Dear Kelpie and Rick,
I generally do not chime in on such topics, but I want to express my concern about what I see as shifting or unstable terminology.
First, I accept to use the “< term > carbon” and to set aside the technical issues of impurities that would be include in the words “< term > matter” that could include some other elements, as in ash. The discussion is dealing only with carbon.
The term particulate carbon and pyrolytic carbon are new to me in the sense that somebody (you or authors of reports) are seeming to call them “recalcitrant” carbon or fixed carbon, with the probable future linkage to being the backbone of biochar.
The term used in the “All biochars are not created equal….” paper (2009 by McLaughlin + three including me) is resident carbon [or matter}.. And mobile carbon [or matter] is used instead of labile or volatile carbon.
(The paper is available in many places, including www.drtlud.com/?resource=prt09325 and see especially page 9 of 36.)
Pyrolytic carbon: Is there any other way to make charcoal? Pyrolytic carbon must include all of the carbon types that are found in charcoal that itself is of many many types. Not a good (clearly defined) term unless it simply means “charcoal.”
Particulate carbon: A single physical characteristic is inadequate to describe carbon that is in the soil.
Recalcitrant and labile/ volatile are terms that come from the coal industry, as when making coking coal from geologically created coal. They are Inadequate for the issues of charcoal that comes from the pyrolytic transformation of biomass.
So, I am back to supporting resident and mobile as the descriptors that are most clear.
If we actually do want clarity about biochar terminology, we had better have some consistency among ourselves and also seek to have USDA and soil health specialists using the same language.
Then again, to “have some consistency among ourselves” might be an impossible dream. But “some” should be possible.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<www.drtlud.com>
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com <biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 11:14 PM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biochar] USDA & Soil Health [1 Attachment]
I believe that “recalcitrant” carbon would be determined from taking the difference between carbon from combustion (fixed and labile), and permanganate oxidizable carbon (labile).
The permanganate number is important because this is what the microbes “eat”, they would not eat pyrolytic carbon, and not stable humid substances either.
Why do you think pyrolytic carbon is important by itself?
My thinking is that a health measurement is a check in “today”. If the soil has pyrolytic carbon, its probably going to be high in fixed carbon overall thanks to stable humus, which is captured by the two measurements above. Pyrolytic carbon may be a future indicator of improvement…
I’ve attached the linked document in case you have interest.
Rick
On Sep 24, 2018, at 7:19 PM, kelpiew@gmail.com<mailto:kelpiew@gmail.com> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
This new NRCS soil health guideline could be very important for biochar. I think it is good that they are trying to understand different forms of soil carbon with different soil functions, but how could they leave out pyrolytic organic matter (PyOM) completely?
To add to the list of concerns is their method for the “active carbon” measurement. They think that particulate carbon is a good stand in for labile carbon that is microbe food, but do not take into account pyrogenic carbon which could also be in particulate form. I have no idea how their test method will react to biochar particles.
I hope that someone more knowledgeable than I will submit comments.
Comment Date: Submit comments on or before December 13, 2018. A final version of this technical note will be published after the close of the 90-day period and after consideration of all comments.
www.federalregister. gov/documents/2018/09/14/2018- 19985/notice-of-recommended- standard-methods-for-use-as- soil-health-indicator- measurements<www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/14/2018-19985/notice-of-recommended-standard-methods-for-use-as-soil-health-indicator-measurements>
Kelpie