Erich:
Thanks for the input. I have a hunch that a clear-cut forest has so much more
underground biomass that one can go above the 1/3 number that might be
appropriate for an annual crop like corn. But I have no proof of that hunch.
But I also guess that one should perhaps only rarely clear-cut. Rather we
should strive for multi-species and multi-age - and mostly strive for an
optimum combination of standing biomass and annual growth (might be when annual
growth starts dropping off). Letting any forest go un-managed would soon give
very little annual new sequestration - which can't be the optimum when valuing
a forest as a climate-related topic.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erich Knight" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
<[email protected]>, [email protected], "Tom Miles"
<[email protected]>, "Kevin Chisholm" <[email protected]>, "Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]>, "John Nissen"
<[email protected]>, "Christoph Steiner" <[email protected]>,
"biochar-policy" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:41:12 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-production] Re: Capturing carbon in the timber industry
(now from soils perspective)
Ron said;
e) I guess (can't yet prove) that a portion (maybe half?)
Dr. Brown & crew at ISU showed, at least in corn stover, that 1/3 can be
removed for char while sustaining the soil biota.
Erich
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM, < [email protected] > wrote:
Tom, Kevin, Crispin, John Nissen and four lists (having added two):
1. I tend to think (can't yet prove) that John Nissen was hinting at the right
track with his opening comment in this thread about a lot of left over material
he saw at clear-cut sites in New Zealand: Biochar production. The advantages of
course are more displacement of fossil fuels, improvement (postulated) of the
soil, and (guaranteed) removal of CO2 from the atmosphere - with people ready
to pay for all three benefits.
2. Next, Kevin questioned the second benefit saying (below): saying leaving is
"probably" and "seems to be" best.. His are comments related only to the middle
(soils) benefit. I submit the belief that at best the term should be "possible"
- not "probable or "seems". The reasons for questioning Kenin's premise are
these
a) we need also to replace fossil fuels
b) we need also to remove CO2
c) there is a huge mass of roots and microbe/fungus in the soil under the
fallen branches and bark - to supply plenty of nutrients as they rot and decay.
I have seen no evidence for a recently a clear-cut forest that leaving as-is is
preferable to return as Biochar.
d) a good bit of the branch/bark/litter nutrient value can be returned to the
same spot through (very long-lived) Biochar, with moisture-retaining benefits
that may be more critical than the minerals and "dying microbe/fungus food"
(dying because the above ground biomass is no longer supplying enough
nutrients.
e) I guess (can't yet prove) that a portion (maybe half?) of the produced char
would be better used to revegetate a different piece of barren and unproductive
land - thinking of an optimum from the perspective of more than that of the
single plot that John saw. For example, any char removed in year one can be
thought of as borrowed - and similar char from the benefitted land can be
returned in some other future out year.
f) we aren't ever going to be able to scrape clean all the debris from a
clear-cut. Maybe trying to optimize the cost of the human labor part of the
clean up (taking bigger pieces only) is the right optimization? That could (?)
still leave a lot of debris and nutrients.
3. I also guess that the right optimization for removal of clear-cut debris
depends a lot on the type of soil under consideration, what form of
re-forestation is being planned and probably a few other factors like slope,
rainfall, type of tree, proximity of other natural forest, proximity of people,
etc.
4. I think the right group to be talking of this is the Biochar-soil group. I
have added Biochar-policy as a group that may also have given this some thought
or seen a pertinent citation.
5. Christoph Steiner has a piece of his web site devoted to photos of fallen
logs (and similar) that he would like to see turned to Biochar. Not quite the
same issue, but I would tend to trust Christoph on this topic. Christoph has
spent a lot of time around Terra Preta soils - and it would seem that they did
a lot of converting of cleared-forest biomass to char - with pretty darn good
results (many centuries later).
6. Crispin shortly ago also had a question after Tom's message below on where
nutrients reside - and I look forward to that discussion. I am not sure that
the answer matters a lot if a good part of the Biochar is returned (reasons
given above). That is, I wonder how much of the nutrients can be returned in
the Biochar, how accessible when in Biochar form, and what portion obtained in
growth of the tree reside in the (decaying) roots, and how difficult is it for
microbes/fungi to replenish from the soil?
Other thoughts for John?
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" < [email protected] >
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" < [email protected] >,
[email protected]
Cc: "Biochar-production" < [email protected] >
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:11:12 PM
Subject: [biochar-production] RE: [Stoves] [biochar] Capturing carbon in the
timber industry
We have burned plantation residues in industrial boilers in New Zealand. In
order to make a clean fuel the nutrient laden bark, limbs and branches are
pretty well stripped and left in the soil. I think that amounts to about 20% of
the total biomass.
Tom
From: [email protected] [mailto:
[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Kevin
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 8:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Biochar-production; Discussion biomass
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] Capturing carbon in the timber industry
Dear John
Leaving the tops, limbs, and stump on site after harvesting is probably a good
thing, especially if the slash is driven over by the harvesting machinery.
Crushing it down helps it to return organic matter to the soil, and minimize
the fire hazard if it is allowed to dry without contact with the ground.
Something like 90% of the nutrients in a tree are in the branches and leaves or
needles, and it is a big mistake to remove them from the site. It can lead to
rapid nutrient depletion. Removing the stumps for their biomass loosens the
ground excessively, and can aggravate possible erosion problems.
"Natural" stands, in contrast to plantations, invariably have a range of tree
species, some of which have commercial value, and some of which don't. It makes
sense to harvest the "unmerchantable stems" for fuel or charcoaling purposes.
However, leaving the tops, limbs, leaves/needles and stumps seems to be a good
step toward sustainable forest management.
Best wishes,
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: John Nissen
To: [email protected]
Cc: Ron Larson ; Biochar-production ; Discussion biomass ; Ron Larson
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 6:21 PM
Subject: [biochar] Capturing carbon in the timber industry
Hi all,
I've just had a month's holiday in New Zealand, where forestry is big
business, and was horrified by the way they apparently left wood debris
on the ground after taking the timber away. They also left stumps in
the ground to rot away. Has any thought been given into capturing the
carbon left after the timber is removed? It must be a major source of
CO2 and methane.
Cheers,
John
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3323 - Release Date: 12/18/10
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic ( 2 )
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: Text-Only , Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Stoves mailing list
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/
[email protected]
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
