"Wee Beasties" and other "Critters" in TP

[Ahmabeliever]

Concerning mycorrhizal fungi.

 

To (very roughly) test the effectiveness of m. fungi in TP you could get 4 plots. Innoculate them all with m.fungi and have

 

plants that benefit from m.fungi. ie:corn

plants that do not benefit from m.fungi. ie:cauliflower

 

And controls that are the same 'soil mix' without the TP (charcoal bone and pottery portions)

 

If increases in yield of m.fungi host plants outstrip the increase in yield of non host plants then the fungi are indeed an important part of the equation.

 

To (very roughly) test the effectiveness of bacteria as part of the TP equation have two controls of TP soil mix with the same species of plants.

 

Water one with chlorinated water, to repeatedly knock back the bacterial population (wont kill them all but will certainly upset them)

 

Water the other one with the same water source, but settle the chlorine out.

[Michaelangelica]

]

Ah, glad to see I've got your attention.

Always

 

Fish waste is mainly ammonia taken by nitrobacter who turn this into nitrite which is then processed by nitrosomonas who turn the nitrite into nitrate. Very basic Aquarium knowledge - the nitrogen cycle.

I would like to learn more about this

 

Now - my education, let's clear this up. I am a self taught school dropout. I did top my school in several subjects before my 'rebel' phase. I also have the ear of the odd marine biologist now and then to guide me but basically I learn, reference, learn more. I have nothing against science but believe most research is govt and corporation funded to keep the status quo, and I also think a large percentage of 'organic' research is complete rubbish studying isolated bacteria/fungi etc which NEVER occurs in nature.

Einsten was a dropout too.

You will find that if you make too many unsupported rash satements at Hypography somone comes down on you like aton of bricks. That's OK it just forces you to think. Don't take it personal.

 

Education is great, I indulge every day, but my teachers are old hippies and fish keepers, organic gardeners, and the best teacher, once I had some frames of reference for what I'm seeing, is the time to observe nature very closely. Nature, not petri dishes.

 

So now that you all hate me.... :hihi: :doh:

What nonsense.

You obviously have the wisdom and patience to learn from your elders.

these guys don't write down what they know they tell the apprentice. Just like music teachers or shamen.

The first "Garden Club" I ever joined I and my young wife and I could give everone 50+ years. (HDRA)

I was really uncomfortable and felt out of place.

Yet the kindness and generosity shown to me led me to a caeer in gardening and President of the Club

If you are young and want to be valued, learn a lot and get free plants-JOIN A GADEN CLUB> I am shouting as I hope other young people may be listening too(BTW Champion Rose Growers - a club I was in briefly-would not water their roses with clorinated water)

 

This forum has specialists but it also has lots of people just interseted in a particular area or "science/the world" in general. My bag is evolutionary biology which I know nothing about.

 

 

Clay/pottery - I'd like to know how well fired the pottery is. Again - increased CEC, aeration, water holding capacity according to porosity, silica for fulvic and humic acids...

There is a discussion and a couple of photos here somewhere.

 

While science tries to find the 'magic beastie', (I think someone thinks they've found it from replies to my introduction), that makes Terra Preta work, I'll be experimenting with working Terra Preta. Albeit, not Amazonian in origin.

That is one hypothesis that Conell and the Brazillian resachers are looking at.

I think we all have a unique zoo under our feet that we need to preserve.

 

I'll be doing things like - encouraging bacterial diversity

encouraging fungal diversity

and watching my garden go BOOM.

The Indians use sugar. Is that cheating?

 

The bacteria and fungi, the beasties, that make 'amazing gardens' are not TP specific. They're everywhere. Adding charcoal assists them, greatly.

I have had a few problems with char and acid loving plants.

 

Some say that char locks up nutrients when first aplied to soils. What do you think?

 

A TP garden should input, at the same time - Charcoal AND bones/bone meal AND clay or pottery AND organic matter.

Yep, thats about it. To many focus just on the char.

 

So Who? What? Are we waiting for. Permission?

I don't know. It depresses me sometimes. 'Blind Freddy' can see the benefits of TP.

 

 

TP is organic, lets keep it that way, that's why it works so well, synthesisisng it is about as wise as synthesising fertiliser. It's wrecking the place in the name of profit.

Even organic gardening associations and people are relucatnt to adopt TP

[Ahmabeliever]

TP soaking up existing fertiliser/nutrients?

 

If that's happening and it's documented I have no questions. We are dealing with a porous substance that is used for filtration. The fact it filters things in soil upon being placed there means the filtration function of charcoal is not reserved for activated charcoal.

 

What is not getting through to science/researchers/enthusiasts in many trials is that TP (charcoal) is not the magic bullet for gardens. But the combination of materials, in conjunction with processing time, is an excellent jump start to creating a decent garden.

 

The old adage - if you build it, they will come.

 

TP is a well built soil - For the plants that like the conditions it provides. Each garden or potential plot has pre-existing conditions before TP is amended into it - it may need a bit more of this, and a bit less of that...

 

Also, an acid soil is just that - acid. And plants that hate acid.. well.. they hate acid!

 

If a soil is already poor, then adding 3 inputs without organic matter is a waste of time. Of course, you could add fertiliser, but what's the difference then? What have we learned by adding fertiliser to crops that we used to add fertiliser to?

 

Now -unsupported rash statements? Feel free to point these out I had no ability to provide links. I also find being pedantic about what I say is the haven of people who have nothing to say themselves.

 

We do not have a map of bacteria, we are not even close. But they work. You want to learn about the nitrogen cycle google it you'll find thousands of links. Soil and water.

 

I will not research and provide links to every point of everything I've learned to satisfy my detractors, I don't have the time to waste argueing with people who should be searching things themselves. I'm here to share collective knowledge, be it 'wives tales' folklore' or science.

 

but I will endeavour to provide useful links where applicable, and to stay on the planet, unless it's populated with dead wood. I'll also endeavour, though I meander, to answer your questions, if I can. :hihi:

 

Sugar - bacterial food, not cheating, smart! Molasses is great, raw cane sugar smashed up is best apparently, I use molasses, it's a staple in most compost teas.... When I buy a sugar cane plant for my section, I'll use that.

 

Some off topic background.

 

I was trained as a market gardener, many years back. I can kill a field and grow tomatoes on it easy. And the next year it's worse, so I'd add more ferts, and the next...

 

Eventually there were gardeners whose fertiliser bills exceeded their mortgage. We did the best we could, we did everything suggested and paid all we could to help ourselves. And the land grew poorer.

 

As I trained in horticulture I also went twice weekly and assisted a scientist in determining grass crops affect on dairy production. I told him at lunch the first day - Clover will produce more milk, rye will increase vets bills, and the bloke who rears the prize Angus Bulls down the road is bound to know more.

 

Well, he looked at me like some type of alien insect and ignored me much of the rest of the summer. Hundreds of thousands of research dollars later he started writing papers about the benefits of clover to milk production...

 

All he had to do was ask a smart farmer who had spent his life with stock. That's how I knew - I'd already asked - "what's the best grass" - "For milk - clover, I'm not sure on meat but the shorter more compact grasses seem to be better. I try to keep the grass fairly low to avoid flowering too, as the rye grass seeds make em crook when it's humid..."

 

A WEALTH of knowledge, for the taking, just by asking.

 

Scientific method was teaching me to destroy the farm and was draining public resources to show things we already knew. Massive research was being done to sell us a multitude of products that would 'help' us. Some of these are infamous today - all with 'science' to back the claims that these products were 'safe' - 245T was one we used a lot.

 

So excuse me if some scientist makes a claim, and I call BS. It runs both ways. :doh:

[Ahmabeliever]

Now, I have 10 posts.

 

What you've heard is my 'legend' - lots of BS, theory, conjecture, the folklore surrounding Ahmabeliever, the lore he believes and why. And believe it, I think so...

 

It's as close as I've been able to summarise from what I have learnt, experienced, and seen. The frames of reference I have at hand. And it's spamming 10 posts.

 

Disillusioned by science, and religion, and politics, and people, decidedly human.

 

I don't think I am 'a hater' (a wee beastie of a man) but sometimes I get so impassioned, it sounds as if I am. This passionate side of me is bad for research, but crucial for keeping me in the game. Without my heart in it, I just don't have the energy to be obsessively vigilant, a pre-requisite for (me for) observational study.

 

I love the quote about reading stops one from thinking. I have certainly used fiction to this extent. That is why I write such long posts, to stop you people from thinking.

 

Or the game would be up!

 

I subconscious stream a lot when I write. I believe the mind does hold everything it's ever seen, learnt, experienced etc, and perhaps even a collective conscience (or the creative burst is such that one believes they are incapable of the insight and thus it came from outside oneself). In the subconscious stream important points of reference often surface and still I fail to see them till I read back. Other times they trigger points of reference in others which are important pieces (like Darwins worms) of the picture/arguement/point/objectives.

 

I think that reading is crucial for adding frames of reference and I do a good portion of it every day. Today it is mainly non fiction to feed the muse/mind raw materials for processing. I am a good deal through, and will consume, everything written in the TP section here.

 

I will be off beam, and I try not to edit too much, in case I'm missing my own point!

 

Gardeners, good old fashioned type organic ones, will be an excellent resource for helping you understand why TP works in some soils and not others. Try to avoid thinking NPK, think carbon/nitrogen balance. Not because NPK is 'wrong'. But because the ancients didn't think in terms of NPK, and through trial of error would have learned of the balance between charcoal and organic matter (which will vary in a plot, more than likely charcoal can be increased, as time goes by)

 

It is so easy to see how they came by this soil, to me. A dump gets burnt and plants grow beside it better than around the rest of the area. Or pottery is fired and the wastes get mixed up before a rain and plants grow better there... Soon you'd be taking seeds, plants to the site, to see how they fare. Run out of room, make another fire, another dump, try repeat it. One works better, why, old bones in it, start adding bones....

 

Who else loves having the best veggies on the block. The amerindians had a lot more time for observational learning than we ever have. They would have 'seen' better plants the first time they saw them. Our minds are cluttered with pepsi ads and diaries, bills, commitments ad infinitum ad nauseum.

 

I think, before compost teas, if you want to follow the learning curve I have (short and sweet) concerning organics, that I should post links to things I've already seen posted here. Certainly helps understand the wee beasties though.

 

Soil Biology | NRCS SQ

 

This is great reading for an overview of the wee beasties. Then move on to soil building if you wish.

 

http://www.sare.org/publications/bsbc/bsbc.pdf

 

This is another most excellent resource, and will greatly increase your understanding of organic matter in soil. By the end of this, you will be an organic pro with soil.

 

And then some icing on the cake, or fungi.

 

http://www.saviskyproturf.com/28.html

 

All in laymans terms, all making many light bulbs go off from previous gardening and bacterial experiences.

 

Then merge this info with TP, empower the beasties!

[Essay]

"Hundreds of thousands of research dollars later he started writing papers about the benefits of clover to milk production..." -Ahma

 

...but at least the science confirmed the wisdom that already existed.

 

"We do not have a map of bacteria, we are not even close. But they work. You want to learn about the nitrogen cycle google it you'll find thousands of links. Soil and water. " -Ahma

 

Yes, most of the 90% of undiscovered species of life on Earth reside in this soil domain.

E. O. Wilson advocates everyone become a backyard biologist and help contribute to a worldwide database of soil microbes. I think this would be a good way to invest in the future, paying subsistence farmers worldwide to contribute research and observations (as well as local "folk-wisdom").

 

"...kill a field and grow tomatoes on it [is] easy. And the next year it's worse, so I'd add more ferts, and the next...

Eventually there were gardeners whose fertiliser bills exceeded their mortgage. We did the best we could, we did everything suggested and paid all we could to help ourselves. And the land grew poorer." -Ahma

 

Yes, the "Green Revolution" saved many lives in the short term, but has contributed to degrading the planets ability to absorb CO2.

A new "Soil Revolution" will help ameliorate poverty, and is needed to reverse the damage done and help restore the atmospheric CO2 balance.

 

I agree and think that science needs the guidance of local wisdom (or perhaps "The Wisdom of Crowds").*

*new on my Kindle. :hihi:

Which scientist was it that thought "maximum sustainable yield" was equivalent to "minimum sustainable population"? -(just my pet peeve)

 

Thanks for providing some "on the ground" wisdom; keeping the focus on the microbes, their communities and associations, and their habitats

:doh:

 

p.s. sorry, this is only a response to #71, the penultimate previous post.

[Ahmabeliever]

Excellent fedback and points from everybody.

 

How'd you like the links? I loved them.

 

I've been tinkering about with Aquaponics for some years, which is a marriage of hydroponics and aquaculture. Fish waste goes through the nitrogen cycle and is utilised by plants which in turn keeps the levels in the water acceptable for the fish. The inputs are water, and fish food, the outputs are fish, and plants, and compost, very good compost.

 

Bacteria, fungi and algae are a large part of the 'organic machine' behind Aquaponics.

 

Wee Beasties in Aquaponics are referred to as a Bio-film.

 

My favourite "authority" on bio-film is this guy - The Skeptical Aquarist. And me 'fishy' mates of course, but for a resource at home...

 

The Skeptical Aquarist

 

Clicking things more often gives you sub menus than links you have to follow the 'trees' to open pages. Loads of great reading. Here's some excerpts.

 

"In a newly set-up aquarium, the first bacterial colonists and germinating algal and fungal spores have already begun settling on every available surface within hours of first filling the tank. With them, the processes that build up the living biofilm community have begun...

...Any bacteria present in the water tend to be drawn to surfaces and adhere to them. Several forces are involved. Even in very still waters, isolated bacteria are unlikely to settle on horizontal surfaces by sedimentation alone. Brownian motion, caused by the random buffeting of molecules, is ordinarily involved in bacterial settling, and once bacteria have come very near to surfaces, various fluid dynamic forces take effect: van der Waals forces and electrostatic interactions. Bacteria become irreversibly bound to surfaces, in processes broadly analogous to adsorption of molecules to surfaces. So all the surfaces in the aquarium tend to "pull" the bacteria from the water. Bacterial populations in open water are likely to be adhering to free-floating particles of organic floc or colloidal silt."

 

I outlined in bold the 'pull bacteria from the water'.

 

See the connection with TP sucking up nutrients? Nutrient particles are bound to bacteria and when you throw in a few free condos for bacteria a lot of nutrients will be 'drawn' into them. P'raps...

 

"The accumulation of bacteria on surfaces isn't just passive, either. Nutrients also tend to bind to surfaces, and bacteria actively move towards nutrients, a reaction that bacteriologists call chemotaxis. "

 

I like this too

 

"A more nurturing location for those nitrifying bacteria and the others said to be "in the gravel" must be in the floc, or humic compost that is lodged among the grains. If your substrate started out purely gravel, with all silt carefully rinsed out of it, it could take months for this floc to develop. Some additives to substrates for planted tanks are expressly designed to substitute for floc: laterite and colloidal clay and humic compost. Floc and biofilm in the interstitial water of the substrate work like humus in an undisturbed forest soil; they provide homes for most of the bacterial energy that runs the whole cycling system."

 

Now - humic compost? - humus? - SOM.

 

Are we seeing how the wee beasties rock! And they like the clay, and compost...

 

The Skeptical Aquarist was the man who said "behaves more like a multicellular..." I loved it, I get it, and I quote it.

 

The nutrition cycle stuff found is well worth the read for TP researchers

 

excerpt...

 

"you could think of the paths energy takes simply as a series of chemical transformations. The energy that comes into the aquarium in the forms of light and heat, and the potential energy represented by the nutrients that you directly introduce are transformed through the cycles of nutrients, especially of carbon and nitrogen, but also of sulfate/sulfide and phosphates. Iron is highly reactive, ready to shift from phase to phase. Energy is eventually lost, but the nutrients are conserved by being transformed in the nutrient cycles."

[Rev]

"TP amended subsoils with organic content should not fail unless the carbon content is too high. So you add nitrogen - ie: compost."

 

by fail you have to use the caveat that traditionally the TP' are not used for annual farming.

they have been adopted by market gardeners for growing veggies, but this is exploitative and leads to their degradation. This is evidenced by cross sections dug that show loss of soil profile over time

 

they can also be quickly exhausted of bioavailable available nutrients by heavy cropping, even though the chemically extractable fraction remains high

 

TP's are traditionally preferred for agroforestry and kitchen gardens

these like your own home garden get a lot of additional organic and waste inputs through scraps, or through perrennial leaf fall of shrub and tree crops.

The black carbon and the clay and the shards provide the matrix

but life still needs food as youve pointed out above

 

adding compost to char adds life

adding char to compost stabilises the humic organic matter for much longer periods

 

wht i think this is all suggesting is that we need to continue to good advice of moving towards a more perrennial agriculture (inc permanent grasslands/pasture), and with teh added uses of char

 

Aboriginal burning practices in australia did support healthier more diverse flora and fauna than they do today now that burning has been modified - both less and more often, with tendency to wildfires

Ive set fire to these grasses and you can see them light up very easily, but they singe more than burn when doen regularly

the crowns are unaffected and reshoot with new growth within the week

alot of the rank growth is charred and falls into the tussock or the earth

 

Early explorers encountering the mitchell grass plains and other aussie grasslands commented on their soft spongy nature

these were destroyed within a century by hard garzing and overburning and now they are the most endangered of all australian floral communities

as are steppes and prairies across the world

 

theyve mostly been replaced by degraded native communities or more often by 'improved' africanised pastures. Which burn hotter

i cant complain that much - as i said my favourite charring material is rhodes grass slash...and newspaper atm

 

this link

Global Climate Change and Tropical ... - Google Book Search

 

talks in the old thinking that Char is a bad thing, and calls Black C 'inactive' when we now know it is not. but if you reread it with wide eyes youll see how Black C co-operates with organic C in the bigger picture of Tropical savannahs

in fact in australias very variable climate it may be the very best form to capture and store carbon as it doesnt interfere with N or water availability, or promote wild fire like loose cellulosic waste does

and as the rest of the worlds climate destabilises whats already good for us will probably be what you need too.

[Michaelangelica]

OMG

How to reply to all this

 

I-N fF0matio-Ov-re laod-

 

TP soaking up existing fertiliser/nutrients?

 

If that's happening and it's documented I have no questions. We are dealing with a porous substance that is used for filtration. The fact it filters things in soil upon being placed there means the filtration function of charcoal is not reserved for activated charcoal.

I have only heard of this effect recently.

I don't know if there is any science to support it __

although it sounds like it may have a "little' "intuitive" truth.

Certainly there seems that there is evidence that char reduces fertiliser run off into creeks and rivers.

 

Gardeners, good old fashioned type organic ones, will be an excellent resource for helping you understand why TP works in some soils and not others. Try to avoid thinking NPK, think carbon/nitrogen balance. Not because NPK is 'wrong'. But because the ancients didn't think in terms of NPK, and through trial of error would have learned of the balance between charcoal and organic matter (which will vary in a plot, more than likely charcoal can be increased, as time goes by)

the NPK model came about by buring plant matter. they were leaft with NPK swoo..

We add NPK and bingo better crops.

Unfortunately i agree with hamlet who says "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

 

"TP amended subsoils with organic content should not fail unless the carbon content is too high. So you add nitrogen - ie: compost."

Nitrogen= compost? I don't think so. Is this what you are saying?

Also, an acid soil is just that - acid. And plants that hate acid.. well.. they hate acid!

No, some like acid.

 

We do not have a map of bacteria, we are not even close.

Amen brother

A WEALTH of knowledge, for the taking, just by asking.

At the risk of repeating myself join an organic or other garden club, preferably full of old codgers and learn and learn. things you will NEVER find in books. the oldies love passing on their knowledge to those who won't ridicule them. The same with Aboriginal Australians.

 

Early explorers encountering the mitchell grass plains and other aussie grasslands commented on their soft spongy nature

these were destroyed within a century by hard garzing and overburning and now they are the most endangered of all australian floral communities

as are steppes and prairies across the world

A friend at Aeria Park near Tarmor? NSW told me that the grass was 7+ foot tall when the first settlers came 150 years ago

The new settlers thought they had discovered paradise.

So they stripped al the native grasses and planted wheat!

 

In good years now (every 5-8 years) they get 6-8" (that's inches) of rain!!

 

So many links, I will look at them all later.

[Turtle]

TP soaking up existing fertiliser/nutrients?

 

If that's happening and it's documented I have no questions. We are dealing with a porous substance that is used for filtration. The fact it filters things in soil upon being placed there means the filtration function of charcoal is not reserved for activated charcoal.

OMG

How to reply to all this

 

I-N fF0matio-Ov-re laod-

 

 

I have only heard of this effect recently.

I don't know if there is any science to support it __

although it sounds like it may have a "little' "intuitive" truth.

Certainly there seems that there is evidence that char reduces fertiliser run off into creeks and rivers.

 

The filtering effect is by way of adsorption for any and all charcoal. Activated charcoal is simply charcoal having all organic compounds removed and leaving virtually pure carbon. In regard to simply filtering, the difference is largely one of capacity, i.e. for the same weight, the activated charcoal takes longer to fill up because it has more surface area. Activated carbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

For agricultural/terra preta use, what I have understood is that the activated charcoal is not preferrable, as the 'wee beasties' munch down on, or otherwise utilize, the organic compounds still in the 'horticultural' charcoal. :doh: :cup:

[Ahmabeliever]

Nitrogen = compost. Sorry, long posts I miss detail or say things out of context.

 

Compost comprising a large percentage of green matter should provide lots of nitrogen to help balance the carbon content in TP.

 

Compost is as good as it is made. For my TP compost pile I add dirt (bacterial starters) dolomite lime, blood and bone, selenium (none in NZ), grass clippings, food scraps, pond water (humic and fulvic acids, nitrifying bacteria) kelp meal, gypsum, and leaf matter.

 

I'm thinking about my soil's requirements before I make the compost, not after.

 

In all this pile, only the leaf matter is 'considered' browns or carbon. The resultant compost mixed with 10% charcoal is a star performer in the garden. It is fantastic stand alone dirt, but! The TP makes it even better.

 

Plants that hate acid = "some love acid."

 

Not the same plants?

[Ahmabeliever]

On m.fungi from the link above.

 

"Growth response: The best known mycorrhizal effect is that mycorrhizal

plants take up more soil phosphorus and grow faster than

corresponding non-mycorrhizal control plants. Hundreds of photographs

of this growth response have been published. The pictures of

big plants and little plants are largely responsible for the common perception

that mycorrhizal inoculation ought to bring on a "Jack and the

Beanstalk" response.

The growth response is probably the least important and indeed, the

least likely of the effects of inoculating a restoration project. The

growth response may be duplicated, and usually exceeded, by adding

phosphorus fertilizer. The difference in growth rate is simply a measure of what one might have gained by spending pennies on fertilizer

instead of dollars on inoculum. By dwelling on the relatively unimportant

growth response instead of the enormously important ecosystem

effects, you will set your client up for disappointment. You and

your client may then miss out on a chance to make a real ecosystem

instead of a fertilized garden."

 

And so I believe it is with Terra Preta soils.

[Michaelangelica]

interesting.

Would adding sugar or molasses be cheaper than adding phosphorus?

There was a fascinating post on this made in the early days of the TP group by an Indian(?) agricultural scientist.Dr. Kave and a subsequesnt discussion

Unfortunately Dr kave is no longer with the TP list.

 

Here are a few of his posts from the TP list archives ( much more at list archives)

[Terrapreta] sugar usage

I received many inquiries about sugar. I give below the thought processes

that led me to applying sugar to a field.

Sorghu,m, being highly drought resistant, is quite popular with farmers who

cannot irrigate their fields. Sorghum farmers drill the seed into the field

when the first showers of the monsoon have wetted the soil sufficiently to

assure germination of the seed.

After that stage, if the rainfall is

adequate, the farmers harvest an average 2 tonnes of grain and about 4

tonnes (dry weight) of fodder per ha. If the rainfall is inadequate, they

lose the crop. Since the harvest is uncertain, the farmers do not apply any

inputs to the field. The grain is used as human food and the stems and

leaves are fed to cattle. Only the roots are left in the field to rot.

 

When one looks at the input and output of plant nutrients in the case of a

sorghum field, it becomes obvious that the soil loses more nutrients every

year than it receives. I therefore started looking for mechanisms that would

allow the soil to sustain such robbery of the nutrients.

Although water,

carbon dioxide and perhaps even nitrogen are derived from the atmosphere,

the other nutrients have to come from the soil. This led me to search for

mechanisms that would generate water soluble nutrient ions every year anew

in the soil.

As stated above, the roots of sorghum rot in situ. Like seeds, roots too to

contain plant nutrients. If you cut a plant at soil level, it sprouts

again, using the food stored in the roots. Normally, when one applies only

composted organic matter to the field. Compost does not have much

nutritional value as far as the soil micro-organisms are concerned.

 

Therefore, although the agronomists recommend the application of compost to the field as a source of food for the soil micro-organisms, the doses of

application of compost (25 to 40 tonnes per ha) are calculated on the basis

of its N,P and K content, and not on the basis of its nutritional calorific

value. The roots thus represent non-composted, high calorie source of

carbon. Because the micro-organisms need the same mineral nutrients that thegreen plants need, I argued, that the soil micro-organisms utilize the

carbon and the energy in the roots to extract mineral ions from the normally

insoluble soil minerals. When the roots have been completely consumed, the

micro-organisms too die, releasing the minerals in their cells for the next

crop of sorghum.

 

I started experimenting with sugar, because it represented a high calorie

carbon source, that did not have any mineral components in its molecular

structure. Later on I learned that the water of guttation that falls every

night from the leaves of sorghum on the soil surface, also contains sugar.

When I started looking for similar phenomena, I found that water of

guttation of safflower also contained sugar. The water of guttation of

chickpea contains organic acids. It was clear that the plants were already

feeding the soil micro-organisms with high calorie, noncomposted organic

matter, long before I thought of it.

 

Therefore, it is not the quality of sugar or its composition that is

important. It has to be a high calorie, non-composted organic substance. At

least under Indian conditions, application of about 25 kg (dry weight) of

such a substance to a hectare, once every two or three months, gives very

good results.

 

I got interested in terra preta because charcoal, with its highly porous

nature, offers a much increased surface area for the soil micro-organisms to

settle on. Application of charcoal, along with relatively small quantities

of high calorie, non-composted organic matter may evolve in future as the

new agronomic practice.

Yours

A.D.Karve

 

 

If I wrote, twice a year, it was wrong. It should be once every two to three

months. As far as pots are concerned, about half a gram per pot would

increase the soil bacterial populations 500 times within about 24 hours.

They would of course die, once the sugar is exhausted, but the nutrients in

their cells would then become available to the plants growing in the pots.

Yours

A.D.Karve

 

my view, that the microbes degraded soil minerals because they

> needed the mineral ions for their own metabolism. Plants learned the

> trick of feeding the microbes with organic matter, so that their numbers

> increased and they thus made more nutrients available to the plants.

As far as pots are concerned, about half a gram per pot would

> increase the soil bacterial populations 500 times within about 24 hours.

> They would of course die, once the sugar is exhausted, but the nutrients in

> their cells would then become available to the plants growing in the pots.

> Yours

> A.D.Karve

 

Sugar is not harmful to plants. Plants growing under tissue culture are fed

with sugar. But tissue culture is conducted under sterile conditions. Under

natural, field conditions, sugar would be immediately consumed by soil

micro-organisms, and it would not be available to plants. Sugar may prove to

be harmful, if the quantity applied is so high, that it would raise the

osmotic pressure of the soil and make it difficult for plants to absorb

water from the soil. In India, farmers apply to their crops only 10 kg sugar

per ha, along with 10 kg cow dung and 10 litres cow urine, once every three

months. That does not seem to harm the crop plants. In fact many of these

farmers get higher yield than their neighbours who apply chemical

fertilizers.

Yours

A.D.Karve

[Ahmabeliever]

I agree with almost everything he said.

 

Sugars of varying types are a standard addition to compost teas. Blackstrap molasses is preferred for it's micro-nutrients, though if the soil already has these, why not use plain ole sugar.

 

Well, the bacteria like mocronutrients and carbs.

 

In the teas which generally brew 2-3 days some common ingredients I use/have used are

 

Molasses

Golden Syrup

Unrefined cane sugar

Overripe fruit pulp including melon and banana

 

I prefer a more natural source myself than pure sugar, I think it's more to do with me than anything I've read.

 

Molasses is one of my FAVOURITE garden additives. It gets results...

 

Abridged from a gardening site...

 

"There are a number of different nutrient and fertilizer companies selling additives billed as carbohydrate booster products for plants. Usually retailing for tens of dollars per gallon if not per liter. Products claim to work as a carbohydrate source for plants. A variety of benefits are supposed to be unlocked by their use, including the relief of plant stresses and increase in nutrient uptake. While these kinds of products almost always base their claims in enough science to sound good, reality doesn’t always live up to the hype.

 

We are pretty well known for our distrust of nutrient companies who produce large lines of products claiming to be a series of “magic bullets”.

One member of the collective decided to sample one of these products a while back, intending to give the product a fair trial and then report on the results.

 

Imagine, if you will, Tweetie bird flying off to the local hydroponics store, purchasing a bottle of “Super Plant Carb!” (not it’s real name) - and dragging it back to the bird’s nest. With a sense of expectation our lil’ bird opens the lid, hoping to take a peek and a whiff of this new (and expensive) goodie for our wonderful plants. She is greeted with a familiar sweet smell that it takes a moment to place. Then the realization hits her. . .

 

Molasses! At the thought that she’s just paid something like $15 for a liter of molasses she dips a wing into the sweet juice ever so slightly, and brings it up to have a taste. It was indeed nothing more than Blackstrap Molasses.

 

A quick taste had confirmed she had wasted time and effort lugging home a very expensive bottle of plant food additive. Molasses is something we already use. In fact sweeteners like molasses have long been a part of the arsenal of common products used by organic gardeners to bring greater health to their soils and plants.

 

Molasses is a syrupy, thick juice created by the processing of either sugar beets or the sugar cane plant. Depending on the definition used, Sweet Sorghum also qualifies as a molasses, although technically it’s a thickened syrup more akin to Maple Syrup than to molasses. The grade and type of molasses depends on the maturity of the sugar cane or beet and the method of extraction. The different molasses’ have names like: first molasses, second molasses, unsulphured molasses, sulphured molasses, and blackstrap molasses. For gardeners the sweet syrup can work as a carbohydrate source to feed and stimulate microorganisms. And, because molasses (average NPK 1-0-5) contains potash, sulfur, and many trace minerals, it serves as a nutritious soil amendment. Molasses is also an excellent chelating agent.

 

Dark colored blackstrap molasses is the most nutritionally valuable of the various types of molasses. It is commonly used as a sweetner in the manufacture of cattle and other animal feeds, and is even sold as a human health supplement. Any kind of molasses will work to provide benefit for soil and growing plants, but blackstrap molasses is the best choice because it contains the greatest concentration of sulfur, iron and micronutrients from the original cane material.

 

Why Molasses?

 

The reason nutrient manufacturer’s have “discovered” molasses is the simple fact that it’s a great source of carbohydrates to stimulate the growth of beneficial microorganisms. “Carbohydrate” is really just a fancy word for sugar, and molasses is

the best sugar for horticultural use. Folks who have read some of our prior essays know that we are big fans of promoting and nourishing soil life, and that we attribute a good portion of our growing success to the attention we pay to building a thriving “micro-herd” to work in concert with plant roots to digest and assimilate nutrients. We really do buy into the old organic gardening adage - “Feed the soil not the plant.”

 

Molasses is a good, quick source of energy for the various forms of microbes and soil life in a compost pile or good living soil. As we said earlier, molasses is a carbon source that feeds the beneficial microbes that create greater natural soil fertility. But, if giving a sugar boost was the only goal, there would be lot’s of alternatives. We could even go with the old Milly Blunt story of using Coke on plants as a child, after all Coke would be a great source of sugar to feed microbes and it also contains phosphoric acid to provide phosphorus for strengthening roots and encouraging blooming. In our eyes though, the primary thing that makes molasses the best sugar for agricultural use is it’s trace minerals.

 

In addition to sugars, molasses contains significant amounts of potash, sulfur, and a variety of micronutrients. Because molasses is derived from plants, and because the manufacturing processes that create it remove mostly sugars, the majority of the mineral nutrients that were contained in the original sugar cane or sugar beet are still present in molasses. This is a critical factor because a balanced supply of mineral nutrients is essential for those “beneficial beasties” to survive and thrive. That’s one of the secrets we’ve discovered to really successful organic gardening, the micronutrients found in organic amendments like molasses, kelp, and alfalfa were all derived from other plant sources and are quickly and easily available to our soil and plants. This is especially important for the soil “micro-herd” of critters who depend on

tiny amounts of those trace minerals as catalysts to make the enzymes that create biochemical transformations. That last sentence was our fancy way of saying - it’s actually the critters in “live soil” that break down organic fertilizers and “feed” it to our plants.

 

One final benefit molasses can provide to your garden is it’s ability to work as a chelating agent. That’s a scientific way of saying that molasses is one of those “magical” substances that can convert some chemical nutrients into a form that’s easily available for critters and plants. Chelated minerals can be absorbed directly and remain available and stable in the

soil. Rather than spend a lot of time and effort explaining the relationships between chelates and micronutrients, we are going to quote one of our favorite sources for explaining soil for scientific laymen.

 

“Micronutrients occur, in cells as well as in soil, as part of large, complex organic molecules in chelated form. The word chelate (pronounced “KEE-late”) comes from the Greek word for “claw,” which indicates how a single nutrient ion is held in the center of the larger molecule. The finely balanced interactions between micronutrients are complex and not fully understood. We do know that balance is crucial; any micronutrient, when present in excessive amounts, will become a poison, and certain poisonous elements, such as chlorine are also essential micronutrients.

 

For this reason natural, organic sources of micronutrients are the best means of supplying them to the soil; they are present in balanced quantities and not liable to be over applied through error or ignorance. When used in naturally chelated form, excess micronutrients will be locked up and prevented from disrupting soil balance.”

 

Excerpted from “The Soul of Soil”

by Grace Gershuny and Joe Smillie

[Ahmabeliever]

I believe some of TP's success, as pertains to gardening, is it's ability to greatly accelerate the rebuilding of depleted soil biology. This through increasing carbon exchange capacity while simultaneously providing additional housing for the resultant increased bacterial and fungal activity.

 

We can accelerate TP's biological stimulation via innoculation. Do you think the ancients were pre-composting their organic matter, I think not due to what I've been seeing.

 

Bearing in mind original TP is aged, organic, it is a complete soil biology. And so it is very efficient.

 

I got 1" strips of paper in a TP soil mix. I ripped up 1 dozen full sized newspaper sheets into strips, wet them then wrung out the excess water and buried them in the centre of a 150 litre pile of TP soil mix. I then innoculated it with a fungal tea as follows to see if the carbon in the paper would break down fast.

 

1 handful aged compost

1 handful root matter from native m.fungi hosts

25 ml liquid kelp

25 ml alfalfa (hand crushed sprout juice)

teaspoon milk powder

tablespoon crushed barley

 

This I brewed with a bubbler stone in 10 litres water for 2 days at 20 degrees, I did not add molasses as I was more intent on adding protein to encourage fungi in this tea and hoped the fungi would dominate.

 

Then I added a tablespoon of blackstrap molasses to another 10 litres water, mixed it with the tea and poured it over the TP mix with a watering can. 1 week later, could barely find traces of the paper.

 

So I'm thinking, this is only a 10% (charcoal) mix, and it's too hot! :) Added alfalfa seeds, they popped up two days later and grew just fine.

 

The efficiency of the fungal tea/TP soil mix to compost paper startled me, there may have been one or two worms that made it into that pile there is no way there were enough to consume the entire pile of paper. I've since repotted most of the soil round the place and so pulled the pile apart there was no significant amount of worms at all. The TP pile was also on top of plastic.

 

Upon being broken down in a week, that newspaper, or whatever nutritional makeup it does contain that is wanted by plants, could be plant food! It has already been fungal food.

 

Fast nutrient cycling. :shrug:

[Ahmabeliever]

Just been skimming back through the thread.

 

Extremophiles, those bacteria that live in extreme conditions, raise some most interesting frames of reference.

 

As does a pine forest soil

A clean beach

A fetid swamp.

 

Basically, anywhere on the planet, with the slightest variance, shows variance in bacterial populations. Any and all external influences (seasons, weather, pollutants) cause variance as well.

 

Then the soil type, the fungal species, the plant diversity, the insect species, the birds, mammals, each and every one of them adding to the mix of bacteria present.

 

An eco-system is a closed loop where inputs and outputs are virtually equal. The seasons may cause loss at times, gains at others, but a balance is met.

 

Why is it that forests support numerous species of mammals indefinately without the need for external inputs.

 

All the waste from the species living on the land, goes back to the land, gets recycled in the system, and so balance is met. Apart from acts of God and man, only virus and disease should upset this balance.

 

Evolution/adaptation is most prevalent in adverse conditions. Say a specific mammal has learned/started to hunt. Their diet changes and so does their waste, this changes the nutrient profile in the soil, and thus, the bacterial population.

 

The changes are based on doing the best they can with what they have for their primary purpose, the mission statement, if you will, of all life, survival.

 

Radical claims department :)

 

Charcoal amendment has very little to do with assisting the effectiveness of fertiliser in soil. Charcoal amendment is more to do with turning the existing soil into fertiliser! hehe.

 

Humic and fulvic acids break down minerals providing energy. No humus, no humic and fulvic acids, no point adding the charcoal, maybe for water retention...

 

Humus is SOM. This is how TP 'fertilises' so well. It turbo charges humus production via high carbon exchange capacity, till there is so much humus it can sustain itself with energy derived from soil minerals ie: clay.

 

Adding anything detrimental to bacterial and fungal growth to the soil (like NPK ferts) is contrary to the desired effect of improving soil fertility. Without organic matter there is no humus, thus there is no fulvic and humic acids, the charcoal is not mineralised, nor is the clay. The energy levels required for greatly accelerated growth are not met.

 

Adenosine Tri Phosphate deserves a mention here also - ATP is the energy source for cellular division - plant growth.

 

"Living things can use ATP like a battery. The ATP can power needed reactions by losing one of its phosphorous groups to form ADP, but you can use food energy in the mitochondria to convert the ADP back to ATP so that the energy is again available to do needed work. In plants, sunlight energy can be used to convert the less active compound back to the highly energetic form"

 

The fact mineral fertilisers can produce excellent results points out (for me anyway) that soil mineralisation is as much a part of TP's effectiveness as the soil biology.

 

TP soil is better than both organic and fertilised soils. Why? It is both.

 

With the presense of calcium in the bones, silica in the clay and carbon in the charcoal, TP mix has the minerals to create more energy than your average soil can hope to compete with.

 

It's like the best of both worlds. Organic gardening and NPK ferts. But it takes time, can't wait to see some year three results of organic trials. :(

 

Still need a big think about this, brain hurts....

 

Getting closer methinks.

[Ahmabeliever]

Scuse the last post, rather disjointed just trying to summarise a bit now, then move forwards.

 

I've had my big think and now I'm twice as confused. :lol:

 

The problem with trying to pin down how things work in TP is that it is beyond me. :hihi:

 

Each piece of the equation has so many variables, and can change, literally, at the drop of a hat (hat makes shaded spot, less sun and more moisture select variant species, increased worm, fungal, and bacterial activity to degrade hat)...

 

I think I understand most of the (obvious) variables enough

 

Charcoal increases CEC, plus housing and promoting fungi and bacterial development, assisting soil tilth and water retention, and decreasing erosion. Many other derived soil benefits from the fungi and bacteria.

 

Stable Organic Matter providing humic and fulvic acids that assist in mineralisation of inorganic parts of the soil for energy.

 

 

Other parts, well, they're more theory...

 

Fired Clay - Firing clay results in glass? The silicate binds type thing? If so this can be converted to energy by organic acid. Does the amazon soil have sand present?

 

Bones - Bacteria and fungi in soil mainly live on the products of plants, and can be seen as vegetarian. But predators in the food chain prefer animal food sources, the presense of bones would alter the bio-diversity of soil life. Predatory organisms allow for 'grazing' within the bio-community. Grazing recycles nutrients, and allows room for expansion where otherwise the space would be glutted. Worms are one such grazer.

 

And the complete lack of knowledge area I've saved for last. I have reading to do...

 

The resins in pyrolised charcoal.

 

Are resins the magic ingredient? (I think all of the above plus resins is the 'magic ingredient list')

Are resins in some manner used in the nutrient cycle of Terra Preta - and if so, how? I'm thinking if they are it's the humic and fulvic acids again.

 

Although this soil seems perpetual - even regenerating itself, I'd say there's a tipping point where it will cease to regenerate.

 

What goes up must come down.

 

How long did it take to establish these soils that take an area the size of France?

 

The stable organic matter was unstable organic matter at one stage, and I suspect for at least decades, more likely hundreds of years all the waste of the people living there was piled into the soil. All their hunting and fishing wastes, gardening compost, humanure, every year without fail, the garden was replenished with more than the soil could use.

 

Terra Preta contains stable nutrition. I think it is extremely energy efficient, an ecosystem in and of itself. So efficient that it appears to be self replenishing.

 

Terra Preta was not built in one day. :lol:

[Michaelangelica]

I've had my big think and now I'm twice as confused.

No you sound pretty clear to me

My :hihi: worth

Charcoal increases CEC, plus. . .

I would add 'reduces pollution of rivers from farm fertiliser run off.' I believe this is a big problem in the Mississippi river.

It would be nice to have a bit more science in on water holding capacity.

 

From my own observations char also seems to make potting mix easier to re-wet once it has dried out (A big problem in large nurseries. If their automatic watering system goes down and pots dry out, then when re- watering, the water just runs down the side of the pot)

 

My warmer garden or char also seems to have made my parsley perennial.

Remember TP was in the Amazon --daily watering also means a little daily infusions of fresh fertiliser (N) from the rain. Will TP work as well in Dry climates?

Are resins in some manner used in the nutrient cycle of Terra Preta - and if so, how? I'm thinking if they are it's the humic and fulvic acids again.

Good questions, probably correct assumption, given that Victorian Brown Coal works in this way

Dynamotive does not produce energy from it's pyrolysis but makes bio-oils. They were going to look at this/these as a possible soil amendment. Not sure if they have yet.

The Amazonians used hardwood to make Charcoal. I am assuming hardwood would have more bio-oils than softwood.(?)

Hence another area of research based on the source of the char.

Fired Clay - Firing clay results in glass?

I don't think so. But I could be wrong. It just forms different condominiums for bacteria et. al., and probably protects soil from erosion (a lot of 'biggish' pieces were used) Remember it rains every day at 2 pm.

Zeolite clay works in very many similar ways to charcoal. (see pottery TP thread)

Silica is very high in some chars such as Rice Hull Char (Being used a lot in the Philipines now)

How long did it take to establish these soils that take an area the size of France?

good question

5-50-100-1,000 years?

 

 

Basically, anywhere on the planet, with the slightest variance, shows variance in bacterial populations. Any and all external influences (seasons, weather, pollutants) cause variance as well.

yes agreed. Although you don't think of the sea or beach as being full of bacteria. I may never go in the water again :)

We can accelerate TP's biological stimulation via innoculation.

This worries me a bit as, with galloping urbanisation and land clearing, we may be putting to death thousands or millions of different soil flora and fauna.

The Japanese just discovered one 'wee beastie' in volcanic pumice To their delight they found this 'wee beastie' makes phosphate. (Up to that point they were looking at Oz technology for applying super -phosphate to Japanese soils)

There may be many treasures under our feet but as soon as we start our Farming/Gardening practices (organic or chemical) we will destroy the aboriginal populations of "critters."

Then I added a tablespoon of blackstrap molasses to another 10 litres water, mixed it with the tea and poured it over the TP mix with a watering can. 1 week later, could barely find traces of the paper.

I can't find Molasses here only "Golden Syrup" which may be the same. (?)

I have yet to try "horsy-farm produce" shops. I have been experimenting with raw sugar. Per kilo, the cheapest soil additive around.

How thick was the shredded paper? One leaf? This is very fast breakdown.

Charcoal amendment has very little to do with assisting the effectiveness of fertiliser in soil. Charcoal amendment is more to do with turning the existing soil into fertiliser! hehe.

Yes but

It worries me that many are just taking the char from the TP equation. Possibly because of the Global Warming implications. You are probably right but I would say "'TP techniques'(clay, SOM, fish, bones etc)is more to do with turning the existing soil into fertiliser! hehe."

 

I was a bit worried when I recently read an article that claimed that charcoal can lock up nutrients. I may have seen this happen in some pots when first application of char made the plants go backwards, then recover and thrive. I did loose a couple of acid loving plants. (My soil is shite with some areas of pH 9)

Adding anything detrimental to bacterial and fungal growth to the soil (like NPK ferts) is contrary to the desired effect of improving soil fertility.

And how to you think this is going to go down with big agribusiness fertiliser suppliers?

Adding nitrogen has been shown to kill or interfere with nitrogen fixing bacteria in a couple of recent studies.

 

I think we can start writing our "TP for Home Gardener's Book" now?

:lol: :lol:

Ahmabeliever

Just a couple of things to help you not run fowl of moderators

1. don't quote too much from copyrighted work. Use the quotes tool to identify a quote and give the URL address for people to follow up. Maybe tell them why they should follow it up

2 Keep on the thread topic if possible You were thinking out loud here and its fine, but some posts could have gone into a more general TP thread.

In fact you probably have something to say on most of them!SEE

Terra Preta - Science Forums