Posted by Charlie on April 10, 2008, 1:41 pm
After reading Bill's posts about Rodale's compost work with leonardite
dust and the essay by Rebecca Lines-Kelly that mentioned terra pretta,
I started looking into the use of charcoal, crushed or dust, as a
compost and soil amendment. Has anyone used charcoal dust or have any
thoughts or results?
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
http://www.eprida.com/hydro/ecoss/background/charbenefits.htm
Charlie
Posted by paghat on April 10, 2008, 2:52 pm
> After reading Bill's posts about Rodale's compost work with leonardite
> dust and the essay by Rebecca Lines-Kelly that mentioned terra pretta,
> I started looking into the use of charcoal, crushed or dust, as a
> compost and soil amendment. Has anyone used charcoal dust or have any
> thoughts or results?
>
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
>
> http://www.eprida.com/hydro/ecoss/background/charbenefits.htm
>
> Charlie
The value especially of ash and somewhat of charcoal after a forest fire
in the long process of a forest's natural recovery is in no way duplicated
with horticultural charcoal products, so post-forest fire studies have no
applicability in the garden unless you plan to burn everything and let it
recover naturally over a great many years starting with a slick layer of
liverwort for the first couple years.
Here's an article of mine on horitcultural charcoal as a soil additive:
http://www.paghat.com/charcoal.html
It's a complex issue but in general charcoal would not be useful or
helpful, and for the marginal exceptions, still not the best of all
possible choices.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com
visit my film reviews website:
http://www.weirdwildrealm.com
Posted by Charlie on April 10, 2008, 10:38 pm
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:52:09 -0700, gardenSPAM-ME-NOT@paghat.com
(paghat) wrote:
>> After reading Bill's posts about Rodale's compost work with leonardite
>> dust and the essay by Rebecca Lines-Kelly that mentioned terra pretta,
>> I started looking into the use of charcoal, crushed or dust, as a
>> compost and soil amendment. Has anyone used charcoal dust or have any
>> thoughts or results?
>>
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>> http://www.eprida.com/hydro/ecoss/background/charbenefits.htm
>>
>> Charlie
>
>The value especially of ash and somewhat of charcoal after a forest fire
>in the long process of a forest's natural recovery is in no way duplicated
>with horticultural charcoal products, so post-forest fire studies have no
>applicability in the garden unless you plan to burn everything and let it
>recover naturally over a great many years starting with a slick layer of
>liverwort for the first couple years.
This is not about ash or post-fire studies. This is about torrified
biomass incorporated into the soil. Read the articles and investigate
and you will see the difference.
>Here's an article of mine on horitcultural charcoal as a soil additive:
>http://www.paghat.com/charcoal.html
We are not talking about container gardening and we're not talking
about activated or horticultural charcoal.
>It's a complex issue but in general charcoal would not be useful or
>helpful, and for the marginal exceptions, still not the best of all
>possible choices.
This is not an option amongst multiple choices. This is a singular
issue I am investigating, and it's effects.
Posted by paghat on April 11, 2008, 1:41 am
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:52:09 -0700, gardenSPAM-ME-NOT@paghat.com
> (paghat) wrote:
>
> >
> >> After reading Bill's posts about Rodale's compost work with leonardite
> >> dust and the essay by Rebecca Lines-Kelly that mentioned terra pretta,
> >> I started looking into the use of charcoal, crushed or dust, as a
> >> compost and soil amendment. Has anyone used charcoal dust or have any
> >> thoughts or results?
> >>
> >> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
> >>
> >> http://www.eprida.com/hydro/ecoss/background/charbenefits.htm
> >>
> >> Charlie
> >
> >The value especially of ash and somewhat of charcoal after a forest fire
> >in the long process of a forest's natural recovery is in no way duplicated
> >with horticultural charcoal products, so post-forest fire studies have no
> >applicability in the garden unless you plan to burn everything and let it
> >recover naturally over a great many years starting with a slick layer of
> >liverwort for the first couple years.
>
> This is not about ash or post-fire studies. This is about torrified
> biomass incorporated into the soil. Read the articles and investigate
> and you will see the difference.
>
> >Here's an article of mine on horitcultural charcoal as a soil additive:
> >http://www.paghat.com/charcoal.html
>
> We are not talking about container gardening and we're not talking
> about activated or horticultural charcoal.
The article isn't just about container gardening. And just because wood
charcoal & soil. is shipped up from South America doesn't make it
magically different from horticultural charcoal in soil. The same
scientific realities do apply.
> >It's a complex issue but in general charcoal would not be useful or
> >helpful, and for the marginal exceptions, still not the best of all
> >possible choices.
>
> This is not an option amongst multiple choices. This is a singular
> issue I am investigating, and it's effects.
The amazon rain forest product being shipped to American rubes is forest
fire charcoal mixed with dirt. It has no magic properties except in the
imaginations of rubes who buy it at premium price. It's not magic charcoal
different from any other wood-based charcoal.
"Scientific" promoters of the rain forest charcoal product, such as Dr.
Mingxin Guo, work for the product manufacturers. He dazzles rubes with
phony jargon like "biochar" to give it all a mystic-scientific
feely-touchy tone, provides non peer reviewed articles to sundry
marginally scientific websites who all run the same photographs & variants
of the same text, but it's entirely ad copy for a product with no
distinctive properties that would separate it from any other mix of soil
and charcoal. And to assess the value of charcoal requires no special
considerations for the fact that it's from South America.
Now and then Mingxin Guo's "data" says something true, such as about
charcoal "persisting in soil for hundreds to thousands of years." Like
perlite and plastics. But when he twists this data to indicate that inert
ingredients improve organic soil content, bare in mind when the organic
content is charcoal, it is totally inaccessible for use as a plant
nutrient -- for thousands of years.
The true value of charcoal no matter the brand or ad copy attached is for
its porosity. Its worthless as a filtering agent or nutrient, and
displaces rather than contributes to the nutrient content of soil. Stop
mistaking ad copy for valid information.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com
visit my film reviews website:
http://www.weirdwildrealm.com
Posted by Charlie on April 11, 2008, 12:18 pm
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:41:19 -0700, gardenSPAM-ME-NOT@paghat.com
(paghat) wrote:
>The article isn't just about container gardening. And just because wood
>charcoal & soil. is shipped up from South America doesn't make it
>magically different from horticultural charcoal in soil. The same
>scientific realities do apply.
Why would you assume that I would think shipping this from SA is in any
way a good idea and why would you assume that I assign magical
properties to this?
>> >It's a complex issue but in general charcoal would not be useful or
>> >helpful, and for the marginal exceptions, still not the best of all
>> >possible choices.
>>
>> This is not an option amongst multiple choices. This is a singular
>> issue I am investigating, and it's effects.
>The amazon rain forest product being shipped to American rubes is forest
>fire charcoal mixed with dirt. It has no magic properties except in the
>imaginations of rubes who buy it at premium price. It's not magic charcoal
>different from any other wood-based charcoal.
See above response.
>"Scientific" promoters of the rain forest charcoal product, such as Dr.
>Mingxin Guo, work for the product manufacturers. He dazzles rubes with
>phony jargon like "biochar" to give it all a mystic-scientific
>feely-touchy tone, provides non peer reviewed articles to sundry
>marginally scientific websites who all run the same photographs & variants
>of the same text, but it's entirely ad copy for a product with no
>distinctive properties that would separate it from any other mix of soil
>and charcoal. And to assess the value of charcoal requires no special
>considerations for the fact that it's from South America.
I supplied other links to research other than those of Dr. Guo. And
once again, I am not speaking of charcoal from SA.
>Now and then Mingxin Guo's "data" says something true, such as about
>charcoal "persisting in soil for hundreds to thousands of years." Like
>perlite and plastics. But when he twists this data to indicate that inert
>ingredients improve organic soil content, bare in mind when the organic
>content is charcoal, it is totally inaccessible for use as a plant
>nutrient -- for thousands of years.
>The true value of charcoal no matter the brand or ad copy attached is for
>its porosity. Its worthless as a filtering agent or nutrient, and
>displaces rather than contributes to the nutrient content of soil. Stop
>mistaking ad copy for valid information.
To which "ad" do you refer? It appears you are being a bit
presumptuous about my mental acuity.
XML site map
> dust and the essay by Rebecca Lines-Kelly that mentioned terra pretta,
> I started looking into the use of charcoal, crushed or dust, as a
> compost and soil amendment. Has anyone used charcoal dust or have any
> thoughts or results?
>
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
>
> http://www.eprida.com/hydro/ecoss/background/charbenefits.htm
>
> Charlie