Terra Preta - Dark Soil - Experiment

[idiit]

doing a grow right now in an area where the trees burned. lots of natural biochar in the ground. here's a pic. of the largest "tree from seed" grown in this soil. i also added pre-chelated trace minerals. "straight from seed" means no transplanting outdoors.:

ormus likes biochar for some reason and there are threads here and elsewhwere on ormus as a super duper plant supplement. ormus is found in large % in sea solid supplements. most of us are hip to how great sea solids can be as organic supplements.

The charcoal seemed to have a strong affinity for some of the minerals in the waste water. In fact, Jim found fibers of gold growing INSIDE the charcoal briquettes. (He was getting more gold from the charcoal briquettes than the miners were getting from the mine.) Around and below the charcoal briquettes, Jim found a mucus like liquid that had very unusual properties, when it was dried into flakes. These flakes would fly away from your hand if you brought it near and they would disappear in a flash of light if exposed to direct sunlight. The steel tub holding the column of charcoal briquettes would shock anyone who touched it. Jim eventually had to ground it using a three eights inch diameter copper wire because smaller wires would melt. You can read more about this at:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/mystory.htm

^^ http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/biochar.htm

"sea solids ormus" google search lists over 100,00 limks:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ormus+sea+solids

we can make our own chelated trace minerals. i do. here's a quote from another thread i posted:

i've been posting on the soil remineralization threads that we need to pay attention to "chelated trace minerals". trace minerals are difficult to chelate by the indigeneous micro critters. there are these little known, little talked about bacteria that are good at cheating trace minerals: Organisms that eat rocks are known as lithotrophs ("rock eaters") and are mostly Bacteria and Archaea but also some fungi.

here is the page on a mineral thread where i discuss this a little: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread....133648&page=22

i have noticed that my product from clones grown in shit soil is not nearly as good in many strains as product from identical clones grown in lush soil. perhaps rüdiger's above quoted post is right on the money. what if in order to produce top quality high effects and potency we need to grow in an environment where the trace minerals are readily available (chelated)?

sea solids are an excellent source of chelated trace minerals. also, i've gone a step further and soaked some azomite for around 9 months now in an archaea dominate microherd:

Quote:
i've got azomite soaked in an em solution with blackstrap molasses as food source ( 5 gallon bucket). i added seacrop to my em solution a long time ago to activate the dormant archaea in the seacrop. the azomite has soaked for almost one year now.
archaea are one class of lithotrophs ("rock eaters").

if you read the bam (black african magic) threads and the malawi threads (buried cobs) you read about intense psychoactive effects. the bam is reported to be reduced to shake that looks like shit but smokes like nothing else. the malawi cobs are buried. perhaps in africa the indigeneous micro herd is different and also contributes to the special cure that produces the special high effects and potency. maybe the microherd is also important in "chelating" the psychoactive components of the thc,cbd,cbn, thcv, terpenes, etc....


seacrop sea solids are water suspended and i believe can be washed out to some degree by rain/watering. this is the first year all of my outdoor plants will have a heaping tablespoon (yes, i think only a tablespoon of chelated trace minerals is all that is required) of chelated (to some degree) trace minerals from my azomite bucket pictured above.

speculation aside; many preconceptions are if fact misconceptions. the proof is in the puddin'.

we'll see.

biochar, ormus, sea solids (perfectly balanced plant nutrients produced naturally in the ocean by nature). archaea are abundant in the ocean.and pre-chelated trace minerals. not so shabby.

 

[MJtheIndicator]

The huge carbon sources becomes a drain on the nutrients in the soil as nitrogen is tied up attempting to decompose it.

Do you feel this drain only applies to nitrogen? And do you think commercially prepared char soils would require the same precautions?

 

[Luther Burbank]

I think it mostly applies to N - given the relationship between breaking down the two. It's like a compost heap with finding the right C:N ratio. I don't know enough about commercial products to say, but I'd assume they either pretreat it or else yes you'd need to. When you see the huge amount of liquid biochar can absorb you realize the stuff soaked with fish emulsion is like a well-stocked apartment block for microbes.

I think from the point of view of sustainability biochar isn't the answer. If you're already burning wood for heat or making biogas for heating then I think it's good to not let the char go to waste. There's been a lot of discussion that unnecessary CO2 is being added to the environment making biochar and that it's not a wunder carbon sink to save the planet like some misguided souls believe. I do believe it can help with tilth and retaining water - I just question its environmentalness.

 

[Siever]

Do you think this is wise for indica dominant plants? The sativa is a heavy feeder, but indica varieties don't seem to favor nitrogen.

I swear it's the other way around. It's the pure Sativa which does not need a lot of N.

Siever

 

[Luther Burbank]

That's the traditional view. I think that's wrong as well. The whole dichotomy is wrong though. The same researcher(R Clarke) that introduced the sativa/indica split has written, and I agree, that it does not represent the reality of the plant, and the new gaining ground terminology is NL - Narrow Leaf, BL - Broad Leaf, and after that either H - hemp, or D - drug. Scientifically speaking the two are distantly related, split since before the last glacial movement. European hemp varieties are C. sativa and all drug varieties(whether broad or narrow), and broad leaf hemp too, belong to C. indica. I believe the American varieties, being a direct result of European hemp intermingling with Indian drug varieties brought by coolies to S. America, represent a hybrid of the two.

 

[MJtheIndicator]

I swear it's the other way around. It's the pure Sativa which does not need a lot of N.

Siever

It varies so much because everything is hybrid now, but my feeling is the closer you get to a landrace in regards to indica, nitrogen might have a different purpose and affect as foliar feed rather than at root level. My assumption is based on observation and random consensus, but deeper than that when I consider how predominant indicas react to coastal climates I speculate a fair deal of the off shore flow (including its alleged nitrogen) is traveling via stoma.

 

[MJtheIndicator]

That's the traditional view. I think that's wrong as well. The whole dichotomy is wrong though. The same researcher(R Clarke) that introduced the sativa/indica split has written, and I agree, that it does not represent the reality of the plant, and the new gaining ground terminology is NL - Narrow Leaf, BL - Broad Leaf, and after that either H - hemp, or D - drug. Scientifically speaking the two are distantly related, split since before the last glacial movement. European hemp varieties are C. sativa and all drug varieties(whether broad or narrow), and broad leaf hemp too, belong to C. indica. I believe the American varieties, being a direct result of European hemp intermingling with Indian drug varieties brought by coolies to S. America, represent a hybrid of the two.

Could aid confusion, the lamina differs between the two where the distinction broad and narrow is true, but sativa leaves in their entirety can be just as broad as indica if you consider the total structure.

 

[Luther Burbank]

I don't know about any of that MJI. I think you're too deep into the static and not deep enough into the science. A "landrace" isn't something you get closer to - it's just a genetically isolated cultivar from an area. I think what you're shooting for are varieties that are closer to feral or wild, and a lot of people in this scene make the two terms overlap when they don't in reality. Nitrogen is nitrogen, and plants do not use it for a different purpose, certainly not within one species. The suggestion just seems very very very unlikely. The nitrogen in the air is locked away from plants in an unusable form, and I don't see why coastal air flow would carry more supposed nitrogen to a plant. It's a hypothesis that seems to be backed up by pure speculation not based on evidence. Apologies if I'm coming off a bit sternly, but I see too many posters on this forum making suggestions that are pure speculation and not grounded at all in reality, and when you point that out the response you get is that somehow pure speculation is not just okay, but a good thing, and that it's part of the scientific process. It's not. I think if broad leaved varieties are growing differently in coastal climates it has to do with a variety from an arid area being introduced into humid coastal climates.

 

[Luther Burbank]

Could aid confusion, the lamina differs between the two where the distinction broad and narrow is true, but sativa leaves in their entirety can be just as broad as indica if you consider the total structure.

It's the new standard, and I trust trained botanists like Robert Clarke and Mark Merlin from University of Hawaii to have considered these things when they came up with the classification. Especially since Clarke came up with the incorrect sativa / indica dichotomy and came up with this new system to be more representative of the plant.

 

[MJtheIndicator]

I don't know about any of that MJI. I think you're too deep into the static and not deep enough into the science. A "landrace" isn't something you get closer to - it's just a genetically isolated cultivar from an area. I think what you're shooting for are varieties that are closer to feral or wild, and a lot of people in this scene make the two terms overlap when they don't in reality. Nitrogen is nitrogen, and plants do not use it for a different purpose, certainly not within one species. The suggestion just seems very very very unlikely. The nitrogen in the air is locked away from plants in an unusable form, and I don't see why coastal air flow would carry more supposed nitrogen to a plant. It's a hypothesis that seems to be backed up by pure speculation not based on evidence. Apologies if I'm coming off a bit sternly, but I see too many posters on this forum making suggestions that are pure speculation and not grounded at all in reality, and when you point that out the response you get is that somehow pure speculation is not just okay, but a good thing, and that it's part of the scientific process. It's not. I think if broad leaved varieties are growing differently in coastal climates it has to do with a variety from an arid area being introduced into humid coastal climates.

"Once the ocean becomes well layered, the coastal waters are primed for one of the most important changes of the year—the beginning of upwelling. All that is needed at this point is strong winds blowing from the northwest. Once these winds begin, nitrate and other nutrients will be carried up into the surface waters, and the spring diatom blooms will begin. These spring blooms, in turn, help support almost all open-ocean life along the Central Coast."

 

[MJtheIndicator]

It's the new standard, and I trust trained botanists like Robert Clarke and Mark Merlin from University of Hawaii to have considered these things when they came up with the classification. Especially since Clarke came up with the incorrect sativa / indica dichotomy and came up with this new system to be more representative of the plant.

I don't debate that the term is off base, but the generality is as I say more indicative of lamina, so to nitpick I would push the distinction to broad lamina vs. narrow lamina. Like I said I don't really hate on the terminology, but considering these names hearken classification
applied to weeds, I wouldn't mind if they took it one step further, mostly because its a unique plant and the detractive "weed" has been beat to death.

 

[MJtheIndicator]

The nitrogen in the air is locked away from plants in an unusable form, and I don't see why coastal air flow would carry more supposed nitrogen to a plant....

pure speculation is not just okay, but a good thing, and that it's part of the scientific process. It's not. I think if broad leaved varieties are growing differently in coastal climates it has to do with a variety from an arid area being introduced into humid coastal climates.

I agree with the latter part of your idea and it happens to coincide even if remotely, with the latter part of this info: "Air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen may invade the leaf through stomatal pathways.(Saxe, 1990) These alien gases have only gained significant worldwide concentrations since the mid-Holocene (and in fact, chiefly since the Industrial Revolution), when humans initiated massive emissions of these air pollutants as by-products of manufacturing and combustion. As a result many plant species experience alteration of metabolic function, often including reduction in growth rates or outright morphological change. Sometimes the effects are complex to evaluate since unrelated pathogenic effects or other stressors may be operating simultaneously in a given ecosystem, especially in locales where humans are exerting a robust presence. (Woodwell, 1989)"

Regarding local ecotypes and breeds that have been improved by traditional agricultural methods: I can't be held responsible for individuals who decide not to distinguish a landrace being cultivated by a farmer who grows to sell and the plant in the ditch that happens to look like the farmer's field, feral as such. Yes I realize there are vast "wild" fields, but I would hope we can assume we're not focused on wild unattended marijuana when I mentioned landrace (does not denote hemp incidentally), apologies for any misrepresentation. What I meant was cultivated landrace, tended to; IBL, inter-breeding, natural inbreds so on and so forth. WHETHER by wind or by hand, I am referencing the farmer's crop.

 

[bastar]

is better to put perlite 10% no ? or little coco chips ?

 

[Terps]

Is biochar best to use crushed to a powder or better as small fragments?

Cheers

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Is biochar best to use crushed to a powder or better as small fragments?

Cheers

Powder goes further so is better if you have limited amount. Small fragments (pea size or so) are better for drainage and if one has lots of char to crush.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

In regard to the environmental impact of making biochar there are good points on both sides. Hobby/small scale makers (such as myself) maybe adding potentially harmful gasses to the atmosphere when making the char. But that is offset by the amount captured when making compost. Methane for example is captured and stored in the char. Also it offsets the total inputs (ferts) needed by a significant amount...

Those making char on a more industrial scale are using machines that also make useful by-products such as oils and wood vinegar. The heat can also be utilised to pump water, make electricity, cook food etc

If we can turn what is a waste product into a valuable resource that in turn grows more co2 capturing plants/trees and adsorbs methane etc, improves compost (think industrial scale municipal heaps) then it seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Bueno Time]

Do you think adding 5% biochar will be too much at one time to add to my soil? I want to start a no till bed this next run and Id like to incorporate the biochar to the mix now since I wont be breaking the soil up again to remix anything (at least that is the plan).

I have ~40 gallons soil mix total in two batches of ~20 gallons each, that I would combine to make one soil bed ~10-11" starting depth for my 2'x3' tent. So I would be incorporating 2 gallons or 32 cups of biochar to the 40 gallons of soil mix to achieve pretty close to 5% biochar content.

I have around 2.5 gallons of biochar total on hand and I just started 14 cups of biochar soaking in fresh ACT, 2-4-1 fish hydrolysate, 5-1-1 fish emulsion, liquid seaweed, soluble seaweed, bioag soluble humic, lacto b serum, and molasses. Does that sound good for pre-charging the biochar? I didnt measure but I dumped a lot of fish stuff in there to hopefully make sure there is enough nitrogen and other stuff to satisfy the char enough to not scavenge a ton of N, etc from my soil when I add it.

This amount added (14 cups) would be ~2.5% biochar if I add it to the 40 gallons, question is then should I double the amount of char I am soaking tomorrow morning so that I have enough for 5% of soil mix and be relatively safe at 5% added all at once or should I use less to be safe. I dont want the nitrogen scavenging issues I have heard about with poorly prepped biochar, I dont have the ability to compost the biochar before adding to the mix all I can do is soak it to try to pre-charge it first.

Thanks for any help guys.

edit: Also isnt the stuff pretty alkaline still even after being soaked in acidic fish stuff? How much do you think that could/would effect soil pH? Have you seen any issues like these with fresh biochar in use?

Sorry for so many questions but sometimes you dont learn until you ask.

 

[ct guy2]

Do you think adding 5% biochar will be too much at one time to add to my soil? I want to start a no till bed this next run and Id like to incorporate the biochar to the mix now since I wont be breaking the soil up again to remix anything (at least that is the plan).

I have ~40 gallons soil mix total in two batches of ~20 gallons each, that I would combine to make one soil bed ~10-11" starting depth for my 2'x3' tent. So I would be incorporating 2 gallons or 32 cups of biochar to the 40 gallons of soil mix to achieve pretty close to 5% biochar content.

I have around 2.5 gallons of biochar total on hand and I just started 14 cups of biochar soaking in fresh ACT, 2-4-1 fish hydrolysate, 5-1-1 fish emulsion, liquid seaweed, soluble seaweed, bioag soluble humic, lacto b serum, and molasses. Does that sound good for pre-charging the biochar? I didnt measure but I dumped a lot of fish stuff in there to hopefully make sure there is enough nitrogen and other stuff to satisfy the char enough to not scavenge a ton of N, etc from my soil when I add it.

This amount added (14 cups) would be ~2.5% biochar if I add it to the 40 gallons, question is then should I double the amount of char I am soaking tomorrow morning so that I have enough for 5% of soil mix and be relatively safe at 5% added all at once or should I use less to be safe. I dont want the nitrogen scavenging issues I have heard about with poorly prepped biochar, I dont have the ability to compost the biochar before adding to the mix all I can do is soak it to try to pre-charge it first.

Thanks for any help guys.

edit: Also isnt the stuff pretty alkaline still even after being soaked in acidic fish stuff? How much do you think that could/would effect soil pH? Have you seen any issues like these with fresh biochar in use?

Sorry for so many questions but sometimes you dont learn until you ask.

I would start at 2.5% and add a bit each cycle. I soak mine in fish hydrolysate at the recommended mixing rate for application for a minimum of a week before using it. I've made probably 50 yards of this recipe over the past year at 10% biochar per yard.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the pH. The soil will probably need to nutrient cycle for a week or two after adding the biochar, so I would plan for that too.

 

[ct guy2]

Also, I have these giant galvanized stock tanks that I tried using to soak the biochar and fish in. They literally rusted and were eaten through in under 2 weeks. Never seen anything like that...

 

[Siskiyou]

If you add biochar to your worm bins it will be fully charged and worry free by the time you harvest the EWC.