Terra Preta Soils

              Carbon soil amending was done in New World antiquity.  It is found in the literature as “Terra Preta Soils.”  These soils were first thought to be natural in Central America and the Amazon basin.  But, eventually it became clear the soils were man-made.  We believe ancient Aztec Indians saw their old fire pits were islands of fertility in otherwise barren fields.  They expanded and linked them to make fields of superior fertility that far out-produced anything seen in Europe.  Cortez expedition agriculturists were astounded at the productivity of these soils.  The spread of the soils seems to be from Central America to the Amazon basin with first use in Central America.   

           The fire pits included two things:  Elemental carbon and charcoal that do not decay. Wood decays, but the process is much inhibited when wood is even partially charcoaled.  Large particle size, grinding and cutting marks on charcoal and charcoaled wood confirmed it was man-made material.

            Daniel Techter, Associate Professor at the Nicholas School of the Environment reported in Science Daily, November 8, 2006, that his studies showed “…carbon in roots does not migrate to the topsoil.”  It took 100 years to remove 40% of the entrained carbon (as wood) from a soil depth of one foot.  This could only be because of a slow rate of decomposition of wood and indicates the plants were absorbing carbon dioxide as it was produced by decay.  This is consistent with our experimental findings.

Charcoal Evidence

Carbon found in Central and South American soils is a product of incomplete wood burning and hand grinding as confirmed by particle size, shape and scars.  There were also pottery shards of Central American antiquity confirming these were fire pits for cooking.  We improve greatly on Indian hand ground charcoal with electrostatically captured “lampblack” which is much finer and contains the carbon allotropes, “Bucky balls” or “Fullerenes” which are of molecular size and have enormous surface area per unit weight.  This is new technology.

Fullerenes are molecular geodesic spheres named after the designer-engineer F. Buckminster Fuller who popularized the geodesic dome in buildings. They are a byproduct of reduction carbon chemistry made by Cottrell electrostatic smokestack precipitators and produce a six to seven magnitude expansion of the carbon surface area with a dramatic increase in the effectiveness. 

          As a soil amendment Fullerenes will recover for agriculture millions of acres of land long thought incapable of holding water.  Elemental carbon in molecule-sized particles improves soil by adsorbing of entraining water and holding it to be found by plant roots.

           High temperature carbon reduction systems produce carbon as “carbon black” or elemental carbon in allotropic forms.  Allotropes are molecules of an element, but with different numbers of atoms.  They have been products of chimneys using the Cottrell precipitator for 100 years, but Fullerenes were not discovered until the carbon product was analyzed with electron microscopes.  Cottrell precipitators were an early form of dealing with smokestack pollution.  The technology has been refined over the century of their use.

        Where sequestration of carbon is an objective it is possible to tune burners to “reducing” flames in which elemental carbon allotropes are produced.  It has been found that such processes using Cottrell smoke precipitators produce varieties of “Fullerenes” or “Buckyballs.”  These allotropic carbon molecular forms include 40 to 70 carbon atoms.  They appear to offer many opportunities in nanotechnology for capturing and sequestering heavy metal ions as well as carbon.  They are very small smoke-like carbon particles that form aqueous slurries which are excellent absorbers and may ultimately form traps for unwanted heavy metal ions.

   Allotropic carbon comes in a variety of forms from Cottrell Precipitators. Forms like the tube to the right.  It is possibility this process can be perfected to manufacture nanotech components.  This is beyond the scope of SCAF, but it can be an interesting area for research and development associated with the production of carbon for soil amending.  

Where elementary carbon is a sequestration product we can use it for carbon soil amendment. This is especially important with western soils that are little more than clay and sand.  They respond wonderfully to carbon amendments as they did in Central and South America.  We expect this phase of the service to be ultimately more important than sequestration as SCAF offers land recovery in its repertoire and for the first time in history we will put the lie to Will Rogers' axiom, “Buy land!  They ain’t makin’ any more of it,” we will make more land, farm land, millions of acres of it.

Smaller Particles

We know the Indians ground charcoal to particles down to 100^th centimeter, lampblack particle sizes are on the order of one millionth centimeter.  This increases surface area of the absorber by one million, an order of four magnitudes of ten. Thus, they function at the molecular level to hold water, trap poisonous heavy metal ions for great benefits to agriculture.  It is for them entering a new dimension.  The macro and micro worlds are two very different places.  In the “micro” dimension gravity, electrostatics and magnetism are completely different than the way we experience them. 

    


The CO2 Strangle

            All organic matter added to soil improves nutrient retention.  A carbon amendment is more effective in handling nutrients like phosphorus while making them available to plants.  Finely divided elemental carbon is much more persistent in soil than organic amendments.  Carbon atoms do not oxidize where organics do.  The persistence of pure carbon in soil also makes it ideal for direct carbon sequestration, but we think it far too important as a soil amendment to limit the consideration to sequestration alone.

          Carbon dioxide has been vanishing from the atmosphere for the last 1.5 billion years.  In the period before that the age of volcanoes gave us an atmosphere with 12% CO2.  In the never ending series of experiments with matter and energy that is our universe nature chanced on photosynthesis.  The process that takes carbon dioxide, water and energy to make carbohydrates, starches and cellulose all based on the glucose C6H12O6 unit, a building block product of photosynthesis.
    

      The 12% CO2 atmosphere was not breathable by animals, but ideal for photosynthesis, bringing forth millions of kinds of green plants. Carbon dioxide is not toxic, but it is suffocating and in the beginning the air had only eight percent oxygen which is not enough to support animal life.  The life cycle of plants produce oxygen from carbon dioxide so animals simply had to wait their turn. Our universe is one that exists with time on a scale such that every possible experiment with matter and energy will be done billions of times.  If anything is possible it will happen.  The question is not what, but when.  Animals simply had to wait their turn. 

            What you can imagine is, has or will happen somewhere in the universe.  Star Wars is a documentary film for some where and some when. We can tolerate up to 1.5% of CO2 in air, 15,000 parts per million.  12% is 120,000 parts per million.  A lot of time had to pass before oxygen breathing animals could live on Earth as the original atmosphere was only about eight percent oxygen.  Plants could afford to be cavalier in the acquiring the most critical component of their physiology, carbon.  Thus, an inefficient stomata design became a permanent part of the green plant architecture and why evolution has stuck on this point is a mystery.  

             Green plants flourished converting CO2 to oxygen and plant products.  They were so successful CO2 is only a trace gas in air today.  It is an endangered molecular species and bottomed at 280 parts per million in the 19th century. Industrial activity since 1900 has raised the CO2 level to 380 parts per million with good effects but in turn alarmed those who's success is predicated on promoting panic, politicians.

              There are 380 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in today’s air, 0.038%.  Green plants transpire huge quantities of water to keep stomata open exchanging water for the carbon dioxide they must have.   CO2 enters the stomata by chance as water vapor leaves.  CO2 is only one of every 2640 molecules in air, but it is favored to enter the plant as it is 54.2 times as soluble in water as oxygen and 73.5 times as soluble as nitrogen. But, the relationship between plants and CO2 in nature is ridiculous given carbon's importance to green plants.  We change that with SCAF technology.

More Food, Fiber and Wood

There are two reasons for improving green plant acquisition of carbon dioxide:  Increased production of food, fiber and wood plus water conserva-tion.  The United Nations declares water sourcing will be the leading world problem after 2010 and it is already high on the list.  New deserts are form-ing in areas that could be farmed with our systems and stop the decay to desert in the process.  We believe the development of SCAF technology will then be critical to maintaining world peace.  Nations go to war for what they need.  Reducing needs contributes to world peace.

“Aerial Fertilizer”

The textbooks and papers on carbon dioxide plant physiology call it an “aerial fertilizer” or “aerial food.”  None call for an underground use of the gas or its’ aqueous solution as fertilizer.  SCAF is new art.

           Authors Sturm and Tape (Nature 411:546-547) declare that from 1949 to 1999 average plant growth improved 10% in 52% of the 176 species examined in their study of the effects of increased CO2.  This is conserva-tive as other studies and experimental work show improvements on the order of 30% which agrees with the change in CO2 quantity.

             In the November 15, 2002 issue of National Geographic News author Peter S. Curtis, an Ohio State University scientist summarized 159 studies spanning 20 years and 79 species.  He claimed that while crop yields were increasing the quality of the crops was declining, but he did not include any analyses or data to document the claim.  He also noted that the quality of soybeans was unaffected which is interesting as soybeans are well-known as very demanding plants to grow.  If there were any quality issues they should have appeared in the culture and crop of soybeans.

          The low quality conclusion is in question as UN study graphs, like one below from climateresearch.com showing a universal improvement in crop yields that strongly correlate with the increase in aerial carbon dioxide and there is no noted loss in quality in any UN studies.

            The straight line of this data is exciting as it means no decrementing effects are seen in the system.  This further confirms the hypothesis that CO2 increases are positive.  The output here is increasing 4.57% for every 1% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  We can certainly increase this with direct application and absorption through roots.
            Corn harvests are up by factors of five to 10 from the 1930’s, in spite of corn being a C4 plant which had been thought not to be accepting of additional carbon dioxide.  Hybridization and genetic engineering have been done extensively with corn thus it is very difficult to gauge the effect of increased carbon dioxide alone.  Now with the new light on C4 plants it is likely that SCAF work with corn will get good results as one study with a C4 plant has shown a 50% improvement in an atmosphere with 700 ppm CO2.  And, where we are bringing CO2  in through the roots whatever differences there are in C3 and C4 plants acceptance of increased aerial carbon dioxide may not apply.

Aerial Fertilizer

Textbooks and papers on carbon dioxide plant physiology call it an “aerial fertilizer” or “aerial food.”  None call for an underground application of the gas or its’ aqueous solution as fertilizer.  SCAF is new art.  Plant science has overlooked the great success of humus in potting where soil is poor was largely due to the presence of organic matter and the production of carbon dioxide by the decay of the included organic matter.

    Authors Sturm and Tape (Nature 411:546-547) declare that from 1949 to 1999 average plant growth improved 10% in 52% of the 176 species examined in their study of the effects of increased CO2.  This is conservative as other studies and experimental work show up to 30% improvements.

In the November 15, 2002 issue of National Geographic News author Peter S. Curtis, an Ohio State University scientist summarized 159 studies spanning 20 years and 79 species.  He claimed that while crop yields were increasing the quality was declining, but he did not define "quality" and no one has reported similar results.  But, he also noted the quality of soybeans was unaffected.  Soy-beans are well known to be a very soil nutrient demanding crop.  The low quality conclusion is in question as UN studies result in graphs, like one below from climateresearch.com showing a universal improvement in crop yields that strongly correlate with the increase in aerial carbon dioxide and no observed loss in quality.  If anything the products of this new envi-ronment are larger, healthier and more abundant.

Corn harvests are up by factors of five to 10 from the 1930’s, in spite of corn being a C4 plant long thought not to respond to such changes.  But, hybridization and genetic engineering have been done extensively with corn so it is impossible to gauge the effect of increased carbon dioxide alone.  Now with the new light on C4 plants it is likely that SCAF work with corn will get similar excellent results. 

More Oranges       

In the literature increases in orange grove yields have been attributed to increases in airborne carbon dioxide speculatively, but rigorous studies have not been published.  From harvest data alone the correlation seems obvious, but more carefully controlled studies should be done.  Trees like the orange, pear, apple, etc. are very good candidates for our deep injection CO2 systems. We are confident they would conserve 20% to 50% of the water normally used as well as produce more fruit.  To get this kind of benefit from such a small input in terms of time and expense is unheard of in agriculture.

           Where carbon dioxide in greenhouses and experimental tents over many kinds of plants have been so successful increasing growth and harvest there should be no dispute that more of this nutrient gas is good for all of agriculture.  The absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide show water molecules are far better absorbers of infrared radiation than carbon dioxide.  Water molecules absorb four times as much IR from sunlight as do carbon dioxide molecules, but the elected class can tax carbon so they seek to demonize it and put “sin” taxes on it.

Aerial Carbon Metrics

Dried plants are 44% carbon with all of it coming from air. There is no carbon dioxide in ground water unless considerable humus or limestone is present.  And, in the latter case the water needs to have a low pH or be exposed to sunlight with the water. These are exceptional cases. With only 0.038% carbon dioxide in the air; green plants must process 1,157 pounds of air, or 18,512 cubic feet, to make every pound of sugar, starch, cellulose or wood.

      Carbon dioxide enters plants through small leaf valves called stomata, tiny donut-shaped valves guarding tiny alveoli-like (lung cell) leaf organs where CO2 diffuses into the plant’s circulatory system.  However, we have shown carbon dioxide may be better absorbed through roots where CO2 has been added to soil moisture.

   Stomata have been compared to our pores and sweat glands, but their function is not that of controlling temperature.  We conclude this from the fact that cacti and bromeliads have so few stomata and they are hot climate plants.  Green plants deal with high temperatures differently from animals, a fact long overlooked by science.  

          Given the differences in the solubility’s of nitrogen and oxygen compared to CO2 we see the stomata as a carbon acquisition port entirely and one powered by the evaporation of water. How it works is not fully understood, but a lot more water vapor goes out than CO2 comes in suggesting a swap of some kind.  It may be that in order to maintain permeability for incoming CO2 excess water must be lost. 

        We see stomata close when we supply CO2 through the roots.  The natural system of acquiring carbon from the atmosphere is grossly inefficient and we improve it greatly by putting CO2 in the soil's moisture.  In empirical tests we reduced transpiration 20% in small pots where water was also lost from open soil and the 20% reduction was very likely an underestimation of the effect.  Nonetheless there were spikes in the performance ranging to 30%, but a definitive experiment needs to be done.

      Cactus is the key to large water savings when we supply CO2 from the earth as cacti have very few and small stomata.  When we find the genetic code determining the number and size of stomata in grain plants and substitute the cactus code we will have a plant that will use substantially less water. It will rely on our supplying carbon dioxide from the earth.  Such plants will not be able to escape cultivation and affect the wild environment.  They will strangle in one generation of not being fed with underground CO2.  The concept that most transpired water is used by plants in exchange for air to capture carbon dioxide is new and guides our work.

Continue to A Far Better Source 

Table of Contents