Lazy garden ... help

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

I will make sure

[franz3008]

I would like to let you know my experience. Terra Petra, which contains plant charcoal, stores nitrogen or other nutrients, so there is no need for green manure. It also store water it was very interesting last summer I did not rock and it has grown very well.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

I would like to let you know my experience. Terra Petra, which contains plant charcoal, stores nitrogen or other nutrients, so there is no need for green manure. It also store water it was very interesting last summer I did not rock and it has grown very well.

Do you have some in your garden?

[Did67]

I would like to let you know my experience. Terra Petra, which contains plant charcoal, stores nitrogen or other nutrients, so there is no need for green manure. It also store water it was very interesting last summer I did not rock and it has grown very well.

I suggest you do a "proper experience":

a) give us what you put and where (how much, etc ...)

b) I tend to give no credit to "I did this and it worked well" observations, for a simple reason: in agronomy, growth or yield is always the result of 36 things at a time ... "miracles" do not exist ...

I suggest you do a test "all other things being equal": on a plot with the same past, you plant the same thing (same species, same variety, same date, same technique), half with the "treatment in question "(here a contribution of vegetable charcoal), the other half without ...

And there, if there is a significant difference, you can think that it is related to the treatment.

To do it well, it would have to be repeated several times. A dry 2018 year, it does not react like a wet 2016 year!

Otherwise, in general, it joins the pile of nonsense that we read on the internet, which are only the projection of beliefs. Lunar calendars, mounds, purse of this, a decoction of that ...

That being said, that the supply of charcoal can have an effect, this is likely. Still need to ask the question: how much? how is this coal produced? for what effect?

It does not "create" elements. Regarding nitrates, it can possibly retain them. This remains to be demonstrated. For the rest, in our soils, the "colloids" already play the role of retention. To retain more than to retain ??? I do not see well. What is certain, that carbon does not "create" elements in the soil (except always nitrogen, which it does not create, but we can imagine that it promotes fixing bacteria?).

The terra preta is an accumulation for centuries probably, and it refers to a particular type of soil formation, in tropical conditions (where the mineralization is exacerbated, no organic matter lasts, etc ...). I tend to consider that the term is abusive when it refers to an enrichment of our soils in charcoal ... The mechanisms are still largely unknown.

I wanted to give it a try ... and I zapped. I even brought a bucket of charcoal powder ...

[franz3008]

Did67 wrote "I suggest you do a test" all other things being equal ": on a plot with the same past, you plant the same thing (same species, same variety, same date, same technique), one half with the "treatment in question" (here a contribution of vegetable charcoal), the other half without ... "
First of all thank you for the answer and his comments. The size of my vegetable garden 50 m squares and the time to spend there. I do not think I can do this test. But again a thousand thanks for your scientific answer (to me).
I practice phenoculture only since 2 years and I thank you for all the advice you give us.
I crushed the charcoal of my chimney but that poses a lot of problems and afterwards I made come a big pack of 1000l of charcoal being called controlled by (EBC (European Biochar Certificate). mixed with my Bokashi that I spread in the spring under the hay Of course it is not terra lenta the result but it will be for the next generations.It must start small before growing but each child is pleased with his progress. Keep me also the illusion of having taken a small step towards the nature which thanked me.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Of course it is not terra lenta

Ok so it's clearer

I am not sure that we can use the term "terra lenta" which is a millennial result in which many other components are taken into account.

On the other hand, to add charcoal to your land is something else

[Did67]

Keep me also the illusion of having taken a small step towards the nature which thanked me.

Without a "witness" (this is how we call the plots "all things being equal" not having had the "treatment" in question), the door is wide open to illusions!

And far from me the idea of ​​wanting to upset someone in this area!

Simply, it is thus, by shortcuts like you did it - since you put hay, bokashi, vegetable charcoal - by affirming that the biochar worked well "last year that the false ones are created - fashions ... By that I mean a fad based on a conviction that itself does not rest on any objective.

This ties in with something that I had to write somewhere: I respect any practitioner of any religion (within certain limits which recent news shows some contours); I fight all religions as an organized system to tell nonsense - in my opinion - to people. I respect individuals all the more because they accept that I treat them as "poor believers needing illusions to face the idea of ​​death and some other earthly annoyances". Arrived there, in general, it becomes difficult, because of course, they think they alone have THE truth!

PS: Having said that, I remind you that I do not exclude an effect of the contributions of charcoal or biochar - which I differentiate from terra preta. I intended to give it a try. I think it's likely. How many ? In which circumstances ? sustainability (where to find all this coal if everyone would like to use it)? etc. are other questions, which invites me to be cautious

[bobbysolo67]

I am not sure that we can use the term "terra lenta" which is a millennial result in which many other components are taken into account.

On the other hand, to add charcoal to your land is something else

An interesting link, alas reserved for German speakers ... http://www.ithaka-journal.net/55-anwend ... anzenkohle

[Did67]

I'm just translating this:

"so hätten bei der Effizienz damaliger Kohlemeiler für 100 Tonnen Pflanzenkohle etwa 2000 Tonnen Holz verkohlt werden müssen. Das entspricht 300 - 400 großen Regenwaldbäumen, die ohne Kettensäge und ohne Beil gefällt den werden müssen zugertten ohne transport.
Die Idee, dutzende Tonnen Pflanzenkohle auf die Äcker zu bringen, kann also nur von Akademikern kommen, die aus einer richtigen Beobachtung (50 t Pflanzenkohle pro Hektar) eine falsche, völlig praxisirrelevante habanzkohogenez von Schlussmolaghiver. Und dies ganz davon abgesehen, dass kein Boden zur Terra Preta wird, nur weil man viel Kohle hineinpflügt. "

Given the mill yields (for coal production) at the time, 2 000 tons of wood should have been carbonized to produce 100 tons of charcoal. This represents 300 to 400 large trees of the rainforest, which would have been felled without saws and without axes and whose coal should have been transported by draft animals to the cultivated fields.
The idea of ​​transporting dozens of tons of charcoal to the fields can therefore only come from academics who, from a real observation (50 t charcoal per ha) drew a false conclusion, without any concrete application (a massive single contribution of charcoal). And all this by neglecting the fact that no soil will become terra preta just because we made contributions of coal!

I was not aware of this article, but it joins my thinking.

I do not always agree on everything the Burgundians say, but it remains that they are real soil scientists (which I am not!). They write :

"La Terra Preta: Anthropogenic soil of great fertility due to a high concentration of charcoal, organic matter, nutrients. These soils generally contain a lot of fragments of pottery and have a strong biological activity. We are often asked. how to apply this in France for example. It should be understood that Terra preta can only develop and function on oxisols, latosols, or ferralsols. These soils have very old clays (kaolinite) of which the CEC is almost non-existent. pre-Columbian civilizations (large farmers) had (empirically) found that in THEIR environment, on THEIR soil, terra preta was the best way to guarantee sustainable production on soils which, without the forest, quickly become infertile. "

in:

Add to this the fact that it works better in some soils than in others! Or at least I would have translated it like that: the effects observed, compared to the surrounding groundare much more spectacular in these soils.

Understand that the Amazon, like all tropical zones, does not work with humic substances, mineralized too quickly under these conditions (heat, humidity). This gives these red, lateritic soils, without "OM" as we say. All organic matter is immediately "mineralized". And either leached or reused. In fact, both. So putting a "battery" capable of recharging very quickly, coal, is obviously a plus! In these conditions and in these soils! Like when you have a good shit and you take coal! But when we digest well, will it indeed improve our life ???

[bobbysolo67]

I'm just translating this:

Given the mill yields (for coal production) at the time, 2 000 tons of wood should have been carbonized to produce 100 tons of charcoal. This represents 300 to 400 large trees of the rainforest, which would have been felled without saws and without axes and whose coal should have been transported by draft animals to the cultivated fields.
The idea of ​​transporting dozens of tons of charcoal to the fields can therefore only come from academics who, from a real observation (50 t charcoal per ha) drew a false conclusion, without any concrete application (a massive single contribution of charcoal). And all this by neglecting the fact that no soil will become terra preta just because we made contributions of coal!

I was not aware of this article, but it joins my thinking.

Thank you Didier for this translation. You're a lot less lazy than me ...