Comment on a Charcoal (Terra petra) Use Question

[Carefreeland@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/28/02 4:39:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ronallarson@qwest.net writes:

> Comments
>     6.  To whet your appetite, let me say that I found this article to be very
> fascinating on many other levels than any so far mentioned by me.  To not
> keep you in suspense, the article reports that there are big parts (10%?) of
> Brazil with a highly productive soil - much different from the typical soil
> that we hear is in such danger from the felling of the Amazonian forests.
> The difference is that terra petra is a man-made soil - with the main
> ingredient (I think and I think they think) being charcoal.  It was man-made
> starting maybe 1500 years ago with 1/2 to 2 meter depth.  Terra petra's
> significance was only discovered in the past decade or two.  This August
> "Science" article reports on the first-ever conference in July on the Terra
> petra (dark earth in Portuguese) topic.  The big questions raised are:  Why
> does it work?,  How was the charcoal produced?  Why are there so many pot
> shards in the soil along with the charcoal?  Is there some other magic
> ingredient in this soil besides the charcoal? Was the reason for man-made
> soil (with same-site agricultural longevity measured in millennia) that it
> was too difficult to practice slash-and-burn agriculture when your best tool
> for cutting big trees was a stone axe?  I expect our botanists on this list
> like A.D Karve, Harmon Seaver, and Dan Dimiduk to give us these answers.  I
> personally am going to start putting some charcoal in my (meager) background
> garden - just to see why Terra Petra (or charcoal?) works.  (There seems to
> be no doubt that it does work.)

> Hi Ron and Stovers,
       First, I'd like to say that I am on a borrowed computer, as I am having serious computer problems. I am also very busy with landscaping. If I drop out for a while, pardon me, "I'll be back". 
       Charcoal is an excellent soil amendment. Many soil, and soil-less mixes have it as an ingrediant.  The reasons are similar, but not completely the same as for humus and compost. The chemical ingrediant-carbon has a buffering effect of capturing certain ions and re-releasing them as plants require. The other property it has, is that of locking up toxins or elements in excess. Activated charcoal is perscribed in many pesticide clean up programs. 
       Charcoal can absorb and release water and air in a balanced way as does a good soil or humus.  This is due to the porosity and capilary action effects.  Charcoal works well in conjunction with clay particals and limestone granuals. The clay holds the opposite charged ions and the lime amoung other things provides calcium. Maybe I missed a few good reasons?    
        I can suggest that the clay shards were an excellent complement to the char. Undoubtably and amazingly, the ancient peoples knew this. The question is how did they know, with so little knowledge of chemistry. Chock another one up to knowing the results of chemistry over knowing the chemistry itself.  
       I would comment in more detail, but without my soil chemistry books handy I could mislead someone with a minor detail. I am sure that others on this list specializing in research can elaborate on these well known biochemical processes. 
       My guess is that bury pits were found to be the best places to grow things. Through trial and error, the best pit makeup was determined, and then reproduced on a large scale. 
       Ron, you can't go wrong putting your charcoal in the garden, just mix it in well. Like manure and money, it works best when you spread it around. If put down in the fall, any chemically "hot" tars with acids or alkalines would break down by spring.
       Sorry so short of a response to a tremendous discovery.  I would just be happy to store char in old stable coal mines for future emergency use. I hold that the more we burn char instead of coal, the less net carbon from the ground into the air. Unless improving soil or such things, just replacing as much coal use as possible is the most direct way to eliminate the need to sequester carbon. No need to sequester what is never dug, and less damage to the environment in the first place. 
       I'll catch all of you friends in a future time, on a fixed or possibly upgraded computer. Until then, enjoy the quiet without me.  Maybe it's a good time for another lurker to step into my place.  I yield the floor to the quiet individual in the back of the room, bursting with great ideas, but a little nervous in public.  Everyone give that guy a warm welcome, 
       SEE YU LATER,
               Dan Dimiduk