No Miracles

Charcoal cannot replace the need for adding mineral nutrients.

I am an unabashed charcoal enthusiast. Used properly, adding charcoal to soil improves biomass production and soil health. Sometimes dramatically when soil productivity is low. Certainly part of the effect is increased nitrogen use efficiency: less N lost to nitrification and leaching. Charcoal also tends to be associated with higher post harvest soil levels of P and K for reasons that are not entirely clear. Perhaps this effect also is due to increased efficiency.

Most TP enthusiasts, myself included, are convinced that the most mysterious effects from adding charcoal relate to soil biology, more than they relate to direct physical and chemical effects, although those realms play important roles also. And, in keeping with my previous post, it seems clear to me that increased energy efficiency is a critical bit here. Plants and microbes are growing more biomass with less effort for reasons that can't be entirely explained by traditional nutrient-based perspectives. Yes, the charcoal adds potassium, yes it raises soil pH, yes it increases soil water and nutrient holding capacity. But the results speak to more, much more.

The behavior of charcoal amended soil seems to defy the limits of the soil-biology system understood by traditional science. However, it would be entirely foolish to think that simple soil nutritional requirements are not still in play. Nutrient deficiencies limit living systems. Charcoal may promote efficiencies that help stretch the budget in regards to those limits, but in the end, the most limiting nutrient before adding charcoal is probably still going to be the most limiting nutrient after adding charcoal.

What got me thinking about this was consulting soil scientist Doug Edmeades’ posts on soil organic matter. The first, Carbon farming: take-off or rip-off, explored how carbon sequestration efforts can cut both ways. The second, Soil Organic Matter Matters, hits on the most-limiting-nutrient.

Pasture plants need 16 nutrients. Without all 16 the clover will disappear, the pasture will be N deficient, the quality grasses will fail, pasture production would collapse followed by a need to cut back the stocking rate and, given sufficient years, a farm would be back to native pastures and bush. In the process soil carbon levels would decline.

Collapsed pasture production is no idle threat. We know that the collapse of legumes in pasture systems in Europe and in the eastern US helped motivate the expansion of the western US. Against that historical backdrop, Benjamin Franklin famously demonstrated sulfur deficiency when he added gypsum to alfalfa to form the words "This has been plastered". Doug Edmeades mentions this because soil carbon sequestration enthusiasts seem to have temporarily lost track of these limits. The same caution applies to charcoal.

There is great potential for increasing productivity through judicious use of charcoal. However, TP enthusiasts must not lose sight of the fact that charcoal cannot replace the need for adding mineral nutrients.

Agrichar future

In a post earlier today: Mental Rut, Back40 takes Johannes Lehmann, soil scientist, and terra preta front man, to serious task for cheer leading the politically attractive aspects of TP:

Agrichar should not be crufted up with political baggage or tainted by association with the various climate hysteria inspired carbon wheezes. That it sequesters carbon in a more durable form than forests or other organic forms is a plus, but not its primary value. It is just one of the multiple benefits of agrichar. That fact should not be lost in a blaze of hype. It's the wrong message.

Back40's comments make good sense. Consider that terra preta has serious political problems in the offing. Charcoal production as a tool to combat global warming can be understandably counterintuitive. Char's mode of action in the soil is only partly understood, the degree of benefit to the soil is not well documented. Claimed char additions may be difficult to monitor.

Various blog and forum posts ask: Does the fuel value of charcoal provide a dangerous incentive to divert agrichar to fuel use? To overharvest biomass? Can the reality of terra preta nova be separated from marketing pitches by commercial pyrolysis interests?

In this environment, poor marketing choices will hurt the prospects of terra preta. We terra preta advocates need to distinguish our advocacy for improved soil from our advocacy of commercial pyrolysis and of char carbon sequestration. The value of char as a soil amendment can, and must, stand on its own merits. Only successful implementation of terra preta nova in stand alone and market driven settings can validate the fundamental benefits of biochar.

The agricultural value of charcoal is competing well with its fuel value at a market price of about $100/ton. Agrichar doesn't appear to need carbon sequestration subsidies, and at $4 a metric ton CO2, maybe it isn't even worth the paperwork.

Charcoal is fairly simple, and generally profitable to produce. The pyrolysis process used to produce char is adaptable and scalable. It can be used to co-generate heat, nitrogen fertilizer, hydrogen fuel and/or electrical power, indicating ample incentives to increase charcoal supply capacity. Rising fuel prices seem certain to increase the supply of charcoal.

The price of charcoal is driven mostly by its value as fuel. Coke, originally derived from coal to replace charcoal, cost about $100/ton in late 2006, which seems to also be about the same price as charcoal at the time. Significant quantities of charcoal are used in Japan for agriculture at these market prices.

Proponents of terra preta hope to speed adoption by subsidizing it with carbon credits. Currently CO2 sequestering goes for about $4 per metric ton on the carbon credit market. Carbon dioxide units at full molecular weight can be converted into carbon units by dividing by 44/12 (see endnotes here). Thus the carbon credit value of amending soil with charcoal is currently $14.67 per metric ton, or $13.31 per ton. This could be a nice kicker but the soil amendment value of charcoal, at $100/ton, is the significant component.

Note: Image from Flickr by carlosjwj (Location: Korogocho, Nairobe)

Carbon Sequestration for Farm, Forest Income

The New York Times has an article about selling carbon credit through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).:

An acre of pine forest captures and holds one to two metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, which it uses for photosynthesis. Untilled cropland holds a third of a ton of carbon per acre, and rangeland holds up to a fifth of a ton. The sequestered carbon dioxide is measured by soil tests before and after the planting.

Carbon dioxide credits now sell for about $4 a metric ton. Mandatory restrictions, experts say, could increase the price to $12 or higher. In Europe, the cost of a credit sold for sequestering carbon dioxide has reached $20, and even $30, a ton.

The market for carbon credits seems to hover between $3 and $4. A review of past CCX newsletters reveals sporadic volume, with common fluctuations of $0.50 to $0.75 per metric ton per month. The New York Times article suggests that biological sequestration will ultimately be replaced with geological sequestration. Expectations of sustaining $20 or $30 a ton seem unrealistic.

$3-$4 is far better than the $0.25 that the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington received for forested land in the 1990s.

The Tri-Societies' science policy blog has a post about Farming Carbon:

Currently, farmers who wish to profit from the sequestration potential of their soils can sell carbon credits on the (CCX).

Science is needed to better quantify the carbon flux and carbon sinks.

At present, aggregators don't attempt to gauge the carbon impact of individual farms nor do they quantify counterbalancing emissions of traces gases. Hopefully, ASA/CSSA/SSSA members can play a constructive role in the CCX, providing the scientific basis on which aggregators will improve their climate accounting.

I would like to see more discussion on the nuts and bolts of accounting and verification.

Flickr Source: George sampling 3/2/07 ESA Common

Carbon Credit Payments for US Forest, No-till Crop, Manure, or Grassland

The North Dakota Farmers Union has successfully started a Carbon Credit Program. It allows ag producers and landowners to earn income by storing carbon in their soil through no-till crop production and longterm grass seeding practices. There are also forestry (tree planting) and methane offset (manure digester) contracts. Forestry and methane contracts are available nationwide and have no enrollment date. Soil offset contracts are limited to the yellow and green areas on the adjacent map. Soil carbon characterization studies are needed to expand the enrollment areas.

As a result of their pioneer role, NDFU is the official aggregator with the Chicago Climate Exchange and is serving as the fiscal agent for the program as it expands to other states. Individual state Farmers Union organizations will receive some of the revenue from the aggregation program. The program:

... demands recently planted forest or grassland, or cropland that’s been farmed in recent years.

“They want it to be newer plantings,”...

The North Dakota Farmer’s union started the carbon-credit program and technically, is the official aggregator — the entity that collects credits and puts them on CCX for sale.

The national and state Farmers Unions help organize the program and get farmers involved.

To learn more about the carbon credit program, visit the National Farmers Union Web site: www.nfu.org and click on the environment tab, or call the Wisconsin Farmers Union at 715-723-5561 or visit it on the Internet at www.wisconsinfarmersunion.org.

Source: River Falls Journal

Tech Tags: carbon credits soil