University and Government BioChar Research Cornell University, Soil Science Department http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/index.htm Delaware State University, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources http://www.desu.edu/advancement/pr/press_release.php?article_id=381 Iowa State University, Bioeconomy Institute http://www.cset.iastate.edu/research-projects/bio-char.html Ohio State University, Carbon Management and Sequestration Center http://cmasc.osu.edu/ Massey University, New Zealand Biochar Research Center http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about- us/news/article.cfm?mnarticle=biochar-research-centre-key-to-fighting- climate-change-17-12-2007 Rice University, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=11877 University of Bayreath, Institute of Soil Science and Soil Geography http://www.geo.uni-bayreuth.de/bodenkunde/terra_preta/ The University of Edinburgh, UK Biochar Research Centre http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/ University of Georgia, Biorefining and Carbon Cycling Program http://www.biorefinery.uga.edu/ University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/bio.r3.asp Government Research The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO): http://www.csiro.au/resources/Biochar-Factsheet.html National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/ 1
The Terra Preta Listserve: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
UK Biochar Research Center
(UKBRC): http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/
US Clean Air Task Force: http://www.catf.us/
Biochar Book Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology by Johannes Lehmann (Editor), Stephen Joseph (Editor)
3
Holistic Approach to Organic Vegetable Production Dr. Ronald Morse, Emeritus Professor Department of Horticulture, VA Tech Email: [email protected] (540-231-6724) Definitions: Ecosystem. Functional system of complementary relations between living organisms and their environment, delimited by arbitrarily chosen boundaries, which in space and time appears to maintain a steady yet dynamic equilibrium. Agroecosystem. A system created when human manipulation and alteration of an ecosystem take place for the purpose of establishing agriculture production. Holistic. A philosophy and a set of practices that deal with and sustain whole integrated systems. In ideal holistic agroecosystems, all necessary components or inputs are provided internally (on-site or locally) on a timely synchronized basis. Integrated. A system made holistic (whole or complete) by combining all necessary inputs and practices. In an ideal agroecosystem, all necessary inputs and practices are implemented on a timely synchronized basis. Examples of integrated management systems include: integrated pest management (IPM), integrated weed management (IWP), integrated nutrient management (INM), and integrated crop management (ICM). Synergistic. Enhanced products and emergent properties of holistic or integrated systems. In agroecosystems, synergy occurs when two or more inputs and practices—working together in an integrated or holistic system—produce more products and/or emergent properties than their sum, when these inputs and/or practices were applied separately. An extreme example of synergy is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Synergistic yield effects of supplying both ample nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation water for production of grain field corn. Grain yield Increased grain yield, Treatment (pounds/acre) compared to the control Control (no nitrogen or water applied) 1,800 ____ Ample water; no fertilizer nitrogen applied 2,300 500 (28%) 200 pounds N/acre; no irrigation water applied 2,500 700 (38%) Ample water plus 200 pounds N/acre 8,800 7,000 (390%)
4
Characteristics of Ideal Holistic Systems:
1. The holistic ecosystem is highly productive—i.e., it has little (if any) growth-limiting factors. Therefore, its soil has good tilth; high, balanced nutrient levels; and high water and nutrient storage capacity.
2. All growth inputs used in the ecosystem are generated on-site or locally (internally). 3. The ecosystem remains relatively stable (resistant and resilient) when disturbed or
stressed. 4. Products of the ecosystem (food and fiber) are consumed/utilized locally (locavorism). 5. The system is sustainable.
Conservation Agriculture (CA): A Foundation for Highly Integrated, Holistic Systems Conservation agriculture (CA)—also, referred to as conservation farming—is defined as a farming system that can over time maintain or improve land productivity (crop yield/acre/year) and stabilize or enhance the level of active soil organic matter (soil health). The goal of CA is to mimic natural ecosystems (forests and prairies); therefore, CA practitioners seek to minimize soil disturbance (minimize tillage): maximize soil coverage by keeping soil covered with living or dead mulch; and maximize biodiversity both in time (crop rotations) and space (intercropping). Holistic-Managed Conservation Agriculture Organic Farms Conservation agriculture embodies a wide array of cultural practices that collectively attempt to incorporate the strengths of natural ecosystems into agroecosytems (managed systems). Nutrients and water. Organic CA strives to provide nutrients and water from on-site and local resources. Efficient nutrient use can be achieved by using legume-grass cover crops (green manure); compost and compost tea; ground or pelleted solid fertilizers from chicken waste products; and soluble liquid fertilizers from fish waste products, applied through drip irrigation systems (fertigation). Efficient water use can be enhanced by using drip irrigation systems, maintaining cover crop mulches over the soil surface, and growing deep-rooted cover crops such as alfalfa and yellow sweetclover. Build and maintain high levels of active soil organic matter (SOM). High levels of bio-diverse active SOM are built-up and sustained to achieve high soil and crop-yield stability. Cover crop-based cultural practices that build and maintain SOM include:
1. Use extensive crop rotations that include both annual and perennial cover crop sods to keep the soil covered during the off season when cash crops are not grown.
2. Implement both macro- and micro-scale intercropping and use farmscape plantings to maximize biodiversity and promote conservation biological pest management.
3. Keep tillage to a minimum and use shallow-tillage, non-inversion implements, in place of deep inversion tillage equipment whenever possible.
4. Establish and maintain controlled-traffic, permanent-bed systems to minimize soil compaction.
5
6
CHARGROW® Enhances Transplant Growth and Earlier Fruiting of Tomato Dr. Ronald Morse, Professor Emeritus Jon Nilsson, Soil Scientist Department of Horticulture, VA Tech CarbonChar.com Blacksburg, VA 24061 Asheville, NC 28801 CHARGROW® (CG) is a carbon-based source of beneficial microorganisms and microbial foods. In this study, CG was used to inoculate developing roots of tomato transplants in the greenhouse. Inoculation resulted in symbiotic associations of CG with the root system of tomato transplants. After setting CG-treated transplants in field soil, symbiosis was maintained and proliferated in the extended tomato root system. Three year study. This article summarizes data from a 3-year study (2007, 2008 and 2010) in which CG was blended with potting soil (at 2.5 and 5.0%, by volume) before seeding ‘Mountain Fresh’ tomato in the greenhouse. Tomato transplants were grown for seven weeks and set in raised-bed, plastic-covered field soil at the Kentland Farm, Blacksburg, VA. All plants received a starter solution of 1-2 pounds of nitrogen (N) per acre and were fertigated through the growing season with low rates of N fertilizer. All field soils used in this study had been in continuous cover—rotating vegetables and cover crops—over many years as part of the conservation-agriculture system employed at the Kentland Farm. Each year before laying-off raised beds and applying black plastic mulch, high-residue legume-grass cover crops were flail mowed and incorporated using a disk or rototiller. Therefore, each year, the vast majority of plant-available N was derived from incorporated cover crop residues and active soil organic matter that had built-up over time from applying conservation-agriculture practices. Results. Data were consistent over the 3-year period of this study and showed that mixing CG in potting soil affected transplant growth and subsequent fruiting habits of field-grown tomato plants. Major results are outline below: Transplant growth was enhanced. CG-inoculated transplants were greener and approximately 25% taller at field setting than control plants (Figure 1). Shortening the time required to produce healthy transplants lowers production costs, without reducing transplant quality or yield potential. Early (first harvest) fruit yield was enhanced. Earlier fruiting in CG-inoculated plants was increased by 50%, compared to uninoculated plants (Table 1). Earlier fruiting can be a major economic plus for tomato growers because first-harvest fruit is normally worth more on a per pound or box basis than later harvests. Earlier fruiting has significant economic advantages for tomato producers in regions with short-growing seasons. Total fruit yield was high. Total fruit yield—summation of all harvests—was excellent in both CG-treated and control plots (Table 1). Thus, heavy earlier fruiting in CG-inoculated plants did not reduce total yield. CG-inoculated plants remained vigorous throughout the growing season, resulting in high total yields. This “stay green” capacity enabled production of marketable fruit over a prolonged period and would permit extended multiple harvests in areas with long growing
7
seasons. Data from these trials show that CG biostimulant can be a useful management tool for growing tomatoes when used in combination with proper legume/grass cover crop rotations. Table 1. Effects of CHARGROW (CG) on early fruiting (first-harvest yield) and total marketable tomato yield: 3-year average (2007, 2008 and 2010). First harvest Total (all harvests) Treatment Yield (lb/ac) Rel. yield (%) Yield (lb/ac) Rel. Yield (%) Control (no CG) 18,900 100 76,500 100 CG-inoculated 28,400 150** 83,400 109ns (average of 2.5 and 5.0%) Relative yield = yield of the control (100), compared to the treated (i.e., yield of CG-treated divided by the control); ** = statistically significant at p = 0.01; ns = not significant at p = 0.05.
Figure 1. Tomato transplants at field setting—seven weeks from seeding in the greenhouse. From left to right: control (no CG), CG-treated (2.5%) and CG-treated (5.0%). CG-inoculated transplants were greener and approximately 25% taller than the control when set in the field.
