Silage char. Is this the future?

Say my name

Improved silage, improved animal performance, improved soil to "terra preta" conditions and potential for less to zero usage of fertilizer.

http://www.pluschar.ie/silage-2/

It seems we have a biochar co-op in this country.
Anyone a member or anyone using biochar here or anywhere for that matter.

Also what method do you make the char with?

The U.N. has backed more usage of biochar and the Eu is just starting to get in on the act.
I'm surprised there isn't more talk in this country of it or are we too tied up to the fert companies and afraid to look outside the box.

Also early use (a few years ago) only used charcoal without it being "charged" with bacteria or mixing with dung or passing through an animal first already charged.
If you use charcoal direct in the soil, it'll pull nutrients from the soil for a few years and take them from any plants growing in the soil but if it's charged first with nutrients and bacteria, there's only benefits to the plant along with the biochar increasing the electrical conductivity of the soil and starting a chain reaction of carbon capture by the soil, with this carbon capture extending for several metres into the soil.

I'm only a new poster so I may not be able to post links so search for silage char for the Irish co-op and the ithaka institute, Switzerland for more info.

Muckit

There would want to be independent trials done to validate all these great claims and benefits.

Sure it's like ourselves. We can just eat our 3 square meals or we can buy protein shakes, take vitamin and mineral supplements etc etc.

Is it just making simple things complicated ?

Bass Reeves

I think there is a couple of similar products around. These use emzynes to break down the fibres in the grass/silage so that they are more digestible. Not only are there ones you use on the silage but there is also similar additives to add to silage and rations while being fed to again knowck more value out of the feed. In all they claim to add about 10% to the feed value. The silage additive costs betweens 80c-1.5/bale of silage and the feed additive from 3-10c/head depending on product and what level you feed it at.

However it is all extra work and often it adds little or nothing to profitability. Much better to concentrate on grassland managment and extract as much as possiblew from that.

Say my name

Muckit wrote: »

There would want to be independent trials done to validate all these great claims and benefits.

Sure it's like ourselves. We can just eat our 3 square meals or we can buy protein shakes, take vitamin and mineral supplements etc etc.

Is it just making simple things complicated ?

No there is independent peer reviewed trials done. Hundreds in fact. All positive.

Main benefits are less volatization of nitrogen from dung/slurry. No smell from slurry. So more available to the crop = less bought or manufactured nitrogen.
Better performance of animals. Easier fattening.
More phosphorus and potash available to the growing plant that was unavailable before = less bought in P and K.
More water retention in soils as well being more open and airy. That sounds like a contradiction but it seems to be. So less drought affected plants.
If carbon capture is your thing and fighting climate change then increased carbon capture and storage in the soil.
Increased nitrogen fixing organizims in the soil = even less bought in N.

I'm sounding like I'm selling the thing but from the papers coming out now there'll all positive.

The only question seems to be either kon-tiki or stove?

Say my name

http://www.ithaka-institut.org/en/tierhaltung

Now this YouTube clip was a farmer in Australia who did this off his own bat but had scientists measuring all the figures. And the figures look very impressive.
https://youtu.be/2aUPRzIh3Dk

Don't forget that biochar is estimated to last over 1000 years in a temperate soil.

That's a flavour of it and there's tons of info on it on the net, that's why I'm surprised there's not much going on here about it. Only seen one poster using it as bedding on Tff for instance.
The Swiss institute has links to the latest reports I think?

This is one of the reports.
I think you should be able to read it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281238280_Feeding_Biochar_to_Cows_An_Innovative_Solution_for_Improving_Soil_Fertility_and_Farm_Productivity

Or just Google feeding biochar to cows.

TalkingBull

some interesting reading there lad, but i remain a sceptic...



Article 11. Use and Guarantee

11.1 The Seller guarantees that the product delivered will comply to the best of the Seller’s ability with the relevant product specifications. However, the product specifications will not apply as a guarantee. If the product delivered does not comply with the product specifications, the Buyer will be informed. The Seller furthermore does not guarantee that the product will comply with the purpose given to them by the Buyer.

Who2

I may be wrong but it looks like a research project where a couple of hippies decided They could make a kill on this major breakthrough in agriculture. Or else their funding was stopped and they needed to commercialize the whole thing. Then again I think bass has probably worded it better.

Say my name

Who2 wrote: »

I may be wrong but it looks like a research project where a couple of hippies decided They could make a kill on this major breakthrough in agriculture. Or else their funding was stopped and they needed to commercialize the whole thing. Then again I think bass has probably worded it better.

There's no money to be made by any companies on this.
All a farmer needs is a wood burning stove with a secondary chamber to make charcoal or an outdoor one such as the kon tiki one which is like a giant wok and a source of timber or biomass.
It really is that simple.

It's not new technology but old technology.

I'm completely taken in by it anyway.
It seems to winning on every front and keeping the enviromentalists happy or saving the planet which ever you prefer.

There's two more trials ongoing in England atm one a feeding trial and another a bedding trial and then soil effects.

I have yet to see a negative report published.

Anyway just thought I'd throw it up here and good thing too seeing as there's no knowledge of it here.

Who2

Say my name wrote: »

There's no money to be made by any companies on this.
All a farmer needs is a wood burning stove with a secondary chamber to make charcoal or an outdoor one such as the kon tiki one which is like a giant wok and a source of timber or biomass.
It really is that simple.

It's not new technology but old technology.

I'm completely taken in by it anyway.
It seems to winning on every front and keeping the enviromentalists happy or saving the planet which ever you prefer.

There's two more trials ongoing in England atm one a feeding trial and another a bedding trial and then soil effects.

I have yet to see a negative report published.

Anyway just thought I'd throw it up here and good thing too seeing as there's no knowledge of it here.

How much char would a lad need to make per bale? How is burning fuels to make charcoal keeping environmentalists happy? How much oak( which is the usual charcoal timber) going to need to be cut down to produce something that mightn't work. If the char was a readily available by product it may be a runner but otherwise I doubt it.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

There's no money to be made by any companies on this.
All a farmer needs is a wood burning stove with a secondary chamber to make charcoal or an outdoor one such as the kon tiki one which is like a giant wok and a source of timber or biomass.
It really is that simple.

It's not new technology but old technology.

I'm completely taken in by it anyway.
It seems to winning on every front and keeping the enviromentalists happy or saving the planet which ever you prefer.

There's two more trials ongoing in England atm one a feeding trial and another a bedding trial and then soil effects.

I have yet to see a negative report published.

Anyway just thought I'd throw it up here and good thing too seeing as there's no knowledge of it here.

Would doubt a lot about it. It would never be practical on a large scale, it would need huge areas of land planted..
The supposed carbon sequestration benefits are likely to be hugely overrated, there was work done in Scandinavia looking at the age of charred carbon in the soil from regular forest fires. It was much lower than expected, I think the majority was much less than 50 years.
Not to sure whether it would really be of any benefit in the long term, the cost of it and the fact there's a lot of proven ways to enhance soil would make it a non runner I would think

Say my name

Who2 wrote: »

How much char would a lad need to make per bale? How is burning fuels to make charcoal keeping environmentalists happy? How much oak( which is the usual charcoal timber) going to need to be cut down to produce something that mightn't work. If the char was a readily available by product it may be a runner but otherwise I doubt it.

Don't have the figures on how much per bale if you wanted to do it that way.
I'm as clueless as you on that. I was hoping I'd get some feedback on that here but I think I read somewhere it's fed from 1 to 3% of the diet?
I think the main benefits that being promoted is the farmers own ability to grow their own biomass for this on their ditches or waste land.
You can use any biomass from trees to straw even chicken litter. I wouldn't be feeding that to cows though. Stick with the timbers for that.

Cornell university did a trial on the different biomasses a few years ago but they didn't understand how it's supposed to be "charged" before use on land.
The chicken litter came out best for crop growth and the pine trees came out best for nitrogen fixation in soil.
They only realised after that it's best to "charge" the char before use and they're now using bacteria in the biochar before use.

I have been doing a little bit of reading on this but it seems when a soil is treated once there's no real need to do it again after and so it can be ongoing thing of "improving" more land.

Look up Terra Preta. This is land that was formed in the Amazon rainforest by the natives from using charcoal as a covering on their toilet pot and layer upon layer in the pot and chucking it into a hole in the ground. Now you're probably thinking I've gone loopy by now but the tropic soils are an environment where it's impossible to keep any fertility in the soil and any organic matter is quickly rotted and leached out of the soil but this terra preta is extremely fertile and continues to be so 500 years later with no signs of diminishing.

You could say charcoal contains quartz and silica and that it may be an electrical reaction that is driving this reaction and it may not be further than the truth as the black soils of Ukraine and Russia were also started by quartz dust ground down by the glaciers from the various deposits in the region.

Anyway to summarize.
Grow your own biomass.
Turn to char.
Pass it through an animal, mix it with dung, mix it with compost with an animal element to such as fishmeal or inoculate with a bacteria before using on the soil.
And whola Russian soil in Ireland for a thousand years or more sucking up carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Who's first!

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Look up Terra Preta. This is land that was formed in the Amazon rainforest by the natives from using charcoal as a covering on their toilet pot and layer upon layer in the pot and chucking it into a hole in the ground. Now you're probably thinking I've gone loopy by now but the tropic soils are an environment where it's impossible to keep any fertility in the soil and any organic matter is quickly rotted and leached out of the soil but this terra preta is extremely fertile and continues to be so 500 years later with no signs of diminishing.

You could say charcoal contains quartz and silica and that it may be an electrical reaction that is driving this reaction and it may not be further than the truth as the black soils of Ukraine and Russia were also started by quartz dust ground down by the glaciers from the various deposits in the region.

Anyway to summarize.
Grow your own biomass.
Turn to char.
Pass it through an animal, mix it with dung, mix it with compost with an animal element to such as fishmeal or inoculate with a bacteria before using on the soil.
And whola Russian soil in Ireland for a thousand years or more sucking up carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Who's first!

Expecting to create soils similar to the black soils of eastern Europe/Russia is taking it a bit far. Those soils were formed mainly as a result of climate and grass. Go south or east past the chernozem soils and you'll start to find lighter coloured soils as it gets drier. Go north and you'll also get lighter shallower soils until eventually you hit podzol type soils under forestry.
The exact same changes can be seen in america as you move across from the east coast through tall and short grass areas.
When nutrients are loaded on, they tend to persist. Areas where cattle were penned 100+ years ago can still show up huge differences in fertility compared to the surrounding land. It used to be widely practiced in a lot of areas around the world that very large amounts of biomass were collected from the surrounding land to be used as fertilizer, others left land fallow until a certain mix of plants developed after multiple successions as this would mean the soil had been returned to the same fertility as the surrounding land

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Expecting to create soils similar to the black soils of eastern Europe/Russia is taking it a bit far. Those soils were formed mainly as a result of climate and grass. Go south or east past the chernozem soils and you'll start to find lighter coloured soils as it gets drier. Go north and you'll also get lighter shallower soils until eventually you hit podzol type soils under forestry.
The exact same changes can be seen in america as you move across from the east coast through tall and short grass areas.
When nutrients are loaded on, they tend to persist. Areas where cattle were penned 100+ years ago can still show up huge differences in fertility compared to the surrounding land. It used to be widely practiced in a lot of areas around the world that very large amounts of biomass were collected from the surrounding land to be used as fertilizer, others left land fallow until a certain mix of plants developed after multiple successions as this would mean the soil had been returned to the same fertility as the surrounding land

I wouldn't go with the theory of where nutrients are loaded on they tend to persist.
Put artificial nitrogen into a soil and if it's not taken up a plant or by microbes or carbon it's leached into the groundwater.
Same with phosphate if it's not taken up by the plant or not enough clay or carbon it's leached away.
Hence our imposed date restrictions.

I will accept plants had a part to play in the black soil but my thinking would be glaciers started the process and c4 plants such as sedges with the proper electrical conductivity of the soil started up the whole process of carbon capture and so on and so forth. Actually volcanic soils without plants by it's own chemical composition and a kickstarter of carbon 13 can start sequestering carbon and form itself.

I actually think biochar must be carbon 13 if all the claims of multiplying nutrients and carbon capture are to be believed.

I wonder will we see Teagasc test all this out properly. There's nothing to loose and everything to gain as far as I can see although it depends where you're looking at it from.

Gawddawggonnit

A cow, a sow, and the acre under plough...

No need for burning oak trees.
Any system that claims to make *artificial* nitrogen more efficient (or whatever) is misguided.
The objective should be to use no artificial fertilisers.


IMHO.

alps

Say my name wrote: »

I wonder will we see Teagasc test all this out properly. There's nothing to loose and everything to gain as far as I can see although it depends where you're looking at it from.

You would need a sponsor for the trial to "prove that it works"

Say my name

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

A cow, a sow, and the acre under plough...

No need for burning oak trees.
Any system that claims to make *artificial* nitrogen more efficient (or whatever) is misguided.
The objective should be to use no artificial fertilisers.


IMHO.

Nobody could disagree with that unless they're selling it of course.

I'd like to see proper trials on it here though and not trials that try to discredit it either but a fair no vested interest trial.
It's a pity we have to get our information from Australia or wait on trials from England paid for by the organic movement and the Eu.

Gawddawggonnit

Say my name wrote: »

Nobody could disagree with that unless they're selling it of course.

I'd like to see proper trials on it here though and not trials that try to discredit it either but a fair no vested interest trial.
It's a pity we have to get our information from Australia or wait on trials from England paid for by the organic movement and the Eu.

If the established mindset is along the lines of the optimum date in Jan to spread a bag of urea/ac, you’re at pretty much nothing...


It’ll probably take massive kick in the ass from Brussels for a change of direction.

Green farmer

Lads, I eliminated all waste and mound out of my silage bales last year. The grass fermented way better, No waste. I also increased my yield from the field by 60 %. How did I do it...... I fixed the ph by spreading 2 tonne of lime/acre . Simple and cheap, and turned field inside out.

Say my name

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

It’ll probably take massive kick in the ass from Brussels for a change of direction.

Unfortunately I have to agree and the change is coming from France and a bit from Poland.

I'd always be of the opinion try it myself or ourselves first and see what works rather than another country in the Eu trying something out and then they get restrictions imposed on the whole Eu based on their results without giving the whole game away of how they did it.

A case in point of how this country works is we had to rely on second-hand information from the U.S. on multi species cover crops for tillage rather than our own institutions leading the charge.

Say my name

Biochar amended soils have a greater phosphorus holding capacity than ordinary soils. But not in a lock up forever type of situation but makes it available to the plant.
Video looks at two different biochars poultry litter and hardwood and two different soils.
They don't say whether the chars were "charged" before use. I've gone into that before so I assume they weren't.
So anyway here's a clip from the university of Florida from their water quality projects.

https://youtu.be/nfwopIVowx4

Say my name

Just another one for today.
This is a guy farming in the U.S. he's been using biochar for ten years on a small scale. I suppose you could call him unconventional.
He's been feeding it to his poultry and pigs since he started.
The thing that pricked my ears though was when he mentioned coccidiousis.
I'm sure everyone here has heard that word before (not sure it's spelled right).
But anyway worth a gander I think even if he uses some ways I wouldn't like for starting the kiln.


https://youtu.be/CaC2v9Afthg

kowtow

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

A cow, a sow, and the acre under plough...

No need for burning oak trees.
Any system that claims to make *artificial* nitrogen more efficient (or whatever) is misguided.
The objective should be to use no artificial fertilisers.


IMHO.

Was it the Romney Marshes where they grazed ten Ewes to the acre, until it could support ten Ewes to the acre?

Say my name

kowtow wrote: »

Was it the Romney Marshes where they grazed ten Ewes to the acre, until it could support ten Ewes to the acre?

There's one of those cork history books where a farmer had something like 7 cows and a heifer fed off one acre?
This was back in 1810 and he had them indoors bedded on sea sand all year round. Then he was taking 4 cuts of grass or hay off it in the year and spreading the dung sea sand mixture after the cut.

Cattlepen

[quote="Say my name;105723967"

Look up Terra Preta. This is land that was formed in the Amazon rainforest by the natives from using charcoal as a covering on their toilet pot and layer upon layer in the pot and chucking it into a hole in the ground. Now you're probably thinking I've gone loopy by now but the tropic soils are an environment where it's impossible to keep any fertility in the soil and any organic matter is quickly rotted and leached out of the soil but this terra preta is extremely fertile and continues to be so 500 years later with no signs of diminishingquote]
Key to this is that they were using their toilet pots.
Would this be where the fertilitys power is coming from? Traditionally land around settlements is generally fertile. I think this maybe in no small part to the proximity of human waste. Powerful stuff but not sure of the health implications short term. This has probably hundreds of years to break down into black soil. I'm sure the charcoal played a roll too

Say my name

Cattlepen wrote: »

[quote="Say my name;105723967"

Look up Terra Preta. This is land that was formed in the Amazon rainforest by the natives from using charcoal as a covering on their toilet pot and layer upon layer in the pot and chucking it into a hole in the ground. Now you're probably thinking I've gone loopy by now but the tropic soils are an environment where it's impossible to keep any fertility in the soil and any organic matter is quickly rotted and leached out of the soil but this terra preta is extremely fertile and continues to be so 500 years later with no signs of diminishingquote]
Key to this is that they were using their toilet pots.
Would this be where the fertilitys power is coming from? Traditionally land around settlements is generally fertile. I think this maybe in no small part to the proximity of human waste. Powerful stuff but not sure of the health implications short term. This has probably hundreds of years to break down into black soil. I'm sure the charcoal played a roll too

Forgive my French.
But if an animal deficates in the tropical soil. That sh**e will be broken down in days with the abudance of microbes and bacteria and the conditions of the tropical forest (warm and wet).
Tropical soils are the poorest in the world yet they grow an abudance of plants and trees. It's just the soils have no hope of holding onto or building up nutrients with so much life both microbial, animal and plant life.
Char cannot be broken down. You'd even see char embedded in sedimentary rock from millions of years ago still intact.
It's the little tubes left in the char after pyrolysis (heating without oxygen) that soak up the nutrients and provide a home for bacteria and fungi.
It's the soaking up effect that is the reason why biochar should first be mixed with bacteria and nutrients before being applied on land otherwise it will take nutrients from the land until it's full iykwim.

charolais0153

Say my name wrote: »

Cattlepen wrote: »

Forgive my French.
But if an animal deficates in the tropical soil. That sh**e will be broken down in days with the abudance of microbes and bacteria and the conditions of the tropical forest (warm and wet).
Tropical soils are the poorest in the world yet they grow an abudance of plants and trees. It's just the soils have no hope of holding onto or building up nutrients with so much life both microbial, animal and plant life.
Char cannot be broken down. You'd even see char embedded in sedimentary rock from millions of years ago still intact.
It's the little tubes left in the char after pyrolysis (heating without oxygen) that soak up the nutrients and provide a home for bacteria and fungi.
It's the soaking up effect that is the reason why biochar should first be mixed with bacteria and nutrients before being applied on land otherwise it will take nutrients from the land until it's full iykwim.

The soils have no hope of holding on to nutrients because they are leached I'd imagine

Say my name

charolais0153 wrote: »

Say my name wrote: »

The soils have no hope of holding on to nutrients because they are leached I'd imagine

It's because there's so much life taking from it really. Clay has no real hope of forming either well apart from decomposing plant life. When they are cleared though they can quickly leach as the lack of soil and how quickly soil is broken down.
But this is coming from someone not on the ground in Brazil. A Brazilian on the ground would tell you a clearer picture.
But it seems there's a push on to use ground rock dusts in tropical soils due to breaking down slower than normal fert and being slower acting and forming into soil in it's own right.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

It's because there's so much life taking from it really. Clay has no real hope of forming either well apart from decomposing plant life. When they are cleared though they can quickly leach as the lack of soil and how quickly soil is broken down.
But this is coming from someone not on the ground in Brazil. A Brazilian on the ground would tell you a clearer picture.
But it seems there's a push on to use ground rock dusts in tropical soils due to breaking down slower than normal fert and being slower acting and forming into soil in it's own right.

Weathering probably is the main cause, the soils on the pampas are as good as any in the world and have lot's of hot weather, but less rain.
The cerrado was only used for cattle before they started throwing out lime in the 60's. Nothing really could be grown. PH somewhere around 3, very low p k ca mg and problems with al toxicity.

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Weathering probably is the main cause, the soils on the pampas are as good as any in the world and have lot's of hot weather, but less rain.
The cerrado was only used for cattle before they started throwing out lime in the 60's. Nothing really could be grown. PH somewhere around 3, very low p k ca mg and problems with al toxicity.

You learn something new every day.

It seems that rain passing through decaying vegetation such as the rainforest and former areas such as the cerrado acidifies the soil underneath.

You'd see on Twitter, lads out there spreading gypsum.

Not sure if there's anything in it or not but I see where someone mentioned the storm's crossing the Atlantic bringing Sahara sand and helping fertility in the Amazon.

All this makes me glad to be grass farming in this country. We really can get the yields and length of grazing season here.
Take this winter. Grass never stopped growing.
Anyway I digress.

We're learning all the time.

Say my name

Here yose!

You'll like this one and it's about an alternative farm plant.

https://youtu.be/5Czs3kI8Rk4

Say my name

A bit of an oul scientific report on biochar and carbon sequestration.

Plain maize residue is mentioned too.

If you can't read the whole thing just read the introduction and then the discussion.
But I thought it was interesting.
Definitely something there.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25127

Say my name

The gift that keeps on giving.

NASA Langley scientist in on the act and China building plants and treating land.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-biochar-nasa-langley-20180102-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

Say my name

And so it continues...

Biochar improves the performance of anaerobic digesters dramatically.

https://www.bioenergy-news.com/display_news/13312/study_suggests_biochar_could_significantly_improve_anaerobic_digester_performance/

Say my name

Science discovers on a molecular level how biochar holds onto nitrogen and phosphorus.
= no soil run off/leaching of N and P.

http://www.lightsource.ca/news/details/scientists_discover_why_biochar_fertilizers_work_so_well

Say my name

A presentation on the different types of biochars from a 10 year study.
Main points in this the biochars weren't mixed with human or animal waste or fungal or bacterial materials prior to land application. The above is now considered essential.
10 tons per Ha was applied and that carbon was known and expected in the soil after application. What wasn't expected was for the soil to keep growing after application and for the soil to keep absorbing more carbon on top of this and there were big intakes and storing in the soil of carbon 13. The graph shows the difference in plots with biochar and without. Researchers worldwide are particularly excited by this realisation and have come up with the term "carbon negative" farming.
Nitrogen and phosphorus storage in the biochar is discussed a little bit too.


Edit video link not showing up. So no need for replies. I have copied a link to Facebook and its on there instead.
In the link is a sheep and cattle farmer in Wales using biochar for bedding.

https://m.facebook.com/biocharuk/

Say my name

An Australian trial of biochar used in a simulated intensive dairy grazing system.

https://m.ruralweekly.com.au/news/biochars-long-term-benefits-to-soil-proven/3176640/