Amending with biochar is a very good way to jump start the soil life, but regenerative agriculture should go much further than that. There's a bunch of techniques developed in the last few decades, notably permaculture and syntropic agroforestry, as well as techniques for preventing erosion in difficult topography such as keyline planting and scales.
But for the soil to be really alive, lots of plants must be planted, in a polyculture context. It's the photosynthesis that feeds the soil's fauna, which then support the plants, increase fertility and carbon content.
With ~2/3 (and growing) of Earth’s land area being arid, you’d expect there to be a lot more interest in reverse-desertification. It’s pretty well established by now that it’s almost entirely a labor allocation issue given that there’s success stories all over the world [1] (including in the US [2]) to just create earthworks that slow and divert water. Water seems to be the biggest single issue and so many deserts actually get enough of it during flash floods. With how much Elon is interested in terraforming Mars why not just start here?
[1] https://youtu.be/UAmai36XJDk?list=PLoU8oWWwU-06BGLH5y7AMbybv... [2] https://youtu.be/3JyEHdJS94s?list=PLoU8oWWwU-06BGLH5y7AMbybv...
This guy is also doing it presently - https://www.youtube.com/@dustupstexas
wow. that took a real turn! Using coal to amend soil.
I have some serious question about the heavy metal contamination that might result, given that both Lead and Mercury occur at ~ PPM levels, not to mention Chromium.
Huh, I actually do some of this but I'm planning on doing a bit more that I'd like to get their feedback on. For background, I live in the PNW among the trees. My soil is part of a long dead riverbed and thus is mainly silt and sand. I have chickens, a worm bin, and a medium sized compost pile. The trees have the same erosive properties that trees in the Boreal forest have. Douglas firs have shallow roots but are towering trees, the soil just doesn't do them any favors.
I'm building a chicken coop that's designed to take pine shavings and be completely emptied once a month with relative ease. The idea is to take the chicken poop and pine shavings and add them to the compost pile. I'll further introduce new worms from my separate vermiculture bin and add them to the compost. This should speed up the break down, but the pile will primarily rely on the Berkeley method to accomplish faster cycles. Each month I should start getting pounds of fresh compost that I can move around my yard.
Secondarily to my chicken and worm hobby I love to smoke meat and cheese. I use all of the ash from the pellets to amend the soil as well. I pile it up in a box and spread it around when it gets full. I then till the soil, working it in over time. The natural acidity of the soil from the fir needles has slowly started regressing, but that's the most progress I've gotten thus far.
Also PNW, Willamette Valley, I've had standard compost pile forever and for a few years I had a few chickens. It was amazing how well the poop worked and I had such absurd amounts of worms in my compost that I fed some back to the chickens.
The only problem is that it does take a while for the poop to turn into compost and with the constant addition of fresh poop it was hard to time. I have two piles and do a yearly changeover, that keeps it easy.
A hot heap captures more carbon, releases less methane and makes much compost, much faster, from same amount of base material ( less evaporates ).
Ideally takes 6 weeks to compost a whole heap - using hot methods.
Also kills fungi & pathogen and all weed seeds and readily ‘eats’ ( dissolves ) carcasses and meat and other nature that should be avoided in cold heaps.
Takes a bit more management and monitoring but is easily automated.
> is easily automated.
At scale, in the backyard not so much. I'm open to being wrong though... got any sources of low scale automation?
I was a touch surprised at coal. I can see how it would work, its highly carboniferous and really porous.
Thinking back to the clinker paths (perhaps clinker isn't coal-y enough though) that have been ripped up and re-planted, they did seem to be moister than the rest. Whenever I came across coal in the soil, the soil was moist.
However the thing I'd be worried about is the accumulation of heavy metals.
I think the article hints at coal's ability to capture those heavy metals and not release them since biochar has that ability. Basically, since you aren't burning it it won't accumulate. At least that is what I get from the article.
This is very one sides - not necessarily wrong, but in general simple solutions to complex problems are wrong and this pushing of biochar/coal is likely to be another one. Maybe part of the solution but not enough alone.
At scale, we can restore the soil the same way it was built up in the first place, through rotational grazing of ruminants. I keep chickens to that effect and am planning on sheep. Very low-effort, highly productive animals, each, even apart from their soil building.
Indeed, I think a lot of people undervalue or are unaware of how important the soil microbiome is. That can't be restored at scale and requires the active participation of the other parts of the ecosystem, particularly the digestive tracts of animals. It's a complex interplay.
If you've ever seen cowpies sprouting grass out in some arid, quasi-desert environment, it's because their droppings contain grass seeds, insect eggs, worms, bacteria, fungal spores, and raw nutrients. Droppings are like ecosystem spores; they can help the originating ecosystem bootstrap itself in a new area, complete with hundreds if not thousands of species of microbiota, plants, insects, etc. Life is a team sport.
Also lets not forget dude! Buffalo create wallows which adds such an amazing diversity to the landscape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_wallow . Get this! Wallows are estimated at 5/acre across the prairie (obviously before buffalo disappeared and land plowed under). Let's bring back the Buffalo!
Don't forget fire every few years. Natural biochar (at small scale).
That is one option. Research is needed to see if other options work.
What's the complaint? This is one ingredient that can be added all on its own (apparently) and have good results.
There are plenty of universities around the world doing real science on soil. I don't see any of them quoted.
There are literally citations throughout the article? It's still unclear what the complaint is. It just seems to be a short intro into biochar.
Huh, I don't know, it seems like common enough knowledge. Why need to exhaust all possible options to get to MAX GAINS (sometime in the future but not today) when they are proposing something that seems to work now and is better than whats possible today? Seems like you end up bikeshedding a simple idea to death.
I'm surprised there was no comparison between biochar and good old fashioned composting. The cost $1-$2 / pound of biochar (organic matter pressurized or burned under low oxygen) seems high compared to a natural composting process. Anyone know how they compare?
They are orthogonal amendments. Biochar doesn't get you any nutrients or life but its a good home for those. Do both!