Einsatz von Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Bruno Glaser Inhalt: Pflanzenkohle vs. Terra Preta Pfanzenkohle COST Action Ergebnisse Gewächshaus-Studien Ergebnisse Feldversuche Stand der Gesetzgebung Pflanzenkohle in der Tierhaltung Take home Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 1/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Terra Preta – a 2,000 years old soil experiment Amazonian Dark Earth Ferralsol Organic wastes (nutrient-rich) Food leftovers Biochar Litter Excrements Bones Microorganisms Incorporation of tremendous amounts of N and P (15 Mg ha -1) Incorporation of biochar (50 Mg ha-1) Microbial recycling (organic matter stabilization, mineralization) Relic of ancient settlements and concept of nutrient reycling Glaser et al. (2001) Naturwissenschaften 88: 37–41 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 2/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Terra Preta ≠ Pflanzenkohle Glaser and Birk (2012) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 82: 39-51 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 3/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Terra Preta ≠ Pflanzenkohle Glaser and Birk (2012) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 82: 39-51 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 3/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Modernes Terra Preta-Konzept Kreislaufwirtschaft e. g. PYREG Nutrientpoor Energy Biochar Sewage sludge Biomass residues Nutrient -rich Terra Preta analoga Manure Digestate Energy Biogas Biomass Soil Biochar Eruope (2010) Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 4/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Rolle der Pflanzenkohle Structure Porosity Condensed aromatics Functional groups Labile organic carbon Ash Ecosystem function Water storage C storage Nutrient storage Food for microbes Immediate fertilizer Biochar Eruope (2010) Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 5/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Biochar as option for sustainable resource management (TD1107) > 300 members from 28 + 3 countries Management committee: participating countries; steering committee: Action Chair / Vice Chair / WG manager, STSM manager, gender balance manager, external experts 1. Production & Characterisation 2. Land Use Management 3. Economic analysis & LCA 4. Environmental Impact Ring trial Greenhouse study Feedstocks Legislation basis Sample exchange Synergistic field trials Technology Biochar database Model scenarios Meta analysis Implementation Synthesis reports Review papers Method standardisation Best practice recipies What is biochar ? How to make it? How to use it ? Is it economic ? Is it efficient ? Heike Knicker (ES) Hans-Peter Schmidt (CH) Frank Verheijen (PT) Constanza Zavalloni (IT) Nele Ameloot (BE) Saran Sohi (UK) Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft How does it work? Is it save ? How to legalize and communicate? Ruben Sakrabani (UK) Jürgen Kern (DE) Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 6/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Soil properties (N=112) Mainly neutral soils with low organic carbon content Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 7/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Biochar effect on plant growth Some positive effects on aboveground biomass No negative effects on belowground biomass Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 8/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Biochar effect on plant-available water Soil moisture content (n = 21) Soil water potential (n = 14) Clearly positive effects on soil moisture content and soil water potential Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 9/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Biochar effect on nutrient availability N availability (n = 52) P availability (n = 15) Negative effects predominate in terms of nitrogen availability Positive effects predominate in terms of phosphorus availability Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 10/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Biochar field experiments across Europe Biochar amount Composting G Pyrochar vs. Hydrochar Best practice 500 km Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 11/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Biochar amount effect Brandenburg l Contro mpost o C 0 1 char 32.5 r 2 Bio 0 Biocha 32.5 4 0 r a h c -1 32.5 -1 dm ] Bio 5 32.5 [Mg ha 10 ost 20 p m o C r Biocha PhD thesis Hardy Schulz Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft 13 1 Naturwissenschaftliche 3 Fakultät III 12/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Agronomic yield Brandenburg 2009 - 2011 y = 0,041x + 0,8231 R2 = 0,8247 2010 y = 0,0083x + 0,9816 R2 = 0,6704 2011 y = 0,0201x + 0,9459 Linear R2 = 0,709 (2009) Linear (2010) Linear (2011) 2,00 2009 Relative plant growth 1,80 1,60 1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 Peas (2011) Rye (2010) Maize (2009) 0,40 0,20 0,00 0 5 10 15 20 25 Biochar [Mg ha -1] Up to 80% higher yield on sandy soil Liu et al 2012 J Plant Nutr Soil Sci DOI:10.1002/jpln.201100172 14 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 13/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home C sequestration Brandenburg 2009 - 2013 2013 2009 Detection limit > 5 Mg ha-1 > 4 years stable Problem: Heterogenity Liu et al 2012 J Plant Nutr Soil Sci DOI:10.1002/jpln.201100172, Müller (2013) Bachelor thesis MLU Halle 15 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 14/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Water storage under real conditions Brandenburg 2011 Bromm 2012 Bachelor Thesis MLU Halle 17 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 15/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Best practice biochar application (Wendland 2012) Glaser et al. (2015) Agron Sust Dev 35: 667-678 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 16/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Treatments Glaser et al. (2015) Agron Sust Dev 35: 667-678 19 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 17/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Maize yield (2012) Mineral fertilizer 12 Yield [Mg ha-1] 10 bc Compost b ab a ab ab 8 6 Fermented digestate Digestate a a a a 4 2 0 Positive biochar effect in most cases Glaser et al. (2015) Agron Sust Dev 35: 667-678 20 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 18/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Plant nutrients and heavy metal uptake (maize 2012) N P Ca K Mg Na Mn BC (1) + NPK s BC (40) + NPK s BC (1) + Dig. s BC (40) + Dig. BC (40) + Dig. + ferm. BC (10) + Compost s s s s s s Cu Ni s s s s s Cr s s s s s s Co Cd s s s s s s s s = significant (p < 0.05) Pb increase s s decrease Biochar enhanced nutrient uptake in most cases Biochar reduced heavy metal uptake in most cases Glaser et al. (2015) Agron Sust Dev 35: 667-678 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 19/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Biochar legal situation in Europe Voluntary labels: EBC, BQM, IBI Part of Ecolabel in: UK, Sweden Legal status in: Switzerland, Austria, Italy Current discussion on European Fertilizer Directive Current discussion on REACH No clear legal situation Already commercial use Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 20/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Biochar in animal production Historical use of charcoal in animal and human nutrition Very well known as useful for digestive disorders World-wide use of food additive in animal production (mostly as prevention) Positive effects Adsorption of organic molecules, especially less polar ones Adsorption of microorganisms and toxins => relevant for biogas digestates Higher nutrient use efficiency of most animals Negative effects Potential adverse effect of adsorption of vitamins and chemotherapeutics Legal status (EG) Nr. 68/2013 of EC from January 16, 2013 Product no. 7.13.1 (Pflanzliche Kohle [Holzkohle] as product of pyrolysis of plant biomass Product quality mandate: (EG) Nr. 178/2002, v.a. heavy metals, dioxins and furans Switzerland: Futterkohle as part of FIBL list for organic farming Schmidt et al. (2016) Ithaka Journal 95, 364-394 Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 21/22 Terra Preta ♦ Biochar ♦ COST Action ♦ Brandenburg ♦ Wendland ♦ Legality ♦ Animal production ♦ Take Home Take Home Erträge anfangs oder weniger Biochar asmehr option forgleich regional bio-based Vorteile der Pflanzenkohle-Substrate mit zunehmender Versuchsdauer Sonnenerde mit Abstand die höchsten Erträge circular economy Palaterra mit Abstand die niedrigsten Erträge Nährstoff-Speicherfähigkeit: Pflanzenkohle Interesting optionTorf for> NUTRIENT-POOR biomass Nährstoffe: Ca > K > Mg, Torf tendenziell abnehmend Use it only in combination with NUTRIENT-RICH Massenverluste +/- 10% 10-30% Humusverlust, keine eindeutigen Unterschiede organic material 1-5% stabiler Kohlenstoff (5-12% bezogen auf TOC) Auch enthält vergleichbareof Mengen stabilen Kohlenstoff !!! Torf 100% substitution mineral fertilizer possible Struktur vergleichbar, obwohl Torf ähnlich HTC-Kohle Pflanzenkohleprodukte höhere mibi DO NOT use more thanRückstände 20 tons bezogen per haauf at TOC once Alle Produkte bakteriendominiert Better fördert applyPilze small Pflanzenkohle !!! amount annually (e. g. 1 ton Offeneper Fragen: Langzeitverhalten, hectare and year)+/- Mulch, +/- Mykorrhiza Bruno Glaser Pflanzenkohle in der Landwirtschaft Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III 22/22
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
