# Micah Woods on the Carbon Fert Craze



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

See here: https://www.asianturfgrass.com/2018-05-31-is-carbon-the-next-frontier-in-fertilization/


----------



## Greendoc (Mar 24, 2018)

Most management practices performed on golf turf are done to deplete or remove organic matter.


----------



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

Greendoc said:


> Most management practices performed on golf turf are done to deplete or remove organic matter.


Most are, yes, to get the OM to a level where it is actually a net benefit rather than a net negative (in terms of water movement, disease pressure, playability, and weed pressure). While I agree that sulfur content, ammonical N, humic, fulvic, and other ingredients can benefit turf early in the season to get that dark green that is most commonly shown on websites (against neighbor's lawns who are still coming out of dormancy) I have not seen sufficient evidence that applying carbon is impactful unless the soil has very very low soil C.

I say this because, while many carbon products are marketed as 50% C, that is pretty insignificant when looking at a 6" soil profile as a whole. If we use the 2,000,000lbs = acre-foot of soil as a starting point, 6" acre would be 1,000,000 lbs of soil. Figure most urban soils are somewhere between 2-5% C so on the low end where a carbon product has the biggest impact we're at 20,000 lbs in an acre's top 6". Maybe you have a 5,000 sq ft lawn, so 20,000/8.712 = 2,295 lbs of carbon in the top 6" of that 5M lawn. 5M getting a high dose of 4lbs N/season with a popular 24-0-4 uses 16.67lbs fert/M/season. If that is 50% C that means we put down 8.33lbs of C/M. In the 5M lawn we put down 8.33*5= 41.67 lbs C. So by adding the carbon we changed the 6" profile from 2,295lbs to 2,336.67lbs or in other words we added 1.8% to what was already there. Now instead of having 2% soil C we have 2.03% soil C.

Good news, we only used 83.35lbs of fert for the year and at $25/bag if we did a group buy so we spent $41.67. If I ordered directly off the web I might be more in the $105-$120 range depending on S&H.

Personally, I feel like there is a lot of noise surrounding carbon products. Do they have some great components including biostimulants, micros, etc? Yes. Is carbon one of those great components? I think the jury is still out.


----------



## Greendoc (Mar 24, 2018)

In my soils, I need to also control OM content. It is very possible to create bog like conditions. Clay+too much OM=bog.


----------



## lawn dude (Dec 17, 2019)

I don't think Matt has ever claimed carbon is a fertilizer, in fact he has said its NOT a fertilizer. NPK is the foundation and probably always will be. He has also said not all carbon is created equal. He uses his a a carrier and to help retain nutrients to act as a slow release instead of relying on plastics.


----------



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

lawn dude said:


> I don't think Matt has ever claimed carbon is a fertilizer, in fact he has said its NOT a fertilizer. NPK is the foundation and probably always will be. He has also said not all carbon is created equal. He uses his a a carrier and to help retain nutrients to act as a slow release instead of relying on plastics.


I am not disputing that turf needs additional carbon from the soil, it gets C, O, and H primarily through the atmosphere. Where I struggle to connect with products marketed as "carbon-based" is that they often claim "Improved soil carbon levels" which I guess is technically true but that is like saying farting warms your home on a cold winter night.

I'd like to see legit trials of many of these carbon-based products against conventional programs or a good stabilized or poly-coated program. I see a lot of "look at this lawn next to an untreated lawn" which doesn't tell me much. As I said before, some of the components are great and a definite improvement over straight urea; however, I think the carbon element of it is overhyped, that is all.


----------



## lawn dude (Dec 17, 2019)

mowww said:


> lawn dude said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think Matt has ever claimed carbon is a fertilizer, in fact he has said its NOT a fertilizer. NPK is the foundation and probably always will be. He has also said not all carbon is created equal. He uses his a a carrier and to help retain nutrients to act as a slow release instead of relying on plastics.
> ...


My hunch would be you wouldn't see much visual difference. Basic NPK programs are very good. The questions would be, how much inputs are you using to achieve results? If you can use significantly less inputs with carbon than without, as the data suggests, thats a big win. Is there improvement with carbon sequestration? That would be a big win. Turf is under attack, our industry is under attack and we have to fight back. Turf is just as valuable a resource than forrest and natural prairie but for whatever reason it is not desired.


----------



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

lawn dude said:


> If you can use significantly less inputs with carbon than without, as the data suggests, thats a big win. Is there improvement with carbon sequestration? That would be a big win.


That's the data I am looking for: all other things equal, does the addition of carbon allow you to use significantly fewer inputs and still achieve the same results? All peer-reviewed data in ag and turf that I can find says no. If you have it, I would be interested in it to be shared so we can learn more about the topic.

Is there an improvement in carbon sequestration with the addition of a carbon-based product vs. a similar non-carbon-based product? I have not seen anything to support that either. Yes, we put down ~8lbs of C per 1,000 sq ft over the season, but in terms of the turf sequestering actual carbon purely by the addition of carbon, that one has not been proven. Adding N, P, K, humic, fulvic, and many of the other components improve turfgrass growth above and below ground - but I haven't seen the same for the addition of carbon at the rates we're talking about.

If our argument is based on net-carbon-sequestration then we need a better understanding of full C budget/lifecycle analysis to see whether trucking a bag of fertilizer several hundred miles offsets the 8lbs/1000 of C we're adding to the soil. We don't have that data either.

Can carbon-based products make the grass green? Yes. But it seems to be sold as a whole lot more and I don't see much to support that.


----------



## corneliani (Apr 2, 2019)

@mowww - What you are referring to when you say Carbon Fertilization in this thread? Are you considering urea in this category? Molasses?? Compost??? Or are you just referring to the charcoal form of carbon and its similar forms, specifically biochar. You mention fulvid and humic in your previous post which, if I understand basic chemistry, is comprised largely of carbon atoms.

I've been finding myself reading a lot on soil fertility and topics like these interest me.


----------



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

@corneliani Predominantly biochar.


----------



## lawn dude (Dec 17, 2019)

mowww said:


> lawn dude said:
> 
> 
> > If you can use significantly less inputs with carbon than without, as the data suggests, thats a big win. Is there improvement with carbon sequestration? That would be a big win.
> ...







Matts newest video on grass factor addresses some of this. Not all carbon is equal. But if the rhizosphere is seeing significant increase in mass then that is a indicator of more carbon storage. I think the numbers you are looking for will come soon, NC State is doing their study. As for the trucking, we would be trucking any fertilizer so to me that is a push unless it takes significantly more energy to produce these products.

I think we are going in the right direction and am glad someone is investing/taking the risks to find out if its a better way. Regardless there will be detractors, for whatever reason a lot of people don't want solutions to environmental concerns they want the problem to continue, probably for political motivations.


----------



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

@lawn dude I have watched his video and I am very familiar with the University of Minnesota's work on biochar. Where this is great in theory and in studies is where it is used at rates up to 10 tonnes/ha (4.45 tons/ac or 205lb/1000 sq ft). Even in further reading of a study Matt references in the journal Nature they list "low (0.5-2 t ha−1) biochar application rates" which means they are working with biochar rates between 446lb/ac-1,784lb/ac. On a 5M lawn that is 51.19lb-204lb of biochar. The big question is: is the amount of biochar we're putting down significant enough to constitute a change in turf?


----------



## Pete1313 (May 3, 2017)

mowww said:


> The big question is: is the amount of biochar we're putting down significant enough to constitute a change in turf?


I question that as well, and even a step further is surface applied biochar the correct spot? Or how beneficial is biochar on a heavier, higher OM native soil? I have recently been diving into some of the work that Dan Dinelli has done to North Shore Country Club where he mixed in biochar to the sand root zone mix during greens reconstruction. Some cool videos and a few podcasts on the subject as well if anyone is interested I could share them. His thinking is of the biochar being a better replacement to the typical peats used in reconstruction being needed below the rhizospere and in the original lower sand root zone mix that will lose that OM over time due to the peat breaking down and surface OM building up on top.


----------



## corneliani (Apr 2, 2019)

I'm going to wade into the deep end here with you as my knowledge on this is limited, so I hope you don't mind if some of my points are a bit elementary, but here goes.

The article's premise, summarized with the question "_Should we be applying carbon fertilizer? The answer is … no_" seems a bit ambiguous to me. Since a carbon-based fertilizer is essentially the introduction of organic matter into the soil profile in order to enhance/stimulate microbial activity, which then further encourages & increases the natural carbon cycle ... I don't see how the answer can be a blatant 'no'. The article states that plants are efficient absorbers of carbon, which I believe to be perfectly true (and thankfully so what with the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere) but the results of their trials - after isolating C and applying only the equivalent amount of macro & micronutrients resulting in similar amount of carbon in the plants with our without the addition of carbon - leaves me scratching my head a bit. Are we applying carbon-based fertilizers, ie organic matter, into the soil in order to force-feed the plant some deficient element? Or is the intent to feed the soil in order to reintroduce carbon back into it, more of a #getyoursoilright mindset (a-la Pete w/GCI).

We can argue that the carbon cycle introduces carbon into the soil on its own, naturally, and there's no need to amend the soil. I guess that depends on your soil and the circumstances, but if your aerating/tilling the soil on a regular basis (ie Agriculture) then you're losing some of that carbon component during the process. This is one of the arguments made by no-till farming, to let the soil and all of its microorganisms be in their current state without exposing them to air and water. For lawn & turf applications the argument is that salt-based nitrogen, over time, reduces the carbon component in soils despite the original thought that plant roots would re-supply then through their growth cycle. So that leaves a deficiency of carbon in the soil, and if we can take the recommended C:N ratios of 10:1 (in soils) and 25:1 (in compost) as a guide we can make our decisions accordingly and not write off the addition of carbon due to the plants own efficiency at capturing it, or its excess in the atmosphere. We add carbon to aid in soil fertility which then leads to the plant nutrient uptake, not to force-feed the plant directly.

Lastly, you mention that you're referring to char specifically as an introduced carbon source. There seems to be plenty of data out there for incorporating it into soil, with and without results. The soil seems to be the determining factor whether or not increased yields are visible due to its addition.. with sandy soils benefiting more than clay when it comes to nutrient retention, and clay soils benefiting from the addition of porous matter into its profile. The addition of biochar into lawn fertilizer seems to be not for the fertilizing value per-se but for the soil amending properties instead - allowing sandy soils to retain nutrients by limiting leaching, and creating air space in clay soils for increased tilth, etc. Together with the ability to 'house' any infused nutrients to create a gradual-release element seems to be a win-win, considering these sources are recycled/reused products to start with.

Now the question of whether or not carbon-based ferts (biochar included) have any value, especially in the amounts that we apply during our fertilizer applications, is a valid point and one I concur with you on. But if I have to choose between a traditional fertilizer (NPK and a bunch of filler) VS one that includes a carbon-component infused with macro + micronutrients I'll choose the latter every time, if simply for the hope & promise of what it can accomplish. What would I have to lose?


----------



## lawn dude (Dec 17, 2019)

mowww said:


> @lawn dude I have watched his video and I am very familiar with the University of Minnesota's work on biochar. Where this is great in theory and in studies is where it is used at rates up to 10 tonnes/ha (4.45 tons/ac or 205lb/1000 sq ft). Even in further reading of a study Matt references in the journal Nature they list "low (0.5-2 t ha−1) biochar application rates" which means they are working with biochar rates between 446lb/ac-1,784lb/ac. On a 5M lawn that is 51.19lb-204lb of biochar. The big question is: is the amount of biochar we're putting down significant enough to constitute a change in turf?


To my understanding, bio char is like humates or peat, is not gonna break down much if at all. What time frame do we have to apply to those rates? If you are putting it out 6x a year at 4lbs m, then in 3-4 years you'll be close to the 50lb m.


----------



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

corneliani said:


> What would I have to lose?


Money, possibly. That is why I ask the questions.


----------



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

Pete1313 said:


> mowww said:
> 
> 
> > The big question is: is the amount of biochar we're putting down significant enough to constitute a change in turf?
> ...


That's a great question. Looking forward to NCSU data if that is conducted as others mentioned.

On Dan Dinelli- Ditto, very interesting to follow.


----------



## corneliani (Apr 2, 2019)

mowww said:


> corneliani said:
> 
> 
> > What would I have to lose?
> ...


If the group-buy option remains going into next year (which I sincerely doubt) then cost isn't an issue. But at the DIY rate your point is well made. No way I'd pay double per bag just for the added char.
:roll: :|


----------



## osuturfman (Aug 12, 2017)

A few points here:


Micah Woods was simply blogging about work carried out by Dr. Bryan Hopkins at BYU. I had the chance to attend a seminar and meet with Dr. Hopkins this past January on this very topic. What I came away with was his intent to examine the behavior and response of plants to supplemental C apps. It was not intended to look at plant responses to C as a soil amendment, whether that be via over-the-top apps or as a component of an engineered rootzone. That said, there have been folks who have looked at alternative "Carbon-based" amendments to engineered rootzones, including biochar.

 Over-the-top apps to amend the soil, with any type of product or mineral, is typically going to take many years to really move the needle. "Nothing happens quickly in agriculture except crop failure" is an axiom for a reason. The science suggests it takes a large volume to see a true response but, we must also take into account what is reasonable and practical to apply to a home lawn on an annual basis. It would/should take years to hit the volumes outlined in the Nature article. I wouldn't recommend someone attempt to hit those numbers by using a fertilizer with biochar as a standalone source. Rather, these products serve to get "some" biochar out in between bulk applications.

The research on engineered rootzones is pretty clear: at v/v concentrations between 5-10% biochar increases root depth and mass due in large part to increasing plant available water and reducing soil bulk density. Go above 10% and it begins to slow down percolation rates in sand-based systems because it holds too much water. It is reasonable to predict that the critical volume in a heavier soil is slightly higher due to the biochar reducing bulk density and actually increasing percolation. So all things considered, there's a benefit to using biochar in particular, however, it's blended above ground, installed, and then grown in for these purposes.

One other facet that needs to be quantified through research is how best to predict the performance of different biochars with respect to raw materials, production methods, and plant response. Just like other C sources, including humic acid products, not all are created or defined equally.

 The true application of biochar products really is taking the place of compost applications. While composts are readily available in most locales, they also present challenges with nutrient and metal load (P in particular), potential "pollutants" in the way of pharmaceuticals and other waste products, and dealing with those two issues as applications are repeated year after year. Biochar offers a more controlled source of C amendment. With that control comes added production and logistics costs.

 I can say from experience one could do just fine with a traditional fertilizer program. That said, there's enough information out there to have a reasonable expectation that biochar products do in fact move the needle *IF* deployed correctly. 

So what does that all mean? Biochar is another tool in the box. So if you try to use a hammer as a screwdriver you're going to get pretty pissed off rather quickly.


----------



## thegrassfactor (Apr 12, 2017)

mowww said:


> @lawn dude I have watched his video and I am very familiar with the University of Minnesota's work on biochar. Where this is great in theory and in studies is where it is used at rates up to 10 tonnes/ha (4.45 tons/ac or 205lb/1000 sq ft). Even in further reading of a study Matt references in the journal Nature they list "low (0.5-2 t ha−1) biochar application rates" which means they are working with biochar rates between 446lb/ac-1,784lb/ac. On a 5M lawn that is 51.19lb-204lb of biochar. The big question is: is the amount of biochar we're putting down significant enough to constitute a change in turf?


1. The purpose of our products is to offer a unique method to deliver nutrients. Instead of relying on plastics, polymers, or vinyl coatings, homogenizing NPK with a percentage of char that's been through densification (co-composting) and compost (poultry manure), allows for altered, extended release characteristics (as observed in the studies).

2. The biochar will not change the turf. NPK affects turf. Genetics affect turf. Biochar alters the amounts and types of exchange sites available around the NPK.

3. The position you may have never been in, and forgive me if my assumption is inaccurate, is having a customer whose lawn you maintain accuse you of destroying the environment. And then slander your business across community social media groups causing serious lost revenue. But what if you had a product that checked ticks, *no plastics *reduced rates *contains natural ingredients, and support from the manufacturer to go to bat for said applicator to those communities to explain how this applicator is doing their part to improve the environment (BMPs, products, methods, etc), then it's a win. This may not be you and as such, you may not be our target market. But especially over the last year, we've been watching it happen at alarming rates and those are the people were really trying to help because oddly enough they're truly the ones who give the strongest care about what they're doing.

Edit:

Studies for reading:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-017-1399-7

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953418301715


----------



## mowww (Jan 16, 2018)

@thegrassfactor thank you for the response.


----------



## corneliani (Apr 2, 2019)

osuturfman said:


> A few points here:
> 
> 
> Micah Woods was simply blogging about work carried out by Dr. Bryan Hopkins at BYU. I had the chance to attend a seminar and meet with Dr. Hopkins this past January on this very topic. What I came away with was his intent to examine the behavior and response of plants to supplemental C apps. It was not intended to look at plant responses to C as a soil amendment, whether that be via over-the-top apps or as a component of an engineered rootzone. That said, there have been folks who have looked at alternative "Carbon-based" amendments to engineered rootzones, including biochar.





Thanks for the added insight into the article and intent of the study. It helps to understand the stated conclusions when you have the background. I was a bit confused by just reading the excerpt. :thumbup: Your other points were likewise spot on. Thanks for chiming in.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

thegrassfactor said:


> 3. The position you may have never been in, and forgive me if my assumption is inaccurate, is having a customer whose lawn you maintain accuse you of destroying the environment.


Very good topic and responses here. I think this is the key, what Matt just said above...there are big problems with both perceived and possibly actual environmental impact from various types of turf products, and some in the industry are working to reduce this impact through whatever means are possible.

Makes me wonder, do the polymer coatings or shells contribute to micro plastics and/or polymeric chemicals in the environment to a substantial degree? Or do they get fully broken down quickly, unlike most regular plastics? I've heard both claimed. I've never found empty shells of plastic when digging, but that doesn't mean they might not be there for decades...always wondered this.


----------



## lawn dude (Dec 17, 2019)

Green said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> > 3. The position you may have never been in, and forgive me if my assumption is inaccurate, is having a customer whose lawn you maintain accuse you of destroying the environment.
> ...


My understanding is microbes break the polymers down relatively quickly, like microbes do a lot of things. Perception > Reality. The benefit of carbon carriers would be you are actually adding beneficial material to the soil where as with polymers its neutral.


----------



## dman (Nov 5, 2019)

The article seems to be saying that the carbon is used by the plant....from my understanding the use of carbon is to improve the soil not feed the plant.


----------

