Ahh I always forget the link....

Here is a link that might be useful: Youtube: Biochar

I have seen numerous discusssions, with soil scientists, that the people promoting BioChar are operating on too little information and that is does not do what has been suggested. Since producing the charcoal requires that a material is burned and burning organic matter always destroys more nutrients then it preserves and produces large volumes of pollution, why bother?

to me from what i have seen in a small garden bio-char setup it is not much more than a progression of slash and burn technology transcribed into the home garden situation or even farm use. they create pollution with smoke and fumes(in the local area, surely that is pollution just as car fumes are?)from an incinirtor, for what also seems to me to be rubbery figures of the benefits of the process, in other words they have added the science that fits the belief. to me it is outside the realms of common sense.

'takadi' i am going to write a few words about this slash and burn tech' for my web page would you be interested in writting a couple paragraphs or so, maybe that i can use as well? i will credit your words back to you and your web site if you have one?

send me an e/mail from our web link if you are interested.

len

Here is a link that might be useful: lens garden page

Interesting video but I am always suspicious when the CO2 red herring is waved around. Everyone is trying to jump on the global warming gray train.

The item about plain soil and soil with chicken manure and char was certainly misleading. What would corn with just chicken manure look like?

There is an other soil amendment that is in the same high humic acid catagory - leonardite. For those interested you can do some research. Just so we are clear, I am not pushing this as a silver bullet. I don't think there are any silver bullets. Rather, I feel that many of these humic amendments will benefit poor soils but will have minimal impact on crops grown in soils with adequate organic material.

Here is a link that might be useful: Leonardite

Hi Gardenlen,

I didn't wrote those particular comments I posted, another user did. I personally don't know who is right, though for personal sake, I tend to lean towards the notion that biochar is a miraculous substance. However, I'm starting to go back towards the middle as I'm learning that significant research still needs to be done.

However, it does make me a little sad that I'm finding evidence that biochar half-life and the claims that people are making about it are inconclusive, a part of me wishes it was the magical almighty silver bullet

thanks takadi,

i have my thoughts on the idea in a paragraph or 2 on my permaculture essay.

enjoy

len

Hi gardenlen, I read your essay. Though it is an interesting perspective, from what I've read about biochar, it is a better version from biochar in that it utilizes anaerobic conditions and in some cases, recycling of the "waste" products and using it as additional fuel to smolder the material. So in essence, the process can have a minimal carbon footprint or can even be carbon negative as some have suggested.

The skepticism here though is whether biochar in the form of charcoal itself and its addition to soil is what is responsible for the miracle of the Terra Preta. What's being questioned here is its actual half life and stability, whether the long lasting Terra Preta is the result of anerobic bog like conditions, etc,