SoilWatcher

I have posted probably two or three times on this thread since it started. I am very interested in Terra Preta for many reasons -- soil sustainability and productivity, fertilizer runoff reduction, and just for my own interest in gardening. One thing I am not interested in solving is global warming because I don't believe in it as a man caused phenomenon. But if that gets research money into Terra Preta I guess that's ok too. Nevertheless, I do feel compelled to post this image. Not sure if I can post images or just links. I'll give it a shot... (ok, as it turns out i'm not allowed to post links yet due to my low post count. do it yourselves i guess.) wwwDOTplacergopDOTorg/_content/gwDOTjpg

Ok, for this next post I have to reveal my biases somewhat. Like Turtle, whose posts spurred this response, I tend to view global warming as mostly junk science. Not global warming itself, but global warming as a man caused phenomenon is, IMO, significantly junk science. Or perhaps even more to the point -- the notion that we can fix/affect it is likely junk science. This is a somewhat educated opinion but I do reserve the right to be wrong. That said, I am very excited about Terra Preta. I do think that improving soil productivity and sustainability is a huge win. I do think there's solid science behind the negative effects of over fertilization -- including reduced nutritional content of food, fertilizer runoff into bodies of water, etc. Anything we can do to make soil more "naturally" productive is a big win, IMO. But another benefit is that it may tend to get the climate extremists off our backs a bit. If we are, in the long run, doing things that vastly reduce carbon release into the atmosphere then the Al Gores of the world will have to find something new to moan about. They used to tell us we were causing an ice age, now we're causing global warming. Not sure what will be next but I'm sure they will think of something once we actually do reduce carbon emissions. The nice thing about doing it this way -- terra preta production to sequester carbon -- is that it's a net gain all around, rather than doing radical Kyoto type things which would cripple our economy. My two cents...

I haven't posted in forever. I will probably make a couple posts. First a question. Many of you are finding supplies of charcoal. Back in the early part of this whole thread, one of the critical things was that it should be low temperature charcoal, thereby leaving resins which fed the microbes. Does any of this commercially available charcoal fit the bill?

I haven't posted in forever. I will probably make a couple posts. First a question. Many of you are finding supplies of charcoal. Back in the early part of this whole thread, one of the critical things was that it should be low temperature charcoal, thereby leaving resins which fed the microbes. Does any of this commercially available charcoal fit the bill?

Indeed, it does seem to be necessary to do it at low temperature. It is assumed they used smoldering burning piles, putting brush or dirt on top to keep it from burning too hot. Here's something more about it: http://www.eprida.com/hydro/yahoo2004.htm Low temperature woody charcoal (not grass or high cellulose) has an interior layer of bio-oil condensates that microbes consume and is equal to glucose in its effect on microbial growth (Christoph Steiner, EACU 2004). High temp char loses this layer and does not promote soil fertility very well. ... Evidence of terra preta's ability to grow and sequester more carbon was undercovered by soil scientist William Woods (U.Illinois). The work is still under investigation in Brazil by over the last 20 years mining terra preta for potting soil has not decreased its availability. Farmers have learned it recovers a centimeter per year. The possibility those small fractions of char continually migrate down, providing housing for microbes as they process surface-cover biomass. The microbes and fungi live and die inside the porous media increasing its carbon content.