Terra Preta...Charcoal Use in Soil

 I posted this this in r.g and r.g.e and then wondered if any of you on
your side of the planet have done this or have experience with this, as
you seem to be ahead of the curve. The more I read, the more excited I
become about it.  I'm particularly enthused about the long term and
persistent aspects of this.


These FUs added some info..seems there is a shit-ton of info and study
being done.  Benefits seem to go beyond soil fertility.


------------


Charlie

 

I concur with the idea that char or charcoal probably have no real effect at
all on nutrient supply and if any only a minor part. Charcoal is a good
substance to grab nasties hence why it is used in water filters but have to
be changed regularly too work correctly.

The idea that floodplains were extremely rich and that charcoal or char was
found would not be the reason for the fertility. A true floodplain is
enriched by flooding, nutrient and silt movement along a watercourse. Also
surrounding hills that are covered in trees will have a nutrient flow all of
their own. This is due to the mulching effect of leaves, weeds and grasses.
Also the areas are natural systems where birds, insects, microfauna and
animals add to nutrient buildup. Rains will carry this down to the flood
plains. Also water tables will be recharged with fresh water along the way.

Problem is most farms used the flood plains as their production area. They
have drained them and caused problems with erosion. Here in Australia
farmers were encouraged to clear the land before claiming it as their own.
The hills that were treed lost the soil they had built up and are now down
to bedrock or very rocky. Salinity is another big issue that has arisen.

The indigenous folk being hunters and gathers burnt vast tracks of land.
Char and charcoal would have been in the floodplains as well. This has only
encouraged plants that survive here to need fire to regenerate.

My thoughts are keep the ground covered by grasses, shrubs, trees and
mulches. Also incorporate animals, worms, birds and insects then your soil
health will be the best and improve with each year. Adding charcoal and or
char wouldn't be needed because the plants will be storing carbon.

 Loosecanon wrote:

Nope, there is a distinction. Charcoal is basically just carbon with
minerals trapped in it, whereas Char isn't completely energy depleted
and thus has something to add overtime. AFAIUI, you can burn wood char
again, but not charcoal.




The problem in the Amazon basin was that it is basically rainforest,
which is extremely good at nutrient scavenging, so much so that the
soils are relatively poor.

I think that there is also the factor that the area for supply of
nutrients, the Andes is comparatively very minor compared to the area of
the basin.


 > land before claiming it as their own.

I think the word was "required" to clear and it was so much per year if
they wanted to keep it.



Umm, AFAIK, they didn't burn vast tracts, but rather small plots. Cooler
fires, less nutrient loss.

 On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:19:59 +0000, John Savage wrote:



If it is charcoal, then the role is just as a holder for the
nutrients/minerals or whatever else was mixed into it before hand.

If it is char, aka not fully combusted, then there are some nutrients in
the materiral isself (as opposed to trace minerals, etc in charcoal).

I think Terra Pretta is some stuff created from coal that they are trying
to give a name to. my thoughts are that it is a way to turn rubbish coal
into a salable product.