While there may well be problems with biochar yet unrevealed, this
article's sweeping conclusions based on very little evidence sure read like
pseudoscience to me. No doubt there is much to learn, and it makes sense
that further investigations will reveal that not all biochar behaves the
same over time, but the negativity exhibited here looks an awful lot like a
conclusion looking for justification.
There are several good comments below the article that effectively refute
the primary assertions about oxygen depletion, faster decay than
anticipated, and lesser fertility effect than anticipated.
I think the best way to sequester carbon in the soil is to leave that which
is already there where it is by not extracting coal and oil and burning it.
Creating an artificial sink for carbon in the form of biochar may help
offset fossil fuel oxidation. How effective it can be remains to be seen,
but it is highly unlikely that biochar will not produce a net-positive
environmental result.
Joel
At 12:54 PM 9/7/09 -0400, you wrote:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/bewareTheBiocharInitiative.php
This critical study of the state of the scientific literature on biochar
draws the most negative conclusions of any yet I have seen. In their
conclusion, the authors state:
"It is clear that biochar has not lived up to its promises as a stable C
repository or enhancer of crop yields. On the other hand, the risk of
oxygen depletion is real [1-3]. Biochar itself is an oxygen sink in the
course of degrading in the soil [24. 32]; adding to the depletion of
oxygen that cannot be regenerated because trees have been turned into
biochar for burial. And worse, as in the biofuels boom that has already
apparently speeded up deforestation and oxygen depletion since 2003 [2],
if biochar is promoted under the Clean Development Mechanism, it will
almost certainly further accelerate deforestation and destruction of
other natural ecosystems (identified as 'spare land') for planting
biochar feedstock, and swing the oxygen downtrend that much closer
towards mass extinction."
Repeatedly the authors draw parallels with the biofuels scientific and
agribusiness feeding frenzy, which was initially abetted by heavy
taxpayer subsidies. That boondoggle is now on the wane as scientific
support has been revealed as largely junk science or pie-in-the-sky
wishful thinking by a scientific community whose training is typically
too narrow to consider the important questions and variables that need to
be asked when proposing application of lab science results to the real
world.
This article is worth a close look, coming from an organization that has
been consistently ahead of the curve, especially on scientific questions
relevant to the design of a sustainable agriculture.
Karl North
Northland Sheep Dairy, Freetown, New York USA
www.geocities.com/northsheep/
"Pueblo que canta no morira" - Cuban saying
"They only call it class warfare when we fight back" - Anon.
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYbLefitRW8C2Eo5jHnlbLLORVCwkwYDFUYCbIh88XldXLwr4v2/
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area,
please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
