Terra Preta in the news

[InfiniteNow]

Philip Small shared this link with us in the TP parent thread, and I wanted to share it here.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/terra-preta/3451-terra-preta-parent-thread-started-all-42.html#post161598

 

Original article:

Kelpie Wilson on Branson's prize | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

There is even a potentially revolutionary technique waiting to be developed that could greatly accelerate carbon storage in soils.

 

The technique is called "Terra Preta," Portuguese for "black earth." It is not new. It was invented by an ancient agricultural civilization in the Amazon that made charcoal and buried it the soil. The charcoal absorbs and holds nutrients from manure and supports beneficial microbes. Some of these fertile soils are more than 1000 years old. You can read more about Terra Preta in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles C. Mann.

 

Does anyone else have more "popular" news references to TP? If so, please share them here. :phones:

[Michaelangelica]

Well written article with some intersting comments:

Kelpie Wilson on Branson's prize

Posted by David Roberts at 9:12 AM on 23 Feb 2007

 

Kelpie Wilson on Branson's prize | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

 

Soil science discussion group I don't know how you get an invitation code to join erich?

NSCSS.org :: View topic - Soil concept named top green idea in 2006

National Society of Consulting Soil Scientists, Inc.

PMB 700, 325 Pennsylvania Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20003

800-535-7148

Welcome to the NSCSS online forum. Contact webmaster2007 AT nscss DOT org to register.

Soil concept named top green idea in 2006

Only two post on TP so far

 

Lots of god info here. mentioned above by erich

I have it as an rss feed on my browser, quicker and keeps me up to date with this busy blog

transect points: Charcoal amended soil for real

eg

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Charcoal amended soil for real

 

A recent thoughtful article. These two questions especially interested me

AlterNet: EnviroHealth: Will a Multi-Million Dollar Contest Be the Answer to Global Warming?

Will a Multi-Million Dollar Contest Be the Answer to Global Warming?

 

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted February 22, 2007.

. . .

And here's an unintended consequence I have never heard discussed -- what happens to all of the oxygen in the CO2 molecules that get sequestered? When plants pull CO2 out of the air and use it to grow stems and roots, they recycle the oxygen back into the atmosphere. Are we in danger of burying a needful portion of our oxygen deep in the Earth?

 

Ultimately, Branson's Earth Challenge prize reflects the same attitude that got us into the climate crisis in the first place. It's a wet dream for engineers who now get to play with a whole planet, acting out their favorite science fiction scenarios. If they want to terraform a planet, I say send them to Mars, but don't experiment with the Earth.

 

Good (I misspelt that as God just a Freudian slip)article with lots of links by eric (I believe he may be learning Chinese next??)

Wianor » Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle

 

Tim Flannery has been on the front cover of our Australian (serious) magazine the Bulletin (it is a publication similar to Time/Newsweek)

The heat is on

In this article he is supporting pyrolysis.

 

 

Thats a start. Big thunderstorm coming; so going to turn off the computer. Rain, beautiful rain all week. The plants are growing as you look. The bees were right!

Storm seems to have moved but sound like it is hitting Sydney hard. Can hardly hear the radio with the static

 

A classic article "Black is the New Green" a good place to start if you are new to this or, if not, to print and recruit Gardening Club converts

http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/WCSS2006/Marris%202006%20Black%20is%20the%20new%20green%20Nature%20442,%20624-626.pdf

 

The Rodale Institute’s 23-year findings show that organic grain production systems increase soil carbon 15 to 28%. Moreover, soil nitrogen in the organic systems increased 8 to 15%.

The conventional system showed no significant increases in either soil carbon or nitrogen in the same time period. Soil carbon and nitrogen are major determinants of soil productivity.

To read the full article:

New Farm Field Trials: White paper, organic farming sequesters atmospheric carbon

atinagoe - Carbon Sequestering

It would be interesting if Rodale got behind Pyrolosis and TP

 

Opps storm back

akablinkdawg » Blog Archive » Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming

Need to convert this lot:

Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming

 

The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming says that the best way to combat Global Warming is to encourage farmers to cultivate deep-rooted perennial grass species and crops that can lock vast amounts of carbon up in the soil.

A new farmers’ movement was launched this week in central western New South Wales. The Carbon Coalition was launched at the Central West Conservation Farmers Association Annual Conference in Wellington.

The Carbon Coalition aims to promote organic carbon contained in agricultural soils as a carbon sink to earn tradeable credits on the greenhouse emissions market. Farmers would then be paid up to AUS$3,000 per hectare for “sequestering” carbon in the soil.

[malcolmf]

Need to convert this lot:

Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming

The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming says that the best way to combat Global Warming is to encourage farmers to cultivate deep-rooted perennial grass species and crops that can lock vast amounts of carbon up in the soil.

...

The Carbon Coalition aims to promote organic carbon contained in agricultural soils as a carbon sink to earn tradeable credits on the greenhouse emissions market. Farmers would then be paid up to AUS$3,000 per hectare for “sequestering” carbon in the soil.

 

Well done Michael.

I can already see one problem with the new thread structure. My response to this news does not belong in the news thread. (Suggestions please Hypography). But here goes:

 

The argument to try to convert agriculturalists seems straightforward:

 

Why stop at credits for the carbon in plants?

Good greenkeepers already know the benefits of horticultural charcoal. In your soil it will make your inputs more productive, improve water retention, and reduce soil erosion and nitrate leaching. You win every way.

Charcoal should attract further carbon credits. At present you may have to lobby for this to be accepted, but the argument is strong because black carbon has a residence time in soil far in excess of what plants sequester. Representations are being made to the UN to add black carbon to the Kyoto protocol.

Do not pay market prices for charcoal. Instead make your own black carbon by pyrolysing all waste from the perennials (mowings, prunings, windfall, etc.) and other crops.

There is a range of technologies to do this, suitable for small-scale early DIY experiments right up to large-scale grower co-operatives.

Some of the higher technologies use excess energy from pyrolysis as a heat source (e.g. for grain drying) or electricity generation, attracting further carbon credits for renewable energy and cutting your fuel bills.

Black carbon also reduces natural emissions from soil of methane and nitrous oxide. These are both strong greenhouse gases. A combination of research into how to verify the reductions and persistent lobbying could attract yet more credits further down the line.

 

Improvements and the best references to support the argument, anyone?

 

M

[erich]

Beware The False Prophets of Terra Perta

 

It is quite worry some that development interest are seizing on "Artificial landscape" for justification of unsustainable practices, when the real lesson about TP culture is it's amazing Sustainability!

 

They are using TP as a drunk uses a lamp post.............. for support rather than Illumination.

Erich

 

Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa

Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa

 

"Artificial or pristine landscape?

In the community of environmental archaeologists and paleo-ecologists, there are two distinct theories on pre-Columbian Amazonian populations. One commonly held vision says that the Amazon rainforest as it exists today is not 'pristine' at all, but basically an 'artificial landscape', created in ancient times by millions of people, who farmed, slashed-and-burned, logged and used the forests extensively and for centuries. According to the other camp, there is scant evidence for this hypothesis, and instead one can assume that the Amazon was sparsely populated, and only by small, primitive groups, whose impacts on the ecosystem have always been marginal."

[Michaelangelica]

erich i think that article was based on this.

strange?

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

ISSN: 0962-8436 (Paper) 1471-2970 (Online)

Issue: Volume 362, Number 1478 / February 28, 2007

Pages: 187 - 196

DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1978

URL: Linking Options

Issue Title: Theme Issue ‘Biodiversity hotspots through time: using the past to manage the future’ compiled by Katherine J. Willis, Lindsey Gillson and Sandra Knapp

Editor(s): Katherine J. Willis, Lindsey Gillson, Sandra Knapp

Prehistorically modified soils of central Amazonia: a model for sustainable agriculture in the twenty-first century

 

Bruno Glaser AFF1

 

AFF1 Institute of Soil Science and Soil Geography, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany

 

Abstract:

 

Terra Preta soils of central Amazonia exhibit approximately three times more soil organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus and 70 times more charcoal compared to adjacent infertile soils.

The Terra Preta soils were generated by pre-Columbian native populations by chance or intentionally adding large amounts of charred residues (charcoal), organic wastes, excrements and bones.

In this paper, it is argued that generating new Terra Preta sites (‘Terra Preta nova’) could be the basis for sustainable agriculture in the twenty-first century to produce food for billions of people, and could lead to attaining three Millennium Development Goals: (i) to combat desertification, (ii) to sequester atmospheric CO2 in the long term, and (iii) to maintain biodiversity hotspots such as tropical rainforests.

Therefore, large-scale generation and utilization of Terra Preta soils would decrease the pressure on primary forests that are being extensively cleared for agricultural use with only limited fertility and sustainability and, hence, only providing a limited time for cropping.

This would maintain biodiversity while mitigating both land degradation and climate change. However, it should not be overlooked that the infertility of most tropical soils (and associated low population density) is what could have prevented tropical forests undergoing large-scale clearance for agriculture. Increased fertility may increase the populations supported by shifting cultivation, thereby maintaining and increasing pressure on forests.

You can buy the complete article at

The Royal Society - Article

[Lancaster]

There was a decent article on Terra Preta in this month's Discover magazine.

[Michaelangelica]

There was a decent article on Terra Preta in this month's Discover magazine.

I can't find it there.

Do you have a more specific URL?

here it is

Black Gold of the Amazon

On August 13, 2006, on the anniversary of Petersen's death, Neves and the

 

"I think the best homage we can pay to Jim is to continue the work," Neves says, "to keep asking questions and to keep looking for answers."

[Michaelangelica]

Peak Energy: Delayed Reaction

[Michaelangelica]

Amazon conservation efforts must come soon

 

The possible importance of black earths in mitigating global warming lies in efforts to replicate the soil formation process to create “terra preta nova” (new black earth).

This would both increase the sustainability of whatever is planted and store more carbon in the soil. Finely powdered charcoal is an important ingredient of black earth and is being tested separately as a soil amendment that increases the absorption by plants of any nutrients that are added to the soil. At least theoretically, the plan is to use these techniques in recuperating areas that are already deforested.

[maikeru]

I can't find it there.

Do you have a more specific URL?

here it is

Black Gold of the Amazon

 

Bought that issue just for the terra preta article. Lovely to see that it's getting more recognition in science magazines.

[Michaelangelica]

Biochar soil sequestration and pyrolysis most climate-friendly way to use biomass for energy

The ancient technique of burying charcoal into agricultural soils has gained attention over the years as a way to sequester carbon dioxide and fight climate change. Earlier we referred to scientists who are studying this tradition as it existed in the Amazon rainforest, where human-made and very fertile soils were discovered filled with char ("terra preta", "dark earth" - earlier post).

 

Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa

 

 

Technology Review has an article on "The Case for Burying Charcoal", noting that research shows that "pyrolysis is the most climate-friendly way to consume biomass". They don't once mention Terra Preta / Eprida / Black Earth, but this sounds like the same technique to me (they do mention the conference in Terrigal starting in a couple of days time though). Tech Review also has an update on OLED displays.

 

Several states in this country and a number of Scandinavian countries are trying to supplant some coal-burning by burning biomass such as wood pellets and agricultural residue. Unlike coal, biomass is carbon-neutral, releasing only the carbon dioxide that the plants had absorbed in the first place.

 

But a new research paper published online in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy argues that the battle against global warming may be better served by instead heating the biomass in an oxygen-starved process called pyrolysis, extracting methane, hydrogen, and other byproducts for combustion, and burying the resulting carbon-rich char.

 

Even if this approach would mean burning more coal--which emits more carbon dioxide than other fossil-fuel sources--it would yield a net reduction in carbon emissions, according to the analysis by Malcolm Fowles, a professor of technology management at the Open University, in the United Kingdom. Burning one ton of wood pellets emits 357 kilograms less carbon than burning coal with the same energy content. But turning those wood pellets into char would save 372 kilograms of carbon emissions. That is because 300 kilograms of carbon could be buried as char, and the burning of byproducts would produce 72 kilograms less carbon emissions than burning an equivalent amount of coal.

 

Such an approach could carry an extra benefit. Burying char--known as black-carbon sequestration--enhances soils, helping future crops and trees grow even faster, thus absorbing more carbon dioxide in the future. Researchers believe that the char, an inert and highly porous material, plays a key role in helping soil retain water and nutrients, and in sustaining microorganisms that maintain soil fertility.

 

Johannes Lehmann, an associate professor of crops and soil sciences at Cornell University and an expert on char sequestration, agrees in principle with Fowles's analysis but believes that much more research in this relatively new area of study is needed. "It heads in the right direction," he says.

 

Interest in the approach is gathering momentum. On April 29, more than 100 corporate and academic researchers will gather in New South Wales, Australia, to attend the first international conference on black-carbon sequestration and the role pyrolysis can play to offset greenhouse-gas emissions.

 

Lehmann estimates that as much as 9.5 billion tons of carbon--more than currently emitted globally through the burning of fossil fuels--could be sequestered annually by the end of this century through the sequestration of char. "Bioenergy through pyrolysis in combination with biochar sequestration is a technology to obtain energy and improve the environment in multiple ways at the same time," writes Lehmann in a research paper to be published soon in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa

[erich]

Hi All,

They did not mention TP but it would fit the criteria for these grants to a T;

 

 

April 26, 2007

Johanns Announces $19 M in Grants for Value-Added Ag Ventures

Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced the availability of $19.5 million to help independent agricultural producers enter into value-added activities, which includes renewable energy.

 

The maximum grant amount for a planning grant is $100,000. The maximum grant amount for a working capital grant is $300,000. Applicants must provide matching funds at least equal to the amount of the grant requested.

 

 

Potential uses include a wide range of products that allow the producer to enhance the revenue stream generated from their crops and other production. Examples include conversion to organic production, processing of raw commodities to a finished product, and the conversion of farm crops to create renewable energy sources.

 

"These grants are a vital tool to help support rural businesses, create new markets for agricultural products and help the United States become more energy independent," Johanns said. "They represent the exciting new direction we're proposing for the energy and rural development titles of a new farm bill this year."

 

Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development grants, aka Value-Added Producer Grants, are available to help agriculture producers develop business plans to produce bio-based products from agricultural commodities. Awards may be made for planning activities or for working capital expenses, but not for both. The maximum grant amount for a planning grant is $100,000. The maximum grant amount for a working capital grant is $300,000. Applicants must provide matching funds at least equal to the amount of the grant requested.

 

The grants may be used for planning activities, such as feasibility studies, marketing and business plans needed to establish a viable value-added marketing opportunity for an agricultural product. They also may be used to provide working capital for operating a value-added business venture, marketing value-added agricultural products and for farm-based renewable energy projects.

 

Applicants must be an independent producer, agriculture producer group, farmer or rancher cooperative, or majority-controlled producer-based business. The deadline for applications is May 16.

 

For Further Information

» Application guide and other materials

» USDA Rural Development State Office

» USDA

 

Johanns Announces $19 M in Grants for Value-Added Ag Ventures

 

 

Erich J. Knight

[Michaelangelica]

A long interview in Acres.

nothing new except this 'throw away' comment

CRES U.S.A. Was all charcoal-making done by burning logs where they lay, or was there other technology involved?

 

MANN. Yes, there are dome-like structure that operate much like the new wood-burning stoves — you can control them so that they burn very, very clean and have relatively low oxygen inside. The ones I’ve seen are buried under earth rather carefully, with just enough oxygen holes to let the wood smolder.

He does not say what the domes were made of grass? wood? pottery?

Acres U.S.A. -- A Voice for Eco-Agriculture

[Michaelangelica]

Well written blog.

In the photo, note the depth of the soil and the pottery sticking out of the soil.

Amazonian societies did something no other culture has ever done in world history: they created good soil. These groups cleared plots in the forest, yes, but instead of burning them they charred them slowly.

The charcoal was then mixed with the soil where it not only added carbon, but hosted microbes, and increased the soil’s capacity to hold nutrients even during a downpour. Instead of planting rows of maize in their new soil, they planted hundreds of varieties of domesticated trees. Among these trees they planted their staple crop, manioc root.

 

Not content merely with plentiful fertile soils, they used pottery to build these soils up out of the floodplain (similar to the Beni people mentioned discussed in the link at the beginning). This process required continued investment of resources over hundreds of years. Millions of pots were smashed in order to raise their fields and dwellings and reclaim the land.

Anthonares » Blog Archive » Terra Preta de Indio: An Amazonian Lesson in Sustainability

[Michaelangelica]

Carbon loss in soils is something we really need to know about

One of Australia's top organic farming experts, Dr Maarten Stapper, has been dumped by the CSIRO, amid allegations he was bullied by executive management for criticising genetically modified crops.

. . .

Dr Stapper is researching carbon loss in soils, restoring soil fertility by improving soil microbiology and use of biological farming methods to improve wheat yields in south-western NSW. He has been retrenched from CSIRO Plant Industry in Canberra and will leave at the end of the month.

. . .

He argued that the use of "fertilisers, pesticides and other synthetic chemicals to address problems in agricultural production has been leading to poor soil health and resistance in insects, diseases and weeds".

 

Dr Burdon said CSIRO had a large national team working on sustainable agriculture issues such as integrated farm management systems but Dr Stapper's research had been " more at the organic end". He confirmed that Dr Stapper was the only CSIRO scientist working on organic and biological farming systems and the research program would end when he left.

. . .

Asked about further research on increasing carbon uptake of soils, Dr Burdon replied, "We won't be doing any more of that."

 

He said CSIRO did not consider biological and organic farming to be "a long-term viable strategy" and Dr Stapper's research was "not an area the division feels it can support any more".

. . .

Australian Democrats leader Senator Lyn Allison described Dr Stapper's retrenchment as "an extraordinary loss of expertise on a critical greenhouse issue".

milton.yourguide.com.au

[Michaelangelica]

Simpler Way To Counter Global Warming Explained: Lock Up Carbon In Soil And Use Bioenergy Exhaust Gases For Energy

 

Science Daily — Writing in the journal Nature, a Cornell biogeochemist describes an economical and efficient way to help offset global warming: Pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by charring, or partially burning, trees, grasses or crop residues without the use of oxygen.

 

When bioenergy is produced by pyrolysis (low-temperature burning without oxygen), it produces biochar, which has twice as much carbon in its residue than that from other sources. This makes bioenergy carbon-negative and improves soil health. (Credit: Image courtesy of Cornell University)

 

When bioenergy is produced by pyrolysis (low-temperature burning without oxygen), it produces biochar, which has twice as much carbon in its residue than that from other sources. This makes bioenergy carbon-negative and improves soil health.

 

This process, he writes, would double the carbon concentration in the residue, which could be returned to the soil as a carbon sink. The exhaust gases from this process and other biofuel production could then be converted into energy.

 

This so-called biochar sequestration could offset about 10 percent of the annual U.S. fossil-fuel emissions in any of several scenarios, says Johannes Lehmann, associate professor of soil biogeochemistry in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Cornell.

 

"Biochar sequestration, combined with bioenergy production, does not require a fundamental scientific advance, and the underlying production technology is robust, clean and simple, making it appropriate for many regions of the world," said Lehmann. "It not only reduces emissions but also sequesters carbon, making it an attractive target for energy subsidies and for inclusion in the global carbon market."

 

Most plants pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and lock it up in their biomass or in soil organic matter. But taking this a step further, Lehmann recommends heating the plant biomass without oxygen in a process known as low-temperature pyrolysis. When returned to the soil, biochar creates a stable, long-term carbon sink.

 

"Biochar also has been shown to improve the structure and fertility of soils, to enhance the retention and efficiency of fertilizers as well as to improve the productivity of soil," said Lehmann.

 

Capturing the exhaust gases from the pyrolysis process produces energy in such forms as heat, electricity, bio-oil or hydrogen. By adding the biochar to soil rather than burning it as an energy source (which most companies do), bioenergy can be turned into a carbon-negative industry. Biochar returned to soil not only secures soil health on bioenergy plantations but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 12 to 84 percent.

 

Compared with ethanol production, pyrolysis that produces biochar and bioenergy from its exhaust gases is much less expensive, Lehmann said, when the feedstock is animal waste, clean municipal waste or forest residues collected for fire prevention.

 

Lehmann said that as the value of carbon dioxide increases on carbon markets, "we calculate that biochar sequestration in conjunction with bioenergy from pyrolysis becomes economically attractive when the value of avoided carbon dioxide emissions reaches $37 per ton." Currently, the Chicago Climate Exchange is trading carbon dioxide at $4 a ton; it is projected that that the price will rise to $25-$85 a ton in the coming years.

 

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Cornell University.

From the SCIENCE DAILY

ScienceDaily: Simpler Way To Counter Global Warming Explained: Lock Up Carbon In Soil And Use Bioenergy Exhaust Gases For Energy

--

[Michaelangelica]

TP in NZ

Public Address | Southerly

Alfred Harris:

 

In Waimea, for example -- where there's hundreds of acres of what they call 'Maori soils' -- the experimental work was done on that site, and it was very clear that charcoal was mixed far further into the soil than would be expected simply from just the burning of the site.

 

Interviewer:

 

It's fascinating that two cultures so far apart should both discover the effects of charcoal in terms of agriculture. At a scientific level, how the does charcoal actually improve soil fertility?

. . .

Alfred Harris:

 

Beyond a shadow of doubt -- that's absolutely right. And what's been demonstrated (by the Japanese, primarily) is that the addition of charcoal can reduce the amount of fertilizer that you need to put in for the same fertility effect. And they're quite substantial differences... you're talking 20, 30, 40 per cent.

 

Interviewer:

 

Right, which begs the question -- why isn't this already standard practice for agriculturalists?

 

Alfred Harris:

 

Again, that's a really good question. See what they say all the way through, is that: "Hey, really great that it works -- but the cost of producing the charcoal, and actually incorporating it in the soil means that it's not going to work economically". And they're absolutely right, in [terms] of conventional agriculture, where you've got cheap petrochemical products, and you can fix your nitrogen from the atmosphere using [cheap] energy. But, of course, what's happening now is that the economics of all of that is suddenly changing very fast.