US Patent 5,451,242 “Active synthetic soil”

Inventors:
Douglas W. Ming;
Donald L. Henninger, both of Houston, Tex.;
Earl R. Allen, Stillwater, Okla.;
Dadigamuwage C. Golden, Houston, Tex.

The United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960002225/downloads/19960002225.pdf

19960002225

ABSTRACT

A synthetic soil/fertilizer for horticultural application having all the agronutrients essential for plant growth is disclosed. The soil comprises a synthetic apatite fertilizer having sulfur, magnesium and micronutrients dispersed in a calcium phosphate matrix, a zeolite cation exchange medium saturated with a charge of potassium and nitrogen cations, and an optional pH buffer. Moisture dissolves the apatite and mobilizes the nutrient elements from the apatite matrix and the zeolite charge sites.

Several notable innovations related to the development of a new type of fertilizer.

Here are some of the key innovations mentioned:

Synthetic Apatite Fertilizer

The primary innovation is the creation of a synthetic apatite fertilizer that combines the benefits of both apatite and zeolite minerals. This fertilizer is designed to provide a slow-release source of nutrients while also improving soil properties.

Micronutrient Substitution

The synthetic apatite is innovatively substituted with various micronutrients, such as zinc, iron, manganese, magnesium, and copper. This substitution allows for the controlled release of these essential micronutrients along with the primary nutrients (phosphorus and calcium) found in apatite.

Ion Exchange Properties

The fertilizer incorporates zeolite, which has unique ion exchange properties. This allows the fertilizer to:

  1. Retain nutrients in the soil, reducing leaching
  2. Slowly release nutrients as plants require them
  3. Potentially improve soil water retention

Customizable Formulations

The patent describes methods for creating customized fertilizer formulations by adjusting:

  • The ratio of apatite to zeolite
  • The types and amounts of micronutrients substituted into the apatite structure
  • The specific type of zeolite used (e.g., clinoptilolite, chabazite, mordenite)

This allows for the creation of tailored fertilizers for specific crops or soil conditions.

Environmentally Friendly Approach

The innovation aims to reduce environmental impact by:

  1. Minimizing nutrient runoff and groundwater contamination
  2. Potentially reducing the frequency of fertilizer applications
  3. Utilizing natural minerals (zeolites) in combination with synthetic apatites
  4. Potential for Space Agriculture

Interestingly, the patent mentions potential applications in space agriculture, suggesting that this fertilizer technology could be useful for growing plants in extraterrestrial environments with limited resources.

These innovations collectively represent a significant advancement in fertilizer technology, aiming to improve nutrient delivery efficiency while reducing environmental impact.

While the patent doesn’t introduce entirely new technologies in the traditional sense, it does present several innovative approaches and combinations that could be considered groundbreaking in the field of fertilizer development and agricultural technology. Here are some of the most significant aspects:

Synthetic Micronutrient-Substituted Apatites

The creation of synthetic apatites with substituted micronutrients is a key innovation. This technology allows for the precise control of nutrient composition and release, which is a significant advancement over traditional fertilizers.

Zeolite-Apatite Combination

The combination of synthetic apatites with natural zeolites creates a unique fertilizer system that leverages the benefits of both materials. This synergistic approach is novel and potentially groundbreaking in its ability to control nutrient release and retention.

Controlled Release Mechanism

The patent describes a sophisticated controlled release mechanism that utilizes the natural properties of both apatites and zeolites. This system allows for the gradual dissolution of nutrients based on plant needs and environmental conditions, which is a significant improvement over conventional fertilizers.

Customizable Nutrient Profiles

The ability to tailor the nutrient profile of the fertilizer by adjusting the composition of the synthetic apatite and the choice of zeolite is a flexible and innovative approach to fertilizer design.

Potential for Extraterrestrial Agriculture

While not fully developed in the patent, the mention of potential applications in space agriculture suggests a forward-thinking approach to fertilizer technology that could be groundbreaking for future space exploration and colonization efforts.

Environmental Impact Reduction

The technology’s focus on reducing nutrient leaching and improving soil water retention represents a groundbreaking approach to addressing major environmental concerns associated with traditional fertilizers.

While these technologies may not be entirely new in isolation, their combination and application in this specific context represent a potentially groundbreaking approach to fertilizer development. The patent leverages existing knowledge of mineral properties and combines them in novel ways to create a more efficient and environmentally friendly fertilizer system.

The patent discusses several aspects related to cations in the context of the fertilizer system it describes. Here are the key points about cations mentioned in the patent:

Cation Exchange Capacity

The patent emphasizes the importance of the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of zeolites, which is a crucial feature of the fertilizer system. Zeolites have a high CEC, allowing them to hold and exchange various cations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fJojcqF978

Specific Cations

The patent mentions several specific cations that are involved in the fertilizer system:

  1. Ammonium (NH4+) : This cation is particularly important as it can be exchanged with other cations in the zeolite structure.
  2. Potassium (K+) : Mentioned as one of the essential plant nutrients that can be held by the zeolite.
  3. Calcium (Ca2+) : A major component of the apatite structure and an important plant nutrient.
  4. Magnesium (Mg2+) : Listed as one of the micronutrients that can be substituted into the apatite structure.
  5. Zinc (Zn2+) ,  Iron (Fe2+/Fe3+) ,  Manganese (Mn2+) , and  Copper (Cu2+) : These are mentioned as micronutrients that can be incorporated into the apatite structure.

Cation Exchange Process

The patent describes how the zeolite component of the fertilizer can exchange cations with the surrounding soil solution. This process allows for the retention and slow release of nutrient cations.

Ammonium Exchange

A specific focus is placed on the ability of zeolites to exchange ammonium ions. This is highlighted as a beneficial feature for nitrogen retention in the soil.

Cation Selectivity

The patent notes that different zeolites have varying selectivities for different cations. This property can be used to tailor the fertilizer for specific nutrient needs.

pH Effect on Cation Exchange

The document mentions that the cation exchange properties of the fertilizer system can be influenced by soil pH, which affects the dissolution of the apatite component and the availability of cations.

This comprehensive approach to managing cations through the combination of synthetic apatites and natural zeolites is a key innovation of the fertilizer system described in the patent.

The patent mentions several specific cations in the context of the fertilizer system it describes. Here’s a list of the cations explicitly mentioned:

  1. Ammonium (NH4+)
  2. Potassium (K+)
  3. Calcium (Ca2+)
  4. Magnesium (Mg2+)
  5. Zinc (Zn2+)
  6. Iron (Fe2+/Fe3+)
  7. Manganese (Mn2+)
  8. Copper (Cu2+)
  9. Sodium (Na+)

These cations are mentioned in various contexts within the patent:

Nutrient Cations

Calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, manganese, and copper are discussed as important plant nutrients that can be incorporated into the synthetic apatite structure of the fertilizer.

Exchange Cations

Ammonium and potassium are highlighted for their role in the cation exchange processes within the zeolite component of the fertilizer.

Structural Cations

Calcium is a key structural component of the apatite mineral.

Competing Cations

Sodium is mentioned as a cation that can compete with other nutrient cations in the zeolite’s exchange sites.

The patent emphasizes the importance of these cations in the overall functionality of the fertilizer system, particularly in terms of nutrient provision and the controlled release mechanism facilitated by the zeolite’s cation exchange properties.

Based on the information provided in the patent and the search results, the cations mentioned in the patent contribute significantly to the overall efficiency of the fertilizer technology in several ways:

  1. Nutrient Provision: The patent mentions calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), zinc (Zn2+), iron (Fe2+/Fe3+), manganese (Mn2+), and copper (Cu2+) as important plant nutrients[4]. These cations are incorporated into the synthetic apatite structure, allowing for their controlled release to plants.
  2. Controlled Release Mechanism: The zeolite component of the fertilizer has a high cation exchange capacity (CEC) [1] https://nutrien-ekonomics.com/news/cation-exchange-and-its-role-in-soil-fertility/ [6] https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/soils/guides/soil-nutrients-and-fertilisers/cec. This allows it to hold onto positively charged nutrient cations and release them slowly, improving nutrient use efficiency and reducing leaching.
  3. Ammonium Retention: The patent specifically mentions ammonium (NH4+) as an important cation. Zeolites have a high affinity for ammonium, which helps retain nitrogen in the soil and reduce losses [4] https://www.holganix.com/blog/what-is-cation-exchange-capacity [7] https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C1040&title=cation-exchange-capacity-and-base-saturation.
  4. Potassium Availability: Potassium (K+) is mentioned as another essential nutrient. The zeolite’s ability to hold and exchange potassium improves its availability to plants [6] https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/soils/guides/soil-nutrients-and-fertilisers/cec [7] https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C1040&title=cation-exchange-capacity-and-base-saturation.
  5. Soil pH Management: The balance of basic cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+) and acidic cations (H+, Al3+) held by the zeolite can influence soil pH [7] https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C1040&title=cation-exchange-capacity-and-base-saturation[8] https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/mauisoil/c_relationship.aspx.
    This can help maintain optimal pH for nutrient availability.
  6. Customizable Nutrient Ratios: The ability to adjust the ratios of different cations in the fertilizer allows for customization based on specific crop needs or soil conditions [9] https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ay/ay-238.html .
  7. Micronutrient Delivery: The incorporation of micronutrient cations like Zn2+, Fe2+/Fe3+, Mn2+, and Cu2+ into the apatite structure provides a mechanism for slow release of these essential elements [4] https://www.holganix.com/blog/what-is-cation-exchange-capacity.
  8. Reduced Environmental Impact: By holding onto cations more effectively, the fertilizer system reduces nutrient leaching, which can decrease environmental pollution [1] https://nutrien-ekonomics.com/news/cation-exchange-and-its-role-in-soil-fertility/  [5] https://www.permaculturenews.org/2016/10/19/soils-cation-exchange-capacity-effect-soil-fertility/.
  9. Improved Soil Structure: The exchange of cations can contribute to better soil structure, particularly in clay soils, which can improve water retention and root penetration [6] https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/soils/guides/soil-nutrients-and-fertilisers/cec.
  10. Long-term Fertility: The high CEC of the zeolite component allows for a “banking” of nutrients, providing a more stable and long-lasting source of fertility.

By combining the cation-holding capacity of zeolites with the nutrient-rich composition of synthetic apatites, the patent describes a system that efficiently manages various cations for improved plant nutrition and soil health. This contributes to the overall efficiency of the technology by providing better nutrient retention, controlled release, and reduced environmental impact compared to conventional fertilizers.

Here are the citations presented in the patent, with links where available:

  1. Barbarick et al., “Response of Sorghum-sudangrass in Soils Amended with Phosphate Rock and NH4-exchanged Zeolite (Clinoptilolite)” Technical Bulletin, Colorado State Univ., Jun. 1988.
    http://ccp14.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/ccp/ccp14/ftp-mirror/mudmaster-galoper/pub/ddeberl/EberlPapers/ExchangeFertilizer/ExFertYield.pdf
  2. Casey et al., “Leaching of Mineral and Glass Surfaces During Dissolution,” Reviews in Mineralogy, Hochella, Jr. et al editors, vol. 23, pp. 397-426 (1990)
  3. Chesworth et al., “Solubility of Apatite in Clay and Zeolite Bearing Systems: Application to Agriculture,” Applied Clay Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 291-297 (1987)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0169131787900384

  1. Golden, “Synthetic Micronutrient-Substituted Apatites as Direct Application Fertilizers,” Agronomy Abstracts, 1991 Annual Meeting, Oct. 27-Nov. 1, p. 365 (1991)
  2. Ming, “Fertilization of Mineral Dissolution and Ion Exchange,” Agronomy Abstracts, 1991, Annual Meeting, Oct 27-Nov. 1, p. 367 (1991).
  3. Ming et al., Space 92: The Third International Conference on Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space, Sadeh et al., editors, pp. 1709-1719 (1992).
  4. Resseler et al., “Preparation and use of 33P Labelled Carbonate Fluoroapatite in Studies on the Effect of Phosphate Rock Containing Fertilizers,” Z. Pflanzer- nernahr, Bodenk., 152:325-332 (1989)
  5. Smith et al., “An X-Ray Investigation of Carbonate Apatites,” Journal of Agricultural Food Chemicals, pp. 342-349 (1966)
  6. Van Vlack, Elements of Materials Science, Second Edition, pp. 74-79 (1966)
  7. Caro et al., Journal of Agriculture Food Chemistry, 4:684-687, 1956.
  8. McClelan et al., American Mineralogist, 54:1374-1391., Sep. 1969.
  9. Ming et al., “Fertilization by Mineral dissolution and Ion-Exchange,” Agronomy Abstracts, Soil Science Division, Oct. 27-Nov. 1, 1991.
  10. Resseler et al., Fertilizer Research, 20:135-143. 1989
  11. Ming, Lunar Base Agriculture: Soils for Plant Growth, Madison Wis.:ASA-CSSA-SSSA, pp. 93-105, 1989.
  12. MacKown et al., Soil Science Society American Journal, 49:235-238, 1985.
  13. Pirella et al., Zeo-Agriculture: Use of Natural Zeolites in Agriculture and Aquaculture, Pond et al., (ed.) Boulder Colo.: Westview Press, 1983.
  14. Ferguson et al., Soil Science Society American Journal, 51:231-234, 1987.
  15. Allen et al., Agronomy Abstracts, Soil Science Division S-2—Soil Chemistry, Nov. 27-Dec. 2, 1988.
  16. Parham, Zeo-Agriculture: Use of natural Zeolites in Agriculture and Aquaculture, Pond et al., (ed.) Boulder Colo.: Westview Press, 1983.
  17. Lewis et al., Zeo-Agriculture: Use of Natural Zeolites in Agriculture and Aquaculture, Pond et al., (ed.) Boulder Colo.: Westview Press, 1983.
  18. Chesworth et al., Applied Clay Science, 2:291-297, 1987.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0169131787900384

  1. Barbarick et al., Colorado State University Technical Bulletin, TB88-1, 1988.
  2. Iskenderov et al., Occurance, Properties and Utilization of Natural Zeolites, Kallo’ et al., (ed.), Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, pp. 717-720, 1988.
  3. Ferguson et al., Agronomy Journal, 78:1095-1098, 1986.
  4. Lai et al., Zeolites 6:129-132, 1986.
  5. Hersey et al., Horticulture Science, 15:87-89, 1980.
  6. Weber, Journal of Environmental Quality 12:549-552, 1983.

The inventors of US Patent 5,451,242 “Active synthetic soil” are:

  1. Douglas W. Ming
  2. Donald L. Henninger
  3. Dadigamuwage C. Golden
  4. Carlton C. Allen

Based on the search results provided, Dr. Douglas W. Ming is involved in several significant projects at NASA:

  1. Mars Science Laboratory Mission (Curiosity)

– Ming is currently a science team member and co-investigator for the Curiosity rover mission [1] https://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/people/bios/douglas-w-ming/  [2] https://ksre.k-state.edu/tuesday/announcement/?id=87356 .

– His research focuses on characterizing the mineralogy, geochemistry, and aqueous alteration history of sedimentary rocks in Gale crater on Mars [2] https://ksre.k-state.edu/tuesday/announcement/?id=87356 .

  1. Previous Mars Missions

– He was a science team member on the Mars Exploration Rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) .

– Ming was a co-investigator for the 2007 Mars Phoenix Scout mission.

– He was also a science team member of the 1998 Mars Polar Lander Mission

  1. Astromaterials Research

– Ming works within the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) Division at the Johnson Space Center [1] https://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/people/bios/douglas-w-ming/ .

– He specializes in Mars surface geochemistry and mineralogy [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID9Yergj2TU .

  1. Analog Studies

– Ming is involved in characterizing short-range order/X-ray amorphous phases in terrestrial soils/sediments as analogs for similar materials discovered on Mars [2] https://ksre.k-state.edu/tuesday/announcement/?id=87356 .

– He conducts experimental studies on the formation of phyllosilicates under acidic environmental conditions as an analog for Martian conditions.

  1. Publications and Research

– Ming has published over 180 peer-reviewed articles [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID9Yergj2TU .

– He has contributed to numerous studies on topics such as clay mineral diversity on Mars, sulfur isotope fractionations in Martian sediments, and redox stratification of ancient lakes on Mars[1] https://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/people/bios/douglas-w-ming/ .

  1. Lunar Base Research

– Earlier in his career, Ming was involved in research related to applications of special-purpose minerals at a lunar base, including the potential use of zeolites, smectites, and tobermorites for life support systems [5] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930004787 .

These projects demonstrate Dr. Ming’s extensive involvement in planetary science, particularly in Mars exploration and the study of soil and mineral compositions on other celestial bodies.

Carlton C. Allen:

  1. Carlton C. Allen has been involved in NASA research, particularly in areas related to lunar and planetary science [7] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=lunar+base+synthesis+study [8] https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/directory/allen-carlton/index.html .
  2. He was affiliated with Lockheed Corp. in Houston, TX, and has worked on projects related to lunar base studies [7] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=lunar+base+synthesis+study .
  3. Allen has been involved in astrobiology research projects at NASA, including:

– Archean Biosignatures

– Terrestrial Analogs and Martian Meteorites

– Organic Biosignatures [8] https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/directory/allen-carlton/index.html

While this information doesn’t directly address other patents, it suggests that Carlton C. Allen has been involved in various NASA research projects that could potentially lead to patentable innovations. However, without more specific search results, I cannot confirm any other patents held by these inventors.

Glyphosate Harms Mycology and Earthworm Populations

What role do earth worms play in productive soil life?

A great video about the role of earth worms and their gut bacteria on feeding microbes that help fix nitrogen in soils.

What are humans doing to harm Mycology and Earthworm Populations?

    Humans are harming the soil by:

  • Watering their lawn with tap water high in cholorine with little to no living microbes.
  • Using Round Up to “manage weeds”
  • Using Nitrogen only Fertizlers without microbes to “fertilize their lawns.”

“A profound shift in bacterial populationswas observed in all exposed earthworms with Proteobacteria becoming the dominant phylum. Affected bacteria were mostly from the genus Enterobacter, Pantoea and Pseudomonas, which together represented approximately 80 % of the total abundance assigned at the genus level in exposed earthworms, while they were present at a minor abundance (∼1%) in unexposed earthworms.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750021000627

Glyphosate is the main igredient of Round Up, a Monsanto product. Monsanto is owned by Bayer Chemical Company.

“Our findings indicated reduced species number, density and biomass of earthworms, and increased net carbon mineralization rate in plots with GBH. The plots managed with glyphosate presented a negative effect on the earthworm parameters measured, and we conclude that the earthworms therefore acted as indicators of perturbation. It is also possible that this effect could be due to factors unrelated to the glyphosate that were not considered in this study, such as chemical fertilization or legume litter spatial variability, among others.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929139313002382

Both Nitrogen only fertilizers without microbes, with salt cystals as the main medium to prevent microbal growth produced by Bayer, as well as Round Up are contributing to the decline of life activity in our soils world wide.

“We found that herbicides significantly decreased root mycorrhization, soil AMF spore biomass, vesicles and propagules. Herbicide application and earthworms increased soil hyphal biomass and tended to reduce soil water infiltration after a simulated heavy rainfall. Herbicide application in interaction with AMF led to slightly heavier but less active earthworms. Leaching of glyphosate after a simulated rainfall was substantial and altered by earthworms and AMF. These sizeable changes provide impetus for more general attention to side-effects of glyphosate-based herbicides on key soil organisms and their associated ecosystem services.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05634?origin=ppub

Farmers Can Add Activated BioChar to Open Fields for Erosion Control

What type of Carbon is best to Capture?

“Carbon isn’t a difficult element to spot in your daily life. For instance, if you’ve used a pencil, you’ve seen carbon in its graphite form. Similarly, the charcoal briquettes on your barbeque are made out of carbon, and even the diamonds in a ring or necklace are a form of carbon (in this case, one that has been exposed to high temperature and pressure). What you may not realize, though, is that about 18% of your body (by weight) is also made of carbon. In fact, carbon atoms make up the backbone of many important molecules in your body, including proteins, DNA, RNA, sugars, and fats.

These complex biological molecules are often called macromolecules; they’re also classified as organic molecules, which simply means that they contain carbon atoms. (Notably, there are a few exceptions to this rule. For example, carbon dioxide CO2 and carbon monoxide CO contain carbon, but generally aren’t considered to be organic.)” – Carbon and hydrocarbons | Khan Academy

The carbon capture that benefits the earth, environment, and humans the most is to capture both CO and CO2, but they both have several options in attaining that goal. The methodology contained herein focuses on the capture of Carbon Dioxide CO2 and storing it in soils.

Putative structure of charcoal from Verheijen et al 2010
Putative structure of charcoal from Verheijen et al 2010

Carbon Sequestration Explained

“Carbon sequestration can mean capturing the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced from new and old coal-powered power plants and large industrial sources before it is released in the atmosphere. Once captured, the CO2 is put into long term storage either by storing it in carbon sinks (such as oceans, forests or soils) or underground injection and geologic sequestration into deep underground rock formations.
“Developing technologies to reduce the rate of increase of atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) from annual emissions of 8.6 Pg C yr–1from energy, process industry, land-use conversion and soil cultivation is an important issue of the twenty-first century. Of the three options of reducing the global energy use, developing low or no-carbon fuel and sequestering emissions, this manuscript describes processes for carbon (CO2) sequestration and discusses abiotic and biotic technologies. Carbon sequestration implies transfer of atmospheric CO2 into other long-lived global pools including oceanic, pedologic, biotic and geological strata to reduce the net rate of increase in atmospheric CO2. Engineering techniques of CO2 injection in deep ocean, geological strata, old coal mines and oil wells, and saline aquifers along with mineral carbonation of CO2 constitute abiotic techniques. These techniques have a large potential of thousands of Pg, are expensive, have leakagerisks and may be available for routine use by 2025 and beyond. In comparison, biotic techniques are natural and cost-effective processes, have numerous ancillary benefits, are immediately applicable but have finite sink capacity. Biotic and abiotic C sequestration options have specific nitches, are complementary, and have potential to mitigate the climate change risks.” Carbon sequestration by Rattan Lal

A forest is considered to be a carbon sink if the trees in it absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases. Carbon dioxide is a vital gas. It is necessary for photosynthesis. Carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

During photosynthesis, trees and plants “sequester,” or absorb, carbon from the atmosphere in the form of CO2, and turn water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar called glucose. Trees take in carbon dioxide from the air and store it as carbon in forest biomass, that is, trunks, branches, roots and leaves, in dead organic matter like litter and dead wood and in soils. This process of carbon absorption and deposition is known as carbon sequestration.” – Rinkesh Kukreja Conserve Energy Future

Types of Carbon Sequestration

1. Biological Carbon Sequestration

This, roughly, is the storage of carbon dioxide in vegetation like grasslands and forests, as well as in soils and oceans.

In soils: carbon can be sequestered in soil by plants through photosynthesis. As such, agroecosystems degrade and deplete the soil organic carbon levels. Luckily, soil can also store carbon as carbonates, created over thousands of years when carbon dioxide dissolves in water and percolates the soil. The carbonates are inorganic and can store carbon for tens of thousands of years while soil organic matter stores carbon for a few decades.

Carbon is the main component of the organic matter that makes fertile agricultural soil. It also helps the soil retain water. Plants are the primary way that CO2 is transferred to soil. Not all of the CO2 that plants suck up for photosynthesis is needed for food. The excess goes down through their roots and feeds organisms that live in the soil. Carbon from the roots and leaves of dying plants is also captured in soil.

2. Geological Carbon Sequestration

This is where carbon dioxide is stored in underground geologic formations, such as in rocks. Industrial sources of carbon dioxide such as steel or cement production companies or energy-related sources like power plants or natural gas processing facilities will release their carbon dioxide, which is then injected into porous rocks for long-term storage. Such carbon capture and storage allows the use of fossil fuels until a substitute energy source is introduced on a large scale

3. Technological Carbon Sequestration

This is a relatively new way of capturing and storing carbon dioxide and continues to be explored by scientists. The method uses innovative technologies, which means scientists are also looking into more ways of using carbon dioxide as a resource rather than removing it from the atmosphere and directing it elsewhere.

  1. Graphene production: technology is being used to produce graphene from carbon dioxide as its raw material. Graphene is a technological material, used to create screens for smartphones and other technological devices. Its production is limited to specific industries but if carbon can be used to make more of the product, it might be a viable resource and an effective solution in reducing carbon’s emissions from the atmosphere.
  2. Engineered molecules: scientists are engineering molecules that can take new shapes by creating new compounds capable of singling out and capturing carbon dioxide from the air. These engineered molecules act as filters and only attract the element they are engineered to seek.
  3. Direct air capture (DAC): this is a means of capturing carbon dioxide from the air using advanced technology plants. The plants would seek to capture carbon dioxide from the air as the artificial ones do. It is an effective technological method of sequestrating carbon but it has its challenges. The project is energy-intensive and is also expensive to implement on a mass scale. It is estimated that between $500 and $800 is required for every ton of carbon removed.

4. Industrial Carbon Sequestration

This is not a widely renowned method, but it can be used in some industries. They capture the carbon in three ways from a power plant, pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxyfuel

  1. Pre-combustion: the carbon is captured in power plants before the fuel is burned. The aim is to remove the carbon from coal before it is burned. The coal is reacted with oxygen to produce synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases. The hydrogen is removed and either burned directly as fuel or compressed and stored in fuel-cell cars. Water is then added to the carbon monoxide to make carbon dioxide which is then stored and the extra hydrogen is stored with the hydrogen previously removed
  2. Post-combustion: here, carbon is removed from a power station’s output after the fuel has been burned. This means waste gases are captured and scrubbed clean of their carbon dioxide before they travel up smokestacks. This is achieved by passing the gases through ammonia, which is then blasted clean with steam, releasing carbon dioxide for storage.
  3. Oxyfuel or oxy-combustion: the point is to burn fuel in more oxygen and store all the gases produced as a result. Instead of laboriously separating the carbon dioxide from other waste gases, the process traps the entire output from the smokestacks and stores it all. Pure oxygen is blown into the furnaces to purify the exhaust, so the fuel burns completely, producing relatively pure steam and carbon dioxide gas. Once the steam is removed by cooling and condensation, making it into water, the carbon dioxide can be safely stored.

What can the average farmer do to increase the carbon capture ability of their land, and does that effort have any other benefits other than sequestration?

  1. Adding bio-char to any soil type can improve the soil’s mycology, water retention, erosion control, and organic life concentrations, especially when the charcoal is soaked in heavy fungal teas and microbial mixtures prior to application to the soil.
  2. Adding 1 ton of BioChar to the average field is suggested.
    Only ⅓ of that is required if the char is activated.
  3. Activating BioChar requires some soaking of the fresh char in microbial tea, which also has mycology in it. We take Gro-Kashi and make tea with EM1 product from TerraGanix that then has RootWise Biodynamic added which will need to mix for at least 30 minutes prior to soaking the char.
  4. For small batches of inoculation and soaking, we have put the soaking char in a vacuum chamber at 50 PSI for 20 minutes, thus allowing the char to be fully permeated with the microbial and mycological tea.
  5. Activated BioChar has shown an increase of up to 880% in crop yield in volume, and an increase of up to 75% higher nutrition content.

How does one make Abiotic Charcoal?

Pyrolysis VS. Gasification

“Abstract: Biochar produced from biomass pyrolysis is becoming a powerful tool for carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction.Biochar Crecalcitrance or biochar stability is the decisive property determining it’s carbon sequestration potential. The effect of pyrolysis process parameters on biochar stability is becoming a frontier of biochar study. This review discussed comprehensively how and why Biomass compositions and physicochemical properties and biomass processing conditions such as pyrolysis temperature and reaction residence time affect the stability of biochar. The review found that relative high temperature (400700 C), long reaction residence time, slow heating rate, high pressure, the presence of some minerals and biomass feedstock of highlignin content with large particle size are preferable to biochar stability. However, challenges exist to mediate the tradeoffs between biochar stability and other potential wins.Strategies were proposed to promote the utilization of biochar as a climate change mitigation tool.” – An overview of the effect of pyrolysis process parameters on biochar stability by Lijian Leng, Huajun Huang

“Thermo-chemical conversion technologies capable of creating biochar include pyrolysis and  gasification. Pyrolysis thermally decomposes biomass without the presence of oxygen to create  biochar at temperatures starting at 300⁰C. Gasification uses limited oxygen and higher  temperatures (500⁰C – 1,500⁰C) (Lehmann et al., 2015). A co-product of biochar production is  energy in the form of process heat, liquid fuel, or combustible gases that can be used to supply  heat or electricity.

A single laborer can produce 64 tons of biochar per growing season which is incorporated into  compost made up of 20% coffee husks, 50% pulp, 20% biochar and 10% top soil. The  composting process is still being optimized but currently takes about 8 weeks to finish.  50L/plant of biochar-compost blend is used for new field plantings per tree, of which 2.3 kg is biochar. The blend is deposited in a hole (80 – 100 cm in diameter and ca. 30-40 cm deep) prior  to placing the tree. On average the farm spends USD 1,050 per ha for the biochar compost.” – The Potential for Biochar to Improve Sustainability in Coffee Cultivation and Processing: A White Paper

Syngas Biochar Gasifier to produce abiotic Charcoal

Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems – March 1988

This handbook has been prepared by the Solar Energy Research Institute under the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Technical Information Program. It is intended as a guide to the design, testing, operation, and manufacture of small-scale [less than 200 kW(270 hpJ] gasifiers. A great deal of the information will be useful for all levels of biomass gasification.

Functional Specification for the Biochar

Start by defining the desired qualities and properties of the biochar. These could include:

  • Water holding capacity, surface area, pore volume
  • Mineralisable and persistent carbon content
  • Liming ability, pH, available N, P, K
  • Total macro- and micro-nutrient content
  • Cation and Anion exchange capacity
  • Ability to adsorb heavy metals and other toxic compounds
  • Average particle size, bulk and particle density
  • Polyaromatic hydrocarbons and dioxin content
    See guide “Properties of Fresh and Aged Biochar” for more detail

 

There are several areas that deserve attention for a solution of what to do with excess carbon, in all of it’s molecular forms

  • how to “make” carbon,
  • Does carbon need to be cleaned for use,
  • how to manage the bi-products of making carbon,
  • What is the measurement of carbon capture,
  • How long is the carbon captured for
  • What is the increase in fruit yield that X amount of carbon will produce
  • Carbon Credits can be achieved with what kind of implementation?
  • How does a farmer get started with carbon credits?

According to recent research from Thomas Crowther at ETH Zurich, roughly 3 trillion trees grow on the earth at present and in total, they sequester on the order of 400 Gigatons of carbon dioxide. Crowther and his team figure that enough land exists to be able to plant an additional 1.2 trillion more trees without affecting agricultural production. Were this many trees to be planted, we would succeed in sequestering the better part of the last decade’s worth of carbon emissions.” – Planting 1.2 Trillion Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions, Scientists Find

3,000,000,000,000 trees = 400 Gigatons of Carbon Monoxide (CO) sequestration

“Why trees don’t sequester. Very often, tree planting is recommended to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. This is a misinterpretation of the role of plants in the carbon cycle. Biomass fails to permanently sequester carbon from the atmosphere for several reasons.

  1. Plants constitute an open system that is in balance with the atmosphere. What is taken up will be released with some time delay. (Figure 4)
  2. Newly planted biomass will sequester carbon maximally only at the middle of its development to maturation. (Figure 5, solid line). This means that, when you plant a forest for carbon sequestration, the rate of carbon sequestering will increase the first 40-50 years of their growth. After that, the rate will diminish until full growth, when respiration will equal their uptake of carbon.
  3. At full growth, say 100 – 150 years after the establishment of the forest, the plants have stored carbon maximally (grey field in Figure 5). Any disturbance after this time will release carbon into the air again. So, you cannot harvest the forest, nor should you allow pest, disease or fire.

This is a clearly unsustainable situation. Thus, assuming that increased tree planting will counteract carbon dioxide contamination from fossil fuel burning is, to say the least, a short-sighted solution. Naturally, this is even truer when talking of annual plants, such as most agricultural crops. However, a strategy to increase the dynamic plant cover will increase the amount of the carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere. Some such strategies will be discussed below.

Due to its porosity and thus its large internal area, up to 1500 m2/g 17, charcoal has an excellent capacity to adsorb nutrients and organic material, and hence also works as a very good habitat and growth area for soil micro-organisms. Therefore, in any poor soil, such as excessively sandy, clayey or leaky soils, the addition of charcoal is a good way to improve it. The charcoal works as a ‘sponge’ for the nutrients, which due to the increased microbial biomass are accessible for the plants growing nearby. (Plants ‘buy’ nutrients from micro-organisms with sugars released from their roots). Charcoal also exerts significant effects on the decomposition of added litter. The increased amount of microbial biomass has also a positive effect of the growth of earthworm populations (which feed on micro-organisms), something that will further augment the productivity of the soil18.

http://www.holon.se/folke/carbon/Terra%20pretav1_0.pdf

Glossary:

  1. A Retort is an airtight vessel in which substances are externally heated, usually producing gases to be collected in a collection vessel, or for further processes.
  2. Batch Pyrolysers are simple low-cost devices that are filled with biomass, run to completion and then emptied.
  3. Basic batch stoves, retorts and kilns are often used for small-scale manufacture of biochar, and also for larger scale production of fuel- or process-charcoal (eg for reducing metals).
  4. Continuous Pyrolysers are devices where biomass is fed into one end while biochar is continuously discharged from the other.
    Continuous devices are more complex and expensive, but can provide:

    • more production from a given amount of equipment and labor
    • more control over the process conditions of the biochar
    • lower emissions
  5. Reactor (or more specifically a chemical reactor) is a vessel designed to contain and control (chemical) reactions.
  6. A Pyrolyser is a reactor designed for thermal decomposition of biomass in a limited oxygen environment (= pyrolysis).
  7. A Gasifier is a reactor in which air is intentionally injected into the feedstock. Part of the feedstock is burned to produce a relatively clean pyrogas. A gasifier usually operates at a higher temperature than a pyrolyser.
  8. A Stove is an enclosed space in which fuel is burned to provide heating, either to heat the stove itself and the space in which it is situated, or to heat items placed on the stove.
  9. A Kiln is a kind of oven, a thermally insulated chamber,that produces temperatures sufficient to complete some process, such as drying, or chemical change. A kiln may be internally or externally heated.
  10. Pyrogas (or Pyrolysis gas): The gas and aerosols from pyrolysis or gasification comprising primarily combustible gases CO, H2and CH4along with CO2, steam and N2; also known as wood gas and syngas.
  11. Primary Air (PA):  In pyrolysis PA refers to air supplied to the fuel bed, needed to partially combust the material resulting in emission of combustible vapoursand gases.If pyrolysis is sustained by external heat, PA provides a fraction of the air required for first stage combustion of emitted gases.
  12. Secondary Air (SA): (and in some instances tertiary air) refers to additional air injected to the combustion zone to complete combustion of the fuel gases.
  13. Materials Handling: This refers to the equipment that moves the biomass to the pyrolyserand moves the biochar from the pyrolyser.
  14. Materials Preparation Equipment: This includes machinery that reduces the size (e.g. grinders), compacts the biomass into pellets or briquettes, dries the biomass, or mixes ingredients (such as biomass and minerals) together.

Wageningen University teams up with Microsoft, Tencent, and Intel to test Artificial Intelligence for growing Cucumbers

There is a challenge under way where the worlds top tech companies are working on finding the best methods for using Artificial Intelligence and automation to grow plants.

 SoilGrids (the output of a system for automated global soil mapping) are the main products.
SoilGrids (the output of a system for automated global soil mapping) are the main products.

Wageningen University staff enter the greenhouse to do things like remove cucumbers or cut leaves, but an algorithm informed by sensors controls about 20 inputs, such as roof ventilation, artificial lighting, and heating, that affect plant growth.”

The Venture Beat article “Why Microsoft, Tencent, and Intel are growing cucumbers in autonomous greenhouses” goes onto say

“A jury primarily made up of Wageningen University research staff will choose winners based on their resource efficiency, the robustness of their AI model, and the sustainability of methods they use to grow cucumbers.

Cucumbers were chosen as the test crop because of the amount of existing modeling data and know-how available, Hemming said.”

The Challenge issued by the CXO of Tencent:
“The Challenge
The goal of the challenge is to produce a cucumber crop within 4 months inside a greenhouse remotely! Greenhouse space and controls will be provided by WUR and the teams are allowed to provide their own sensors and cameras.

Each team will be able to extract necessary data from the greenhouse compartment and add their own ICT/models/machine learning algorithms in order to decide on the control settings for the next day or period.”

The rules can be found here and their goals are listed on the autonomousgreenhouses.com website.

Do Endophytes Promote Growth of Host Plants Under Stress?

A Meta-Analysis on Plant Stress Mitigation by Endophytes

Hyungmin Rho 1 & Marian Hsieh 1 & Shyam L. Kandel1 & Johanna Cantillo 2 &
Sharon L. Doty1 & Soo-Hyung Kim 1

Abstract

Endophytes are microbial symbionts living inside plants and have been extensively researched in recent decades for their functions associated with plant responses to environmental stress. We conducted a meta-analysis of endophyte effects on host plants’ growth and fitness in response to three abiotic stress factors: drought, nitrogen deficiency, and excessive salinity. Ninety-four endophyte strains and 42 host plant species from the literature were evaluated in the analysis. Endophytes increased biomass accumulation of host plants under all three stress conditions. The stress mitigation effects by endophytes were similar among different plant taxa or functional groups with few exceptions; eudicots and C4 species gained more biomass than monocots and C3 species with endophytes, respectively, under drought conditions. Our analysis supports the effectiveness of endophytes in mitigating drought, nitrogen deficiency, and salinity stress in a wide range of host species with little evidence of plant-endophyte specificity.

Keywords

Bacteria, fungi, yeast, Drought stress, nitrogen stress, salinity stress, Effect size Endophytes, Meta-analysis, Plant biomass

Do Endophytes Promote Growth of Host Plants Under Stress? A Meta-Analysis on Plant Stress Mitigation by Endophytes

Diazotrophic Endophytes of Poplar and Willow for Growth Promotion of Rice Plants in Nitrogen-Limited Conditions

S. L. Kandel, N. Herschberger, S.H. Kim, and S. L. Doty*
School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2100. Received 20 Aug. 2014. Accepted 16 Mar. 2015. *Corresponding author (sldoty@uw.edu).

Abbreviations:

  • BNF, biological N fiation;
  • GFP, green florescent protein;
  • IAA, indole-3-acetic acid;
  • MG/L, Mannitol Glutamate/Luria;
    MS, Murashige–Skoog;
  • NL-CCM, N-limited combined C medium.
    ABSTRACT
    rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important staple food crops. Its cultivation requires a relatively high input of N fertilizers; however, rice plants do not absorb a signifiant proportion of added fertilizers, resulting in soil and water pollution. The use of diazotrophic (N-fiing) endophytes can provide benefis for rice cultivation by reducing the demand of N fertilizers. Diazotrophic endophytes from the early successional plant species poplar (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & A. Gray) and willow (Salix sitchensis C. A. Sanson ex Bong.) were added to rice seedlings.
    Inoculated rice plants were grown in N-limited conditions in the greenhouse, and plant physical characteristics were assessed. Endophyte-inoculated rice plants had greater biomass, higher tiller numbers, and taller plant stature than mockinoculated controls. Endophyte populations were quantifid and visualized in planta within rice plants using florescent microscopy. The endophytes colonized rice plants effectively in both roots and foliage. These results demonstrated that diazotrophic endophytes of the eudicots poplar and willow can colonize rice plants and enhance plant growth in N-limited conditions.
Diazotrophic Endophytes of Poplar and Willow for Growth Promotion of Rice Plants in Nitrogen-Limited Conditions

Growing Food in Space

Research and Development for growing food in space dates back to 1971 for the Salyut 1 where the Oasis 1, a Russian made grow unit was the first plant growth system on a manned spacecraft. There have been several iterations of devices ranging in size and scale, but the common consensus is that it is time and area consuming for typical garden inclusion on any manned space mission. There exists a need to produce an Automated Enclosed Garden System for various forms of food production, on earth as well as in space.

ISS Science for Everyone
Science Objectives for Everyone
Organisms grow differently in space, from single-celled bacteria to plants and humans. But future long-duration space missions will require crew members to grow their own food, so understanding how plants respond to microgravity is an important step toward that goal. Veg-03 uses the Veggie plant growth facility to cultivate a type of cabbage, which is harvested in orbit with samples returned to Earth for testing.

NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson harvested another crop of Tokyo bekana cabbage on the International Space Station.
NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson harvested another crop

The primary goal of the Veg-03 testing is to demonstrate plant growth in the Veggie hardware using ‘Tokyo Bekana’ cabbage as a test crop. Plants are grown in two different sizes of arcillite, a calcined clay media. This test helps investigators compare root zones of the two media sizes to determine water and root distribution in the different sized-particles to provide recommendations for future Veggie investigations. Shoot tissue samples also provide information on any growth anomalies when compared with ground controls. Photographs are used to assess plant growth rates and plant health. A data logger records the environment within the Veggie hardware. Crew questionnaires provide insight into the appropriateness and thoroughness of the crew procedures for Veggie hardware and plant growth operations.”

Machine used to grow food on the ISS
Machine used to grow food on the ISS

NASA's VEGGIE prototype
NASA’s VEGGIE prototype



Weekly Recap From the Expedition Lead Scientist(Highlights: Week of May 29, 2017)

Vegetable Production System (Veggie)02.22.17

Veggie Will Expand Fresh Food Production on Space Station – April 10, 2014

Review and analysis of over 40 years of space plant growth systems

Steroids Triterpenoids Molecular Oxygen

There is a close connection between modern-day biosynthesis of particular triterpenoid biomarkers and presence of molecular oxygen in the environment. Thus, the detection of steroid and triterpenoid hydrocarbons far back in Earth history has been used to infer the antiquity of oxygenic photosynthesis. This prompts the question: were these compounds produced similarly in the past?
In this paper, we address this question with a review of the current state of knowledge surrounding the oxygen requirement for steroid biosynthesis and phylogenetic patterns in the distribution of steroid and triterpenoid biosynthetic pathways.

The hopanoid and steroid biosynthetic pathways are very highly conserved within the bacterial and eukaryotic domains, respectively. Bacteriohopanepolyols are produced by a wide range of bacteria, and are methylated in significant abundance at the C2 position by oxygen-producing cyanobacteria. On the other hand, sterol biosynthesis is sparsely distributed in distantly related bacterial taxa and the pathways do not produce the wide range of products that characterize eukaryotes. In particular, evidence for sterol biosynthesis by cyanobacteria appears flawed. Our experiments show that cyanobacterial cultures are easily contaminated by sterol-producing rust fungi, which can be
eliminated by treatment with cycloheximide affording sterol-free samples. Sterols are ubiquitous features of eukaryotic membranes, and it appears likely that the initial steps in sterol biosynthesis were present in their modern form in the last common ancestor of eukaryotes.
Eleven molecules of O2 are required by four enzymes to produce one molecule of cholesterol. Thermodynamic arguments, optimization of function and parsimony all indicate that an ancestral anaerobic pathway is highly unlikely.
The known geological record of molecular fossils, especially steranes and triterpanes, is notable for the limited number of structural motifs that have been observed. With a few exceptions, the carbon skeletons are the same as those found in the lipids of extant organisms and no demonstrably extinct structures have been reported. Furthermore, their patterns of occurrence over billion year time-scales correlate strongly with environments of deposition. Accordingly, biomarkers are excellent indicators of environmental conditions even though the taxonomic affinities of all biomarkers cannot be precisely specified. Biomarkers are ultimately tied to biochemicals with very specific functional properties, and interpretations of the biomarker record will benefit from increased understanding of the biological roles of geologically durable molecules.
Keywords: Archaean; biomarker hydrocarbons; steroids; sterols; triterpenoids;
hopanes aerobic biosynthesis

steroids triterpenoids molecular oxygen

Ectomycorrhizal Specificity Patterns in a Mixed Pinus contorta and Picea engelmannii Forest in Yellowstone National Park

“We used molecular genetic methods to test two hypotheses, (i) that host plant specificity among ectomycorrhizal fungi would be common in a closed-canopy, mixed Pinus contorta-Picea engelmannii forest in Yellowstone National Park and (ii) that specificity would be more common in the early successional tree species, P. contorta, than in the invader, P. engelmannii. We identified 28 ectomycorrhizal fungal species collected from 27 soil cores.
The proportion of P. engelmannii to P. contorta ectomycorrhizae was nearly equal (52 and 48%, respectively).
Of the 28 fungal species, 18 composed greater than 95% of the fungal community. No species was associated exclusively with P. contorta, but four species, each found in only one core, and one species found in two cores were associated exclusively with P. engelmannii. These fungi composed less than 5% of the total ectomycorrhizae. Thus, neither hypothesis was supported, and hypothesized benefits of ectomycorrhizal specificity to both trees and fungi probably do not exist in this system.”

Ectomycorrhizal Specificity Patterns in a Mixed Pinus contorta and Picea engelmannii Forest in Yellowstone National Park