.M. Morris, Lee Ogden, Keith Harris, D. Lee, and K.C Das, Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 27–29, 2007, at the University of Georgiai.

Abstract.

Pyrolysis of biomass for hydrogen fuel and bio-oil produces a char byproduct. There is evidence that land application of char may increase soil water holding capacity and the ability of the soil to retain nu-trients. Increases in these soil characteristics could be beneficial to plant growth as well as improving water quality. Chars produced under different conditions and from different feedstocks have different characteristics. Of the common feedstocks tested, peanut hull char con-tained higher nutrients and had a higher cation ex-change capacity than pine chip, pine bark, or hardwood chip chars. Preliminary moisture release curve data from a Tifton loamy sand indicated moisture holding capacity may be increased at very high rates of char addition. Soil moisture was periodically measured dur-ing the growing season in a field study of microplots amended with peanut hull and pine chip pellet char. Although the average soil water content of the plots amended at 22 Mg ha-1 was higher than the control, dif-ferences in volumetric water content were only signifi-cant on one date.

Microcatchment Rainwater Harvesting Systems: Zai Planting Holes Section 2.1
Olufunke Cofie, Boubacar Barry, Deborah Bossio, International Water Management Institutei, Ghana and Sri Lanka, Nobember 22-25, 2004

Zai Planting pit, Sandy Soil, Niger

"Human Resources as a driver of Bright Spots: the case of rainwater harvesting in West Africa", Conference Paper 19, NEPAD/IGAD Regional Conference: Agricultural Successes in the Greater Horn of Africa, Nairobi 22-25, 2004

2.1 Micro-catchment rainwater harvesting systems

"There are many types including: terraces, earth or rock bunds, tied ridges, rock dikes, stone lines, planting pits or basins and their modifications used in different parts of West Africa. Stone and earth bunds have been used for several years to trap water for crops during the rainy season. Around Upper West Region in Ghana, these bunds have been developed into a terrace system on the slopes. The bunds are square, or rectangular shape, and their slopes are not along the contour. Millet is the main crop grown under this system in Ghana. The height of the stone bunds depends on available stone or soil depth in the neighborhood. In some places stone lines are used. These are made up of continuous lines of stones in a field along the contour to slow down the flow of rainwater, thus enhancing infiltration and to facilitate to some extent the deposition of vegetable debris and fine soil particles which increase soil fertility in the long run. Planting Pit or Basin is commonly used in the sub-region with various modifications including the zai in Burkina and in Mali, and also Tassa and half moon in Niger. In Ghana, stones are removed to create pits for collection of water in areas with high clay content in the subsoil (Kranjac-Berisavljevic et al 2002).

Perhaps the most sucessful of these techniques is the zai ("water pocket") in Burkina Faso Zai is an ancestral planting pit developed in the Yatenga province, North Western part of Burkina Faso (where average rainfall is about 600 mm, with recurrent droughts and where soils are heavily encrusted. The Yatenga province has a hig population density (80 hbts/km2), and sufferred from recurrent droughts in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Since the early 1980's, "zai" has been rapidly revived and adopted by farmers, resulting in 1989, over 8000 hectares of degraded land in over 400 vilages in Burkina, being brought back to productivity. Large areas of the province are covered with lateritic soils of low infiltration capacity. the objective of the Zai practice is to regenerate the most degraded part of the field. It consists of digging holes or 'basins' of around 20-20 cm in diameter and 10-15 cm in depth. (Bandre and batta, 2002). The holes store rainwater, for plant growth. Generally the density is about 10,000-15,000 holes/ha depending on the crop chosen and the spacing between holes. Farmers use stone contour bunds to reduce the speed of runoff allowing infiltration into the zai which collect and concentrate the runoff. The larger the planting pits, and the bigger the spacing, the more water can be harveted from the uncultivated micro-catchments. Organic manure is put in the holes at a rate of about 3-4 t/ha. Sorghum is the preferred crop because of its greater adaptation to possible temporary hydromorphic conditions in the hole.

According to Fatondji (2002) working in Naimey (Niger), the Zai technique assured a substantial total dry matter (TDM) increase (3086 kg ha-1) compared to flat planting (991 kg ha-1) with cattle manure application under 20 mm irrigation regime. He also observed that the quality of the amendment in Zai played a significant role. Low TDM as well as grain yield was produced with crop residue and compost of low quality. He observed for instance at the three study sites in Niger, that TDM produced on average with crop residue application was 756 at Sadore; 925 at Damari and 2185 kh ha-1 at Kakassi in 1999, compared to 3957, 4600 and 5030 kg ha-1 respectively with same rate of manure application. The grain yield was 151 kg ha-1 at Damari and 393 kg ha-1 at Kakassi with crop residue application, while it was 987 and 778 kg ha with manure application.

Ftondji (2002) observed that the Zai planting technique induced a higher water use efficiency than flat planting at three sites in Niger. Combination of Zai with manure improved considerably water use efficiency in three different sites. Therefore it is imperative to promote technologies that can on one hand help increase potential water availability and on the other hand consequently help rehabilitate degraded lands. "Zai" enhanced soil water storage and increased plant water availability, though most of this water could be drained out in soil with low water holding capacity as in Sadore and Damari in Niger. Nevertheless, the use of good quality organic amendment (manure) promoted rapid and deep root growth and helped limit water loss by drainage.

See also:

Southern adn East Africa Rainwater Network Searnet
IWMI Research in Africa Best Practices Zai Holes

ECHO Dryland techniques and Mulches

Drylands Coordination Group Integrated Plant Nutrition

Drylands Coordination Group Integrated Plant Nutrition Management in Mali pdf
Summary Report 1998-2004

Improving wheat production with deep banded Oil Mallee Charcoal in Western Australia (2.7 MB pdf)
Paul Blackwell, Syd Shea, Paul Storer, Zakaria Solaiman, Mike Kerkmans, and Ian Stanley, IAI April 2007
Deep Banded Malleei Charcoal

Charcoal Experimental Plots
Rich Haard and Larry Williams at Fourth Corner Nurseries, Bellingham, Washington, May 6, 2007
[G2:366]