News 
 State News 
 Education 
 General 
 Carbon from the exhaust to the soil 

Carbon from the exhaust to the soil

08 Oct, 2009 04:00 AM
When the smoke from a tractor exhaust goes up, that’s pollution. But get those emissions down into the soil and they become fertiliser, as Canadian farmer, Gary Lewis, is demonstrating.

Mr Lewis has spent the best part of a decade developing and refining a system that pipes tractor exhaust

emissions through a condenser and into the pneumatic system of air seeders, which then injects the carbon and nitrogen-rich emissions into the ground with the seed.

What is generally considered as pollution is in fact prime soil food, Mr Lewis said, and tractor exhaust has allowed him and other farmers working with his technology to grow excellent crops without using conventional fertilisers.

The exhaust gases are believed to stimulate microbial activity and root growth, allowing the plants to more efficiently extract nutrient and moisture from the soil.

The United Nations has shown an interest in the system, which might not only reduce fertiliser dependency but cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Lewis, an Alberta rancher and former auto mechanic who specialises in growing timothy hay for export, claims not to have used fertiliser on his 250-hectare irrigation farm for at least six years, instead fertilising it with his “BioAgtive” technology.

Mr Lewis said he had seen no loss of production, his soils had moved from pH 8.0 (the same as the irrigation water) to a pH of about 7.0, and soil organic matter levels were now at about 10 per cent.

In testimonials quoted on the BioAgtive website, former Agriculture Canada scientists turned consultants, Dr Jill Clapperton and Dr Loraine Bailey, agree that something positive is happening in BioAgtive treated soils.

“The obvious conclusion is that the exhaust had a positive effect on crop growth, yield and quality, and may have positively enhanced soil nutrients and nutrient chemistry,” Dr Bailey writes.

Meanwhile, Dr Clapperton is working on a scientific paper outlining how the technology works.

Understanding why BioAgtive is not just “blowing smoke”, as Mr Lewis feels many scientists think he’s doing, requires a different perspective on exhaust emissions.

Surprisingly, a breakdown of the content of diesel exhaust looks like a partial Christmas shopping list for plants.

A Volkswagen analysis of light-duty diesel engine exhaust published in a World Health Organisation-sponsored report gave an analysis by weight of 75 per cent nitrogen, 15pc oxygen, seven per cent carbon dioxide and 2.6pc water vapour.

Several other substances existed in quantities of less than 0.1pc.

Mr Lewis calculates a zero-till rig will put 1100 kilograms of air through the tractor engine to work a hectare.

Dr Bailey writes that the exhaust treatment “resulted in significant release of soil N and/or stimulated the crops to take up soil N”.

She said there were also small increases in the uptake of phosphorus, potass-ium and sulphur and slight shifts in the amount of some micro-nutrients taken up by the crops.

If it proves viable, BioAgtive will also be a tool for farmers wanting to reduce their profile under emissions trading.

The system relies on attraction between negatively-charged ions in the gases and the soil’s positively charged alkaline component to hold the gases in the soil, as well as sealing it in.

Some Canadian farmers are now growing their own biofuel crops using BioAgtive technology, Mr Lewis said.

About 150 farmers around the world, including in Australia and recently China, had bought into the concept.

While the system doesn’t come cheap, at about $C40,000, Mr Lewis points to what he says is the potential to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in fertiliser in a year.

Gary Lewis is booked to talk at the Carbon Farming Conference and Expo at Orange, on November 4-5.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1


RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
That's interesting that diesel fuel is 75% nitrogen. A couple of weeks back there was an article where a doctor had linked Alzheimer's to nitrogen. In what is now the standard format she blamed the farmers for using nitrogen fertiliser. However the amount of any substance that you can absorb from your food, is a fraction of what you absorb through your lungs. The urban population don't notice the cloud of exhaust fumes they live in but for an infrequent visitor like myself it is very noticeable and actually makes me dizzy for a few hours whenever I visit the city. I wonder if anyone has made a study of how much higher the nitrogen content is in urban air as opposed to country air. Given the amount of air you shift through and through your lungs over the period of the day. The actual nitrogen content would not have to be that much higher than normal. And over the course of a 60-year lifespan you would be absorbing in an enormous amount of extra nitrogen.
Posted by Qlander, 8/10/2009 8:28:23 AM
Well done. This man has vision. It was some thing I thought about a couple of year ago but unfortunately did not have the rescources to progress it. Maybe Penny Wong could do with a visit to Canada.
Posted by Stevan, 8/10/2009 8:54:58 AM
Just did some sums using the Nebraska tests. JD 8210 with 7m airseeder @ 2200rpm is using roughly 8.3L/ha diesel. Now at 70%N, this equates to 5.8kgN/ha or abour 12.5kg Urea ($7.00/ha). Very useful, but let's not get carried away with stimulating microbes etc. Would need to see the form that the N is in. There are lots of snake oils out there to allegedly do this... Just stick to the facts guys. Seems a good idea.
Posted by Thoughtful, 8/10/2009 9:37:24 AM
Let's also not forget that the air we breathe is actually 80% nitrogen, 5% more than diesel exhaust. I bet the good doctor didn't think of that before he started blaming farmers for their fertiliser use. It should also be pointed out that not one gram of the engine emissions that take place on my farm would get anywhere near being classed as pollution. My trees gobble it up long before it gets anywhere near my boundary fence. But of course, the bimbos at the IPCC insist on treating my emissions the same way as those of a city cab driver. But it is only concentrated urban emissions that ever get to a scale that overwhelms the local vegetation's capacity to deal with it. Surprise, surprise, another one-eyed urban prejudice inflicted on the rural community.
Posted by Ian Mott, 8/10/2009 10:53:27 AM
What a crock.
Posted by pete, 8/10/2009 11:33:11 AM
It appears this subject is being distorted by people with no knowledge of basic chemistry. Diesel (and petrol) exhausts contain the results of combustion of hydrocarbon fuel that contains various levels of other impurities. Combustion in the cylinders causes a reaction between atmospheric nitrogen (which is inert) and oxygen to form oxides of nitrogen, carbon and sulfur. Nitrogen dioxide combines with any available water to form nitric acid which in turn reacts with calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium ions in the soil to form nitrates - plant nutrient. The sulfur forms sulfur dioxide and then reacts with water to make sulfuric acid, then reacts with calcium, Mg etc to form sulfates - the soluble ones being more plant food. I'm not sure how the carbon particles from diesel exhaust get into the plant system, but putting carbon in the soil is preferable to lodging in lungs as PM10. CO2 is locked up by plants in the process of photosynthesis and CO will oxidize to CO2 in damp soil. So don't knock this guy, he has had the foresight to take an active stance on something that was staring us in the face and the benefits are glaringly obvious.
Posted by Dick, 8/10/2009 1:38:23 PM
Ian Mott is correct: the N levels in air are higher than in the diesel exhaust. That is because the oxygen that is inhaled by the engine is combined with the carbon and sulphur in the fuel which 'dilute' the N content from the original 80% to the claimed 78%. In the end it is the increased carbon levels that are climate threatening, but if high levels of N can be added to the soil then that is a substantial bonus. Arguments have been made to power generation being made more local and on a smaller scale. That may possibly lead to the use of dirty fuels, like coal, at a rate proportional to what the surrounding land can absorb through this method of sequestration. John Homan
Posted by John Homan, 8/10/2009 1:53:05 PM
BS
Posted by Ggreg, 8/10/2009 3:58:19 PM
Thanks for that explanation Dick.
Posted by spottedquoll, 9/10/2009 7:18:36 AM
I dont know enough behind the chemistry of what seems to be a wonderful idea, however, I'm wondering if the soil pH dropped from 8.0 to 7.0 - could it not just keep dropping leading to an acidic problem down the track?
Posted by student, 9/10/2009 9:45:08 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
A sowing rig in Alberta, Canada, using BioAgtive technology to inject tractor exhaust into the soil via the air seeder.
A sowing rig in Alberta, Canada, using BioAgtive technology to inject tractor exhaust into the soil via the air seeder.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
06 October, 2009
07 October, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you think capturing exhaust emissions in soil will work?

Yes
(44.6%)

No, but it's worth trying to come up with a carbon solution.
(18.8%)

No, all these theories are a waste of time.
(22.3%)

I don't know.
(14.3%)

Total Votes: 224
Poll Date: 07 October, 2009
BLOGS
07 October, 2009
30 September, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Northern Beef Week
 
MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
Photo Library
 
Land Subscriptions
 
Rural Bookshop
 
The Land Facebook


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...