≡ Menu

world-biochar-headlines-06-2017

Starting A Garden Soil Preparation Biochar Compost More

1 June, 2017
 


2010 Biochar Symposium

1 June, 2017
 

On September 1st, 2010, ISTC hosted the 2010 Biochar Symposium that featured presentations on biochar production, properties, and use in agricultural environments. Slides and presentations are in order of presentation below.

Presented by: Catie Brewer – Iowa State University / View Slides

Presented by: Kurt Spokas – USDA / View Slides

Presented by: Akwasi Boateng – USDA / View Slides

Presented by: Steve Heilmann – University of Minnesota / View Slides

Presented by: Paul Wever – Chip Energy, Inc. / View Slides

Presented by: Cody Ellens – Avello Bioenergy, Inc.

Presented by: Wei Zheng – ISTC, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign / View Slides

One Hazelwood Dr.
Champaign, IL 61820
217-333-8940

© 2017 University of Illinois Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.
For permissions information, contact the Illinois Sustainable Technology Center.
ISTC Intranet


Vega Biofuels to Build Biochar Manufacturing Plant in Alaska

1 June, 2017
 

NORCROSS, Ga., June 01, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink:VGPR) announced today that it has entered into an Agreement to build a Biochar manufacturing plant in Anchorage, AK that will produce Biochar to be used in a high grade agricultural growing medium for legal cannabis growers in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

Vega recently announced that it had entered into a reseller Agreement with an Anchorage cannabis start-up to market Vega’s Biochar throughout the State of Alaska.  As a result of this effort and the response the Company received at the recent Cannacon Convention in Santa Rosa, CA, Vega now plans to build a manufacturing plant in Anchorage that will produce the torrefied Biochar.  Vega will utilize patent pending torrefaction technology at the new facility.  The specialized machine will be manufactured in Virginia and shipped directly to the Anchorage facility.

Biochar is a highly absorbent specially designed charcoal-type product primarily used as a soil enhancement for the agricultural industry to significantly increase crop yields. Biochar is made from timber waste using torrefaction technology and the Company’s patent pending torrefaction machine.  The introduction of Biochar into soil is not like applying fertilizer; it is the beginning of a process.  Most of the benefit is achieved through microbes and fungi.  They colonize its massive surface area and integrate into the Biochar and the surrounding soil, dramatically increasing the soil’s ability to nurture plant growth and provide increased crop yield.  Cannabis growers currently using Biochar as a soil enhancement have reported dramatic increases in plant production.

“The cost of shipping the product from the east coast to Alaska is a major issue that we’ve been working on the past few weeks,” stated Michael K. Molen, Chairman/CEO of Vega Biofuels, Inc. “After the response we received during the Santa Rosa meetings, we finally made the decision to move the manufacturing process closer to our customers and cut out the high shipping costs.  The machine will utilize our patent pending torrefaction technology and will have a capacity of approximately three tons per hour.  The legal cannabis industry has exploded in places like Oregon and Washington and we see the same trend happening in Alaska. Our product is proven and is currently used in various other agricultural applications, not just the cannabis industry.  Eliminating the shipping costs will have a direct impact on our bottom line.”

About Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink: VGPR):

Vega Biofuels, Inc. is a cutting-edge energy company that manufactures and markets a renewable energy product called Bio-Coal and a soil enhancement called Biochar, both made from timber waste using unique technology called torrefaction.  Torrefaction is the treatment of biomass at high temperatures under low oxygen conditions.  For more information, please visit our website at vegabiofuels.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the following words: “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by, which such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time the statements are made and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainty and other factors that may cause our results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements in this press release.

GlobeNewswire, a Nasdaq company, is one of the world's largest newswire distribution networks, specializing in the delivery of corporate press releases financial disclosures and multimedia content to the media, investment community, individual investors and the general public.

CentralCharts is a social network and an information portal on the financial markets for traders and investors.

Add the CentralCharts tool to your site for free (ad-free)


Vega Biofuels to Build Biochar Manufacturing Plant in Alaska

1 June, 2017
 

Geographically, this report is segmented into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue (million…

Copyright © 2015 A Daily News.


biochar

1 June, 2017
 


Vega Biofuels to Build Biochar Manufacturing Plant in Alaska

1 June, 2017
 

NORCROSS, Ga., June 01, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink:VGPR) announced today that it has entered into an Agreement to build a Biochar manufacturing plant in Anchorage, AK that will produce Biochar to be used in a high grade agricultural growing medium for legal cannabis growers in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

Vega recently announced that it had entered into a reseller Agreement with an Anchorage cannabis start-up to market Vega’s Biochar throughout the State of Alaska.  As a result of this effort and the response the Company received at the recent Cannacon Convention in Santa Rosa, CA, Vega now plans to build a manufacturing plant in Anchorage that will produce the torrefied Biochar.  Vega will utilize patent pending torrefaction technology at the new facility.  The specialized machine will be manufactured in Virginia and shipped directly to the Anchorage facility.

Biochar is a highly absorbent specially designed charcoal-type product primarily used as a soil enhancement for the agricultural industry to significantly increase crop yields. Biochar is made from timber waste using torrefaction technology and the Company’s patent pending torrefaction machine.  The introduction of Biochar into soil is not like applying fertilizer; it is the beginning of a process.  Most of the benefit is achieved through microbes and fungi.  They colonize its massive surface area and integrate into the Biochar and the surrounding soil, dramatically increasing the soil’s ability to nurture plant growth and provide increased crop yield.  Cannabis growers currently using Biochar as a soil enhancement have reported dramatic increases in plant production.

“The cost of shipping the product from the east coast to Alaska is a major issue that we’ve been working on the past few weeks,” stated Michael K. Molen, Chairman/CEO of Vega Biofuels, Inc. “After the response we received during the Santa Rosa meetings, we finally made the decision to move the manufacturing process closer to our customers and cut out the high shipping costs.  The machine will utilize our patent pending torrefaction technology and will have a capacity of approximately three tons per hour.  The legal cannabis industry has exploded in places like Oregon and Washington and we see the same trend happening in Alaska. Our product is proven and is currently used in various other agricultural applications, not just the cannabis industry.  Eliminating the shipping costs will have a direct impact on our bottom line.”

About Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink: VGPR):

Vega Biofuels, Inc. is a cutting-edge energy company that manufactures and markets a renewable energy product called Bio-Coal and a soil enhancement called Biochar, both made from timber waste using unique technology called torrefaction.  Torrefaction is the treatment of biomass at high temperatures under low oxygen conditions.  For more information, please visit our website at vegabiofuels.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the following words: “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by, which such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time the statements are made and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainty and other factors that may cause our results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements in this press release.

519

other news releases in
Product / Services Announcement
in the last 30 days

Vega Biofuels, Inc.


Short-term biochar application induced variations in C and N mineralization in a compost-amended …

1 June, 2017
 

To mitigate food shortage due to global warming, developing sustainable management practices to stabilize soil organic matter (SOM) and sequester more carbon (C) in the cultivated soils is necessary, particularly in subtropical and tropical areas. A short-term (56 days) incubation experiment was conducted to evaluate the influences of rice husk biochar (RHB) and manure compost (MC) application on C mineralization and nitrogen (N) immobilization in a sandy loam soil. The RHB was separately incorporated into the soil at application rates of 2 and 4% (w/w) either with or without 1% (w/w) compost. Our results displayed that macroaggregates (≥2 mm) were obviously increased by 11% in soil amended with RHB + MC at the end of incubation. In addition, the experimental results presented that the C mineralization of the soil rapidly increased during the first week of incubation. However, the co-application of compost with biochar (RHB + MC) revealed that CO2 emission was significantly decreased by 13–20% compared to the soil with only MC. In addition, the mineralized N in the soil was lower in RHB + MC-amended soil simultaneously than only MC-amended soil, indicating that biochar addition induced N immobilization. The physical protection of compost by its occlusion into aggregates or adsorption on surface of RHB as proved by the micromorphological observation was the main reason for lower C and N mineralization in soil amended with RHB + MC. Overall results revealed that RHB + MC treatment can decrease the decomposition of compost and sequester more C in the tropical agricultural soils.

Σημείωση: Μόνο ένα μέλος αυτού του ιστολογίου μπορεί να αναρτήσει σχόλιο.


world-biochar-headlines-06-2017

1 June, 2017
 

On September 1st, 2010, ISTC hosted the 2010 Biochar Symposium that featured presentations on biochar production, properties, and use in agricultural environments. Slides and presentations are in order of presentation below.

Presented by: Catie Brewer — Iowa State University / View Slides

Presented by: Kurt Spokas — USDA / View Slides

Presented by: Akwasi Boateng — USDA / View Slides

Presented by: Steve Heilmann — University of Minnesota / View Slides

Presented by: Paul Wever — Chip Energy, Inc. / View Slides

Presented by: Cody Ellens — Avello Bioenergy, Inc.

Presented by: Wei Zheng — ISTC, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign / View Slides

One Hazelwood Dr.
Champaign, IL 61820
217-333-8940

© 2017 University of Illinois Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.
For permissions information, contact the Illinois Sustainable Technology Center.
ISTC Intranet

NORCROSS, Ga., June 01, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink:VGPR) announced today that it has entered into an Agreement to build a Biochar manufacturing plant in Anchorage, AK that will produce Biochar to be used in a high grade agricultural growing medium for legal cannabis growers in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

Vega recently announced that it had entered into a reseller Agreement with an Anchorage cannabis start-up to market Vega’s Biochar throughout the State of Alaska.  As a result of this effort and the response the Company received at the recent Cannacon Convention in Santa Rosa, CA, Vega now plans to build a manufacturing plant in Anchorage that will produce the torrefied Biochar.  Vega will utilize patent pending torrefaction technology at the new facility.  The specialized machine will be manufactured in Virginia and shipped directly to the Anchorage facility.

Biochar is a highly absorbent specially designed charcoal-type product primarily used as a soil enhancement for the agricultural industry to significantly increase crop yields. Biochar is made from timber waste using torrefaction technology and the Company’s patent pending torrefaction machine.  The introduction of Biochar into soil is not like applying fertilizer; it is the beginning of a process.  Most of the benefit is achieved through microbes and fungi.  They colonize its massive surface area and integrate into the Biochar and the surrounding soil, dramatically increasing the soil’s ability to nurture plant growth and provide increased crop yield.  Cannabis growers currently using Biochar as a soil enhancement have reported dramatic increases in plant production.

“The cost of shipping the product from the east coast to Alaska is a major issue that we’ve been working on the past few weeks,” stated Michael K. Molen, Chairman/CEO of Vega Biofuels, Inc. “After the response we received during the Santa Rosa meetings, we finally made the decision to move the manufacturing process closer to our customers and cut out the high shipping costs.  The machine will utilize our patent pending torrefaction technology and will have a capacity of approximately three tons per hour.  The legal cannabis industry has exploded in places like Oregon and Washington and we see the same trend happening in Alaska. Our product is proven and is currently used in various other agricultural applications, not just the cannabis industry.  Eliminating the shipping costs will have a direct impact on our bottom line.”

About Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink: VGPR):

Vega Biofuels, Inc. is a cutting-edge energy company that manufactures and markets a renewable energy product called Bio-Coal and a soil enhancement called Biochar, both made from timber waste using unique technology called torrefaction.  Torrefaction is the treatment of biomass at high temperatures under low oxygen conditions.  For more information, please visit our website at vegabiofuels.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the following words: “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by, which such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time the statements are made and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainty and other factors that may cause our results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements in this press release.

GlobeNewswire, a Nasdaq company, is one of the world's largest newswire distribution networks, specializing in the delivery of corporate press releases financial disclosures and multimedia content to the media, investment community, individual investors and the general public.

CentralCharts is a social network and an information portal on the financial markets for traders and investors.

Add the CentralCharts tool to your site for free (ad-free)

Geographically, this report is segmented into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue (million…

Copyright © 2015 A Daily News.

NORCROSS, Ga., June 01, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink:VGPR) announced today that it has entered into an Agreement to build a Biochar manufacturing plant in Anchorage, AK that will produce Biochar to be used in a high grade agricultural growing medium for legal cannabis growers in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

Vega recently announced that it had entered into a reseller Agreement with an Anchorage cannabis start-up to market Vega’s Biochar throughout the State of Alaska.  As a result of this effort and the response the Company received at the recent Cannacon Convention in Santa Rosa, CA, Vega now plans to build a manufacturing plant in Anchorage that will produce the torrefied Biochar.  Vega will utilize patent pending torrefaction technology at the new facility.  The specialized machine will be manufactured in Virginia and shipped directly to the Anchorage facility.

Biochar is a highly absorbent specially designed charcoal-type product primarily used as a soil enhancement for the agricultural industry to significantly increase crop yields. Biochar is made from timber waste using torrefaction technology and the Company’s patent pending torrefaction machine.  The introduction of Biochar into soil is not like applying fertilizer; it is the beginning of a process.  Most of the benefit is achieved through microbes and fungi.  They colonize its massive surface area and integrate into the Biochar and the surrounding soil, dramatically increasing the soil’s ability to nurture plant growth and provide increased crop yield.  Cannabis growers currently using Biochar as a soil enhancement have reported dramatic increases in plant production.

“The cost of shipping the product from the east coast to Alaska is a major issue that we’ve been working on the past few weeks,” stated Michael K. Molen, Chairman/CEO of Vega Biofuels, Inc. “After the response we received during the Santa Rosa meetings, we finally made the decision to move the manufacturing process closer to our customers and cut out the high shipping costs.  The machine will utilize our patent pending torrefaction technology and will have a capacity of approximately three tons per hour.  The legal cannabis industry has exploded in places like Oregon and Washington and we see the same trend happening in Alaska. Our product is proven and is currently used in various other agricultural applications, not just the cannabis industry.  Eliminating the shipping costs will have a direct impact on our bottom line.”

About Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink: VGPR):

Vega Biofuels, Inc. is a cutting-edge energy company that manufactures and markets a renewable energy product called Bio-Coal and a soil enhancement called Biochar, both made from timber waste using unique technology called torrefaction.  Torrefaction is the treatment of biomass at high temperatures under low oxygen conditions.  For more information, please visit our website at vegabiofuels.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the following words: “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by, which such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time the statements are made and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainty and other factors that may cause our results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements in this press release.

519

other news releases in
Product / Services Announcement
in the last 30 days

Vega Biofuels, Inc.

To mitigate food shortage due to global warming, developing sustainable management practices to stabilize soil organic matter (SOM) and sequester more carbon (C) in the cultivated soils is necessary, particularly in subtropical and tropical areas. A short-term (56 days) incubation experiment was conducted to evaluate the influences of rice husk biochar (RHB) and manure compost (MC) application on C mineralization and nitrogen (N) immobilization in a sandy loam soil. The RHB was separately incorporated into the soil at application rates of 2 and 4% (w/w) either with or without 1% (w/w) compost. Our results displayed that macroaggregates (≥2 mm) were obviously increased by 11% in soil amended with RHB + MC at the end of incubation. In addition, the experimental results presented that the C mineralization of the soil rapidly increased during the first week of incubation. However, the co-application of compost with biochar (RHB + MC) revealed that CO2 emission was significantly decreased by 13–20% compared to the soil with only MC. In addition, the mineralized N in the soil was lower in RHB + MC-amended soil simultaneously than only MC-amended soil, indicating that biochar addition induced N immobilization. The physical protection of compost by its occlusion into aggregates or adsorption on surface of RHB as proved by the micromorphological observation was the main reason for lower C and N mineralization in soil amended with RHB + MC. Overall results revealed that RHB + MC treatment can decrease the decomposition of compost and sequester more C in the tropical agricultural soils.

Σημείωση: Μόνο ένα μέλος αυτού του ιστολογίου μπορεί να αναρτήσει σχόλιο.

Join our emailing list.
For the latest in biochar
news and events..
Email List


Biochar Application [image]

1 June, 2017
 

Experimental Biology 2017
April 22 – 26, 2017
Chicago, IL

Biochar totes are in the foreground with biochar application in the background. Biochar is being applied to a slope on the right.

Andrew Harley

Please use with story only.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Media Contact

Susan Fisk
sfisk@sciencesocieties.org
608-273-8091

 @ASA_CSSA_SSSA

http://www.agronomy.org 


Vega Biofuels to Build Biochar Manufacturing Plant in Alaska

1 June, 2017
 

NORCROSS, Ga., June 01, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink:VGPR) announced today that it has entered into an Agreement to build a Biochar manufacturing plant in Anchorage, AK that will produce Biochar to be used in a high grade agricultural growing medium for legal cannabis growers in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

Vega recently announced that it had entered into a reseller Agreement with an Anchorage cannabis start-up to market Vegas Biochar throughout the State of Alaska.  As a result of this effort and the response the Company received at the recent Cannacon Convention in Santa Rosa, CA, Vega now plans to build a manufacturing plant in Anchorage that will produce the torrefied Biochar.  Vega will utilize patent pending torrefaction technology at the new facility.  The specialized machine will be manufactured in Virginia and shipped directly to the Anchorage facility.

Biochar is a highly absorbent specially designed charcoal-type product primarily used as a soil enhancement for the agricultural industry to significantly increase crop yields. Biochar is made from timber waste using torrefaction technology and the Companys patent pending torrefaction machine.  The introduction of Biochar into soil is not like applying fertilizer; it is the beginning of a process.  Most of the benefit is achieved through microbes and fungi.  They colonize its massive surface area and integrate into the Biochar and the surrounding soil, dramatically increasing the soils ability to nurture plant growth and provide increased crop yield.  Cannabis growers currently using Biochar as a soil enhancement have reported dramatic increases in plant production.

?The cost of shipping the product from the east coast to Alaska is a major issue that weve been working on the past few weeks, stated Michael K. Molen, Chairman/CEO of Vega Biofuels, Inc. ?After the response we received during the Santa Rosa meetings, we finally made the decision to move the manufacturing process closer to our customers and cut out the high shipping costs.  The machine will utilize our patent pending torrefaction technology and will have a capacity of approximately three tons per hour.  The legal cannabis industry has exploded in places like Oregon and Washington and we see the same trend happening in Alaska. Our product is proven and is currently used in various other agricultural applications, not just the cannabis industry.  Eliminating the shipping costs will have a direct impact on our bottom line.

About Vega Biofuels, Inc. (OTCPink: VGPR):

Vega Biofuels, Inc. is a cutting-edge energy company that manufactures and markets a renewable energy product called Bio-Coal and a soil enhancement called Biochar, both made from timber waste using unique technology called torrefaction.  Torrefaction is the treatment of biomass at high temperatures under low oxygen conditions.  For more information, please visit our website at vegabiofuels.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the following words: “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by, which such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time the statements are made and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainty and other factors that may cause our results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements in this press release.

Webmaster
Privacy.


Activated Biochar

1 June, 2017
 

Biochar Active is a product charged with organic nutrients, moisture balanced and inoculated with a blend of microbes & fungi selected to benefit the widest possible range of plant species.

Biochar Active is a product charged with organic nutrients, moisture balanced and inoculated with a blend of microbes & fungi selected to benefit the widest possible range of plant species.

The biochar component

The added nutrients

The inoculation

5KG, 25KG


DENR wants biochar to rehabilitate mine sites

2 June, 2017
 

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) pushes for the use of biochar as one of the programs to rehabilitate mine sites. — Business Nightly, ANC, April 18, 2017

Follow:

More

Power Beats Club © 2017. All Rights Reserved.


Biochar: de la Terra Preta amazònica a biotecnologia del s.XXI

2 June, 2017
 

Nearby Cities

There are no photos from the event at the moment.
Share photos from your mobile. Get our mobile app for your smartphone.

Loading venue map..

Get Weekly Email Newsletter. No Spam, Promise!


Pilot-Scale Testing of Non-Activated Biochar for Swine Manure Treatment and Mitigation of …

2 June, 2017
 

Maurer, D.L.; Koziel, J.A.; Kalus, K.; Andersen, D.S.; Opalinski, S. Pilot-Scale Testing of Non-Activated Biochar for Swine Manure Treatment and Mitigation of Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Odorous Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sustainability 2017, 9, 929.

Maurer DL, Koziel JA, Kalus K, Andersen DS, Opalinski S. Pilot-Scale Testing of Non-Activated Biochar for Swine Manure Treatment and Mitigation of Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Odorous Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sustainability. 2017; 9(6):929.

Maurer, Devin L.; Koziel, Jacek A.; Kalus, Kajetan; Andersen, Daniel S.; Opalinski, Sebastian. 2017. “Pilot-Scale Testing of Non-Activated Biochar for Swine Manure Treatment and Mitigation of Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Odorous Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Sustainability 9, no. 6: 929.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.


Microwave Torrefaction of leucaena to Produce Biochar with High Fuel Ratio and Energy Return …

2 June, 2017
 

In this study, microwave torrefaction of leucaena was studied to find out the potential applications and energy usage benefit of this technique. Both maximum temperature and heating rate increased with increasing microwave power level. Processing time was also an important operational parameter, but its effect was weaker than that of microwave power level. The heating value of torrefied product was higher at higher power level and longer processing time, but the mass and energy yields were lower due to higher energy input and thus more severe reaction. Heating value was approximately 30 MJ/kg at a microwave power level of 250 W for 30 min processing time. The fuel ratio of torrefied leucaena was up to 3.7, which is much higher than that of bituminous coal and thus can be regarded as an alternative fuel to replace or co-fire with coal. The energy return on investment of microwave torrefaction of leucaena can be 1.4, 17, and 34 when handling capacities are 8, 100, and 200 g, respectively. Therefore, microwave torrefaction of leucaena is a promising technique, and it can be more competitive when it is scaled up.

The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials

Science, 311 (2006), pp. 484–489

Challenges in scaling up biofuels infrastructure

Science, 329 (2010), pp. 793–796

Biomass and net primary productivity in Leucaena, Acacia and Eucalyptus, short rotation, high density (‘energy’) plantation in arid India

J Arid Environ, 31 (1995), pp. 301–309

Effect of age and season of harvesting on the growth, coppicing characteristics and biomass productivity of Leucaena leucocephala and Vitex negundo

Biomass Bioenerg, 26 (2004), pp. 229–234

Use of thermogravimetry/mass spectrometry analysis to explain the origin of volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis

Ind Eng Chem Res, 48 (2009), pp. 7430–7436

Valorization of Leucaena leucocephala for energy and chemicals from autohydrolysis

Biomass Bioenerg, 35 (2011), pp. 2224–2233

Effects of temperature and holding time during torrefaction on the pyrolysis behaviors of woody biomass

J Anal Appl Pyrolysis, 92 (2011), pp. 99–105

Alterations in energy properties of eucalyptus wood and bark subjected to torrefaction: The potential of mass loss as a synthetic indicator

Bioresour Technol, 101 (2010), pp. 9778–9784

A review on biomass torrefaction process and product properties for energy applications

Ind Biotechnol, 7 (2011), pp. 384–401

Pulverized coal combustion characteristics of high-fuel-ratio coals

Fuel, 83 (2004), pp. 1777–1785

Thermogravimetric assessment of combustion characteristics of blends of a coal with different biomass chars

Fuel Process Technol, 91 (2010), pp. 369–378

Characteristics of carbonized sludge for co-combustion in pulverized coal power plants

Waste Manag, 31 (2011), pp. 523–529

EROI of different fuels and the implications for society

Energy Policy, 64 (2014), pp. 141–152

Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of China’s conventional fossil fuels: Historical and future trends

Energy, 54 (2013), pp. 352–364

What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable society must have?

Energies, 2 (2009), pp. 25–47

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy.

No articles found.

This article has not been cited.

No articles found.


Biologically Activated Biochar

3 June, 2017
 

anchorage >

for sale >

farm & garden – by owner

Avoid scams, deal locally Beware wiring (e.g. Western Union), cashier checks, money orders, shipping.


The Biochar Revolution Transforming Agriculture Environment

3 June, 2017
 

You are about to access related books.Access Speed for this file: 4148 KB/Sec

Our library can be accessed from certain countries only.

Please, see if you are eligible to read or download our The Biochar Revolution Transforming Agriculture Environment content by creating an account.

You must create a free account in order to read or download this book.

Your Ebooks Library!


Organic high quality Biochar

3 June, 2017
 

anchorage >

for sale >

farm & garden – by owner

Avoid scams, deal locally Beware wiring (e.g. Western Union), cashier checks, money orders, shipping.


Biochar Kiln Design

3 June, 2017
 


Biochar Stove Blueprints

3 June, 2017
 


BIOCHAR

3 June, 2017
 

The charcoal is produced from pruning and thinning of the forest at Thornbush, and then “charged” with comfrey tea to produce biochar.

The comfrey can be harvested several times each summer. The plants regrow with great vigor and provide more nutrient-rick leaves in just a few weeks.

I am clearing brush and crowded trees from the forest to create space for planting more timber trees. The resulting “woody biomass” is used to heat the house in a way that leaves a lot of useful charcoal behind.

See you all at the market!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Connecting to %s


filtration – biochar

4 June, 2017
 

Please enable JavaScript to experience Vimeo in all of its glory.

TM + © 2017 Vimeo, Inc. All rights reserved.


BIOCHAR Birthday Fundraiser by Erica Blair

4 June, 2017
 


lovely California's Greenest Go Grow Juice [BIOCHAR ACTIVATOR]

5 June, 2017
 

Unsere Augen sind das Tor zur Welt! Deshalb gilt es, diese von klein an bis ins hohe Lebensalter zu schützen und das Augenlicht zu bewahren. Unser Motto ist „Qualität und Service rund ums Auge“. Wir bieten eine individuell abgestimmte Diagnostik und Therapie mit Unterstützung durch modernste Geräte mit innovativer Technologie. Eine durch ständige Fortbildung gestärkte Kompetenz sehen wir als Grundvoraussetzung ärztlichen Handelns an. Wir nehmen uns Zeit für Sie und möchten Sie in einem angenehmen Ambiente und möglichst ohne Wartezeiten persönlich und nach den neuesten medizinischen Standards beraten.

Immer früher können Augenerkrankungen durch Vorsorge mit innovativer Technologie erkannt und manchmal sogar verhindert werden. Nutzen Sie diese Möglichkeit zum Schutz Ihres Augenlichts!

Die Früherkennung der AMD, des Glaukoms und vieler anderen Augenerkrankungen sowie deren präzise Verlaufskontrolle kann gezielt mit dem hochmodernen OCT durchgeführt werden. 

Wann sollten Sie Ihren Augenarzt aufsuchen? Eine augenärztliche Untersuchung sollte auch ohne Sehbeeinträchtigung regelmäßig in Altersabhängigkeit oder bei Allgemeinerkrankungen durchgeführt werden.

Dr. med. Eva-Maria Kohnen
Privatpraxis für Augenheilkunde
Buchschlager Allee 9
63303 Dreieich

0 61 03 3 00 2170

0 61 03 3 00 2171

info@augenarzt-buchschlag.de

© 2017 Privatpraxis für Augenheilkunde — Dr. med. Eva-Maria Kohnen. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by . Created by Muffin group

© 2017 Privatpraxis für Augenheilkunde — Dr. med. Eva-Maria Kohnen. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by . Created by Muffin group


GreenGro Earthshine Soil Booster with Biochar, 5-Pound best

5 June, 2017
 

No upfront payments

Field marked with an * are required
*Applicants ID Number :

*Applicants Title : MrMrsMissMsDocProf

*Applicants Name :
First Name :
Surname :

*Applicants Cellular Number :

*Applicants Home Phone Number :

*Applicants Work Phone Number :

*Applicants Email Address :

*Applicants Physical Address :
Address Line 1 :
Address Line 2 :
Town/City :
Postal Code :


Applicants Employment Details

*Employment Status : PermanentSelf-EmployedPart-TimeContractUnemployed

*Company Name :

*Employment Date :

*Gross Salary :

*Net Salary :

*Monthly Expenses (Estimate) :

*Salary Frequency : WeeklyBi-WeeklyMonthly

*Monthly Salary Date :


Applicants Loan Details

*Are you Blacklisted ? YesNoUnsure

*Are you under Debt Review/Administration ? YesNo

*Loan Amount Requested :

*Loan Purpose : BuildingConsolidationBusinessPersonalSchool FeesMedical

Applicants Banking Details

*Bank Name : Absa (632005)African Bank (430000)Capitec (470010)First National Bank (250655)Nedbank (198765)Standard Bank (051001)

*Account Type : SavingsChequeTransmission

*Account Number :


Legal

I hereby irrevocably agree and authorize the below debit order mandate and irrevocably agree to the terms and conditions of Bad Credit Loans

I hereby give authority to debit my account with the once off registration fee

I hereby give authority to debit monthly for my Member Benefits

I agree that I have read and understand the Terms and Conditions. This agreement will form part of your consent and will form a binding electronic mandate and agreement between yourself (the applicant / client) and Bad Credit Loans and I agree that the payment instruction for the amount of R350-00 will be issued and delivered between the 25th and last day of the month.

As well as the monthly R99.00 fee for our members benefits which will be issued and delivered between the 25th and last day of the month.

I/We hereby authorise you to issue and deliver payment instructions to your Banker for collection against my/our
above-mentioned account at my/our above-mentioned Bank (or any other bank or branch to which I/we may
transfer my/our account) on condition that the sum of such payment instructions will never exceed my/our
obligations as agreed to in the Agreement and commencing on Today’s Date and continuing until this Authority and Mandate is terminated by me/us by giving you notice in writing of not less than 20 ordinary working days, and sent by prepaid registered post or delivered to your address as indicated above.

The individual payment instructions so authorised to be issued must be issued and delivered as follows: Monthly

In the event that the payment day falls on a Sunday, or recognised South African public holiday, the payment day
will automatically be the very next ordinary business day.

I/We understand that the withdrawals hereby authorised will be processed through a computerised system
provided by the South African Banks. I also understand that details of each withdrawal will be printed on my bank
statement. Such must contain a number, which must be included in the said payment instruction and if provided
to me should enable me to identify the Agreement. This number must be added to this form in Section E before
the issuing of any payment instruction.

A. Mandate
I acknowledge that all payment instructions issued by you will be treated by my abovementioned bank as if the instructions had been issued by me personally.

B. Cancellation
I agree that, although this authority and mandate may be cancelled by me, such cancellation will not cancel the agreement. I also understand that I cannot reclaim amounts that have been withdrawn from my account (paid) in terms of this authority and mandate if such amounts were legally owing to you.

This authority and mandate has been given electronically in terms of the electronic communications and transactions Act 25 of 2002, Chapter 3, Part 1.

If you agree to the above and click “Submit”. We cannot be held liable should any incorrect information be given which could result in your application being declined.

Signature

Please only click Submit once, depending on the speed of your connection submissions can take up to 60s to process

Field marked with an * are required
*Applicants ID Number :

*Applicants Title : MrMrsMissMsDocProf

*Applicants Name :
First Name :
Surname :

*Applicants Cellular Number :

*Applicants Home Phone Number :

*Applicants Work Phone Number :

*Applicants Email Address :

*Applicants Physical Address :
Address Line 1 :
Address Line 2 :
Town/City :
Postal Code :

*Company Name :

*Employment Date :

*Gross Salary :

*Net Salary :

*Monthly Expenses (Estimate) :

*Salary Frequency : WeeklyBi-WeeklyMonthly

*Monthly Salary Date :

*Are you Blacklisted ? YesNoUnsure

*Are you under Debt Review/Administration ? YesNo

*Loan Amount Requested :

*Loan Purpose : BuildingConsolidationBusinessPersonalSchool FeesMedical

Applicants Banking Details

*Bank Name : Absa (632005)African Bank (430000)Capitec (470010)First National Bank (250655)Nedbank (198765)Standard Bank (051001)

*Account Type : SavingsChequeTransmission

*Account Number :


Legal

I hereby irrevocably agree and authorize the below debit order mandate and irrevocably agree to the terms and conditions of Bad Credit Loans

I hereby give authority to debit my account with the once off registration fee

I hereby give authority to debit monthly for my Member Benefits

I agree that I have read and understand the Terms and Conditions. This agreement will form part of your consent and will form a binding electronic mandate and agreement between yourself (the applicant / client) and Bad Credit Loans and I agree that the payment instruction for the amount of R350-00 will be issued and delivered between the 25th and last day of the month.

As well as the monthly R99.00 fee for our members benefits which will be issued and delivered between the 25th and last day of the month.

I/We hereby authorise you to issue and deliver payment instructions to your Banker for collection against my/our
above-mentioned account at my/our above-mentioned Bank (or any other bank or branch to which I/we may
transfer my/our account) on condition that the sum of such payment instructions will never exceed my/our
obligations as agreed to in the Agreement and commencing on Today’s Date and continuing until this Authority and Mandate is terminated by me/us by giving you notice in writing of not less than 20 ordinary working days, and sent by prepaid registered post or delivered to your address as indicated above.

The individual payment instructions so authorised to be issued must be issued and delivered as follows: Monthly

In the event that the payment day falls on a Sunday, or recognised South African public holiday, the payment day
will automatically be the very next ordinary business day.

I/We understand that the withdrawals hereby authorised will be processed through a computerised system
provided by the South African Banks. I also understand that details of each withdrawal will be printed on my bank
statement. Such must contain a number, which must be included in the said payment instruction and if provided
to me should enable me to identify the Agreement. This number must be added to this form in Section E before
the issuing of any payment instruction.

A. Mandate
I acknowledge that all payment instructions issued by you will be treated by my abovementioned bank as if the instructions had been issued by me personally.

B. Cancellation
I agree that, although this authority and mandate may be cancelled by me, such cancellation will not cancel the agreement. I also understand that I cannot reclaim amounts that have been withdrawn from my account (paid) in terms of this authority and mandate if such amounts were legally owing to you.

This authority and mandate has been given electronically in terms of the electronic communications and transactions Act 25 of 2002, Chapter 3, Part 1.

If you agree to the above and click “Submit”. We cannot be held liable should any incorrect information be given which could result in your application being declined.

Signature

Please only click Submit once, depending on the speed of your connection submissions can take up to 60s to process

*Bank Name : Absa (632005)African Bank (430000)Capitec (470010)First National Bank (250655)Nedbank (198765)Standard Bank (051001)

*Account Type : SavingsChequeTransmission

*Account Number :

I hereby irrevocably agree and authorize the below debit order mandate and irrevocably agree to the terms and conditions of Bad Credit Loans

I hereby give authority to debit my account with the once off registration fee

I hereby give authority to debit monthly for my Member Benefits

I agree that I have read and understand the Terms and Conditions. This agreement will form part of your consent and will form a binding electronic mandate and agreement between yourself (the applicant / client) and Bad Credit Loans and I agree that the payment instruction for the amount of R350-00 will be issued and delivered between the 25th and last day of the month.

As well as the monthly R99.00 fee for our members benefits which will be issued and delivered between the 25th and last day of the month.

I/We hereby authorise you to issue and deliver payment instructions to your Banker for collection against my/our
above-mentioned account at my/our above-mentioned Bank (or any other bank or branch to which I/we may
transfer my/our account) on condition that the sum of such payment instructions will never exceed my/our
obligations as agreed to in the Agreement and commencing on Today’s Date and continuing until this Authority and Mandate is terminated by me/us by giving you notice in writing of not less than 20 ordinary working days, and sent by prepaid registered post or delivered to your address as indicated above.

The individual payment instructions so authorised to be issued must be issued and delivered as follows: Monthly

In the event that the payment day falls on a Sunday, or recognised South African public holiday, the payment day
will automatically be the very next ordinary business day.

I/We understand that the withdrawals hereby authorised will be processed through a computerised system
provided by the South African Banks. I also understand that details of each withdrawal will be printed on my bank
statement. Such must contain a number, which must be included in the said payment instruction and if provided
to me should enable me to identify the Agreement. This number must be added to this form in Section E before
the issuing of any payment instruction.

A. Mandate
I acknowledge that all payment instructions issued by you will be treated by my abovementioned bank as if the instructions had been issued by me personally.

B. Cancellation
I agree that, although this authority and mandate may be cancelled by me, such cancellation will not cancel the agreement. I also understand that I cannot reclaim amounts that have been withdrawn from my account (paid) in terms of this authority and mandate if such amounts were legally owing to you.

This authority and mandate has been given electronically in terms of the electronic communications and transactions Act 25 of 2002, Chapter 3, Part 1.

If you agree to the above and click “Submit”. We cannot be held liable should any incorrect information be given which could result in your application being declined.

Signature

Please only click Submit once, depending on the speed of your connection submissions can take up to 60s to process


Below is an Example (excluding credit life insurance) of a R50 000 loan over 60 month period.

Please feel free to contact us directly if you have any questions or quires :

Telephone Number : 021 202 8813

Email Address : info@

Bad Credit Loans Member Benefits is mandatory in order to qualify for the free loan finding service

We charge a once fee of R350 and R99 a month thereafter


best New Hampshire Biochar in a 5 quart bag from the Charcola Group

5 June, 2017
 

© 2014 Gurme Kıbrıs


Biochar: Carbon Sequestration and Soil Fertility Improvement

5 June, 2017
 

document to be ready in 5 seconds.


One day programme on Biochar production organised

5 June, 2017
 

Jammu Tawi, June 5
In context of World Environment Day on 5 June 2017, one day training programme on biochar production and application in agriculture as climate change mitigation strategy was organized by SKUAST-J in one of the remotest villages namely Kathar, Mohargarh panchayat in district Samba under guidance of Dr J P Sharma, Director Research of SKUAST-J. The training was conducted under NABARD sponsored project “On-farm training and demonstration of biochar production for carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation in kandi belt of Jammu” in order to create awareness about the value addition of farm waste and climate change mitigation through scientific interventions of using biochar in agricultural system. Principal Investigator of the project, Dr Peeyush Sharma deliberated about the production technology and value addition of their farm waste by converting the waste into carbon rich ‘Biochar’ which has huge potential to offset adverse impacts of climate change with special reference to enhance the crop productivity under rainfed agriculture. On the occasion, the project team comprising scientists from different disciplines Engineer N K Gupta and Dr Vikas Abrol informed farmers that biochar is a powerfully simple tool to mitigate global warming and one of the few technologies that is relatively inexpensive, widely applicable, and quickly scalable on the field.

Copyright © 2015 JKNEWSPOINT

Proudly Designed & Developed by Say Technologies


Korean natural farming uses organic items to replenish soil

5 June, 2017
 

Jun 5, 2017

Hawaii Farmers Union United President Vincent Mina (right) holds up a shovel full of hot soil for Kerry Beane and Paul De Filippi to touch during a workshop Sunday on Korean natural farming techniques at the University of Hawaii Maui College. A mix of fermented ingredients including white rice, brown sugar and a mill-run of wheat were placed in the soil to help culture microbes. The Maui News / COLLEEN UECHI photo

KAHULUI — The world of Korean natural farming is like a glimpse into a mad scientist’s lab. At one end of the table, Ricky Apana is toasting crushed eggshells in a giant wok while Seth Raabe pours charred animal bone bits into a jar. Vincent Mina is sprinkling brown sugar over smashed banana peels.

But there’s a science behind the curious concoctions, and it all comes down to making healthy soil naturally, cutting down on “inputs” like fertilizers that are among the costliest investments for farmers.

“It’s empowering the farmer on how to recycle his nutrients back onto the farm,” said Mina, president of Hawaii Farmers Union United. “Empowering the farmer to be connected to his plants more instead of just throwing some granules down and not really knowing what’s going on.”

At the University of Hawaii Maui College on Sunday, Mina, Mahele Farm manager Raabe and Maui Bio Char owner Apana were finishing a two-day workshop with farmers on the techniques pioneered and popularized by South Korean master farmer Cho Han-Kyu.

The heart of the approach lies in applying natural and fermented “preparations” to plants at different growing stages, explained Raabe, who’s certified in Korean natural farming.

Maui Bio Char owner Ricky Apana (from left), Hawaii Farmers Union United President Vincent Mina and Mahele Farm manager Seth Raabe create lactic acid bacteria using a mixture of fermented rice wash water and milk. The resulting product helps improve soil ventilation and is a strong sterilizer. The Maui News / COLLEEN UECHI photo

What drew some farmers Sunday was the simplicity of the ingredients, things like leftover bones, bananas, vinegar, brown sugar and rice. For example, fermented plant juice only requires weeds and brown sugar, which creates a liquid that can be applied during the early growing stages to aid in plant protection. A mixture of eggshells and brown rice vinegar makes a formula that helps during a plant’s fruiting stage. Fermented steamed rice with brown sugar encourages microbes in the soil that nourish plants.

“One of the higher costs for farmers is the inputs, and this is about harvesting as much as possible locally,” said Phyllis Robinson, program director for UH-MC’s Beginning Farm program. “It’s not being sourced from the Mainland, and I think that’s been the key thing for everyone. . . . It’s so important for us to grow our own fertilizers.”

Mina said that the technique is not a silver bullet, but he was impressed by how he could “use fermentations to bring about the nutrients” in the soil. Last year, his family’s 2,000-square-foot garden produced 21,000 pounds of food, and the Minas noticed that the vegetables grow bigger and last longer now that they use Korean natural farming and plant-based compost.

“When we have a healthy soil system, it grows healthy plants,” Mina said. “Those plants specifically grow into a complete protein. And it takes too much energy for bugs to eat healthy plants.”

When Paul De Filippi first heard about Korean natural farming methods, it sounded like “sorcery,” he joked.

Maui Bio Char owner Ricky Apana marks the date on a jar of crushed eggshells and brown rice vinegar that will ferment over seven to 10 days. The chemical reaction extracts calcium carbonate. Calcium mobilizes nutrients in the soil, Hawaii Farmers Union United President Vincent Mina said. The Maui News / COLLEEN UECHI photo

“It was just too easy,” De Filippi explained. “Too many household items, too much stuff that I’ve already got going on. I was just like, ‘Wait, I can use this stuff for more . . . other than just food and waste?’”

De Filippi, a native of Canada, grows citrus, dragonfruit, mangoes and assorted vegetables on 6 acres in Omaopio. As a farmer and treasurer of Hawaii Tropical Fruit Growers, he’s always looking for new ideas. He thinks Korean natural farming is useful for both conventional and organic farmers, like him.

“It’s time consuming, but I think it’s probably worth it in the long run,” De Filippi said. “Especially because it’s more about building the soil rather than just using it and flushing it . . . every single year, every single crop. You’re actually building an ecosystem that you’re maintaining, and that makes your farm more valuable.

“You can see it’s a lot more scientific than it is sorcery,” he added. “That changed my mind.”

Kerry Beane is a home gardener who makes the most of the space outside of her Kihei apartment. In a 25-by-25-foot plot, she grows Swiss chard, parsley, kale, carrots and a citrus tree. An urban farming advocate, Beane is in search of better ways to grow food on a small scale.

“This is a technology that really fascinates me,” she said.

She said that the Korean natural farming formulas are “a great alternative to commercial chemical fertilizers.”

“I think I will make some of these formulations myself eventually, but to start, I’m just looking forward to bringing some home from this class and using them on our landscape and see what I see,” Beane said.

For farmers who are hesitant about doing the fermenting themselves, the Hawaii Farmers Union United hopes to open a dispensary in the future, Mina said. Right now, farmers are doing trials on dryland taro on a half-acre plot above the Maui Tropical Plantation, and they’ve seen hopeful signs that the nutrient content is comparable to that of crops grown with petrochemicals. The trials and workshops have come courtesy of a $90,000 grant from the state Department of Agriculture, and Mina added that the organization hopes to get additional funding to open a dispensary.

“It’s not that it takes a lot of time more than it takes a commitment to go down this path,” Mina said. “It’s like anything else. You have to invest yourself in whatever result you want to see happen.”

* Colleen Uechi can be reached at cuechi@mauinews.com.

THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor occurred during the period of May 30 …

THIS IS A LIST of residential burglaries, stolen vehicles and vehicle break-ins in Maui County reported to the Maui …

A 42-year-old Paia woman who got separated from her husband while paddleboarding was found safe Sunday afternoon …

Sewer pipe installations will prompt alternating lane closures in both directions of Waiehu Beach Road at the …

Lifeguards rescued a Utah couple caught in strong winds while paddleboarding off West Maui on Sunday afternoon, …

Crews put out a small Upcountry brush fire late Saturday, according to a fire official. At 8:30 p.m. Saturday, …

Today’s breaking news and more in your inbox

Copyright © Maui News | http://www.mauinews.com | 100 Mahalani Street, Wailuku, HI 96793 | 808-242-6363 | Ogden Newspapers | The Nutting Company


1 Gallon Bag – 100% Biochar – Low Dust – USDA Certified

5 June, 2017
 

© 2014 Gurme Kıbrıs


biochar / hardwood lump charcoal

5 June, 2017
 

maine >

for sale >

farm & garden – by owner

Avoid scams, deal locally Beware wiring (e.g. Western Union), cashier checks, money orders, shipping.


biochar

5 June, 2017
 

电脑版


cheap 10 bags special – 6C Soil, 100% Pure Biochar.

5 June, 2017
 

Paolo’s Kitchen Copyright © 2017.   All Rights Reserved.


well-wreapped Biochar : 100% Pure Bamboo, 5 gallons +

5 June, 2017
 

We specialise in the design and documentation of building services installations for small to medium sized commercial office, medical and retail projects, residential facilities including aged care and retirement villages and educational facilities (public and private).

We work generally with established clients. New clients contact us generally by referral from established clients or associates. We have been fortunate to have consistent work for many years.

AS 3003 and Aged Care Residences
Compliance with AS 3003 in Residential Aged Care […]

AS 3003 and Aged Care Residences
Compliance with AS 3003 in Residential Aged Care […]

Tandem Building Group
Tandem Building Group are currently involved in the construction of Lots […]

Tandem Building Group
Tandem Building Group are currently involved in the construction of Lots […]

Elevation Architecture Studio
We are grateful to our new client, Elevation Architects, primarily established […]

Elevation Architecture Studio
We are grateful to our new client, Elevation Architects, primarily established […]

Congratulations to all concerned for the completion of this project, it is a great step forward for our Rivercrest campus.


Explore these ideas and much more!

5 June, 2017
 

See how Mike gets his hands dirty


10 bags special – 6C Soil, 100% Pure Biochar. durable service

5 June, 2017
 

Reduza medidas e celulite com Reduct

Com Broto de Bambu

Para homens práticos e modernos…

Shampoo Íntimo

Seja um(a) Revendedor(a) Dokmos


lovely New Hampshire Biochar in a 5 gallon bag from the Charcola Group

5 June, 2017
 

EN | DE

Founded in 2013 by Switzerland’s leading multi-educational agency, the
Education Switzerland Association (ESA) is a network of high-quality
education providers with learning specific curricula and associates with
complementary offers to international students and their friends and family.

Spend the best summer of your life in a safe,
fun and educational holiday camp with a friendly atmosphere

Looking for first class education in a health, busy and international
environment right in the heart of Europe? IB, A-level or even Swiss matura

As Switzerland is known as a multilingual nation and for its high
standards of education, you can easily improve and
apply here your English, German or French

Home of the first national hotel association and hotel school,
Switzerland has long been at the forefront of education
and professionalism in hospitality management industry

Switzerland is internationally recognised as a centre of excellence
for university education, its attraction for studying and research
is well-established

Be prepared for management positions in the fields of corporate finance,
investment management and banking and graduate
in a renowned center of world economies

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French,
ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

If you’re looking to study abroad in a true education powerhouse, and if quality and safety matter, then you might want to consider Switzerland. Read our pages to find out everything you need to know about studying and living in Europe’s elite study destination, which given the population of the entire country is smaller than that of the US state of Virginia is no mean feat.

Seven Swiss universities make the world’s top 150 (eight in total make the rankings) and Switzerland’s system of higher or private education is extremely international in nature. Four of the eight ranked universities make the world’s top 30 in terms of international students. They perform similarly well in terms of international staff.

But it’s not just universities that inspired 50,000 international students to study in Switzerland. For one thing, you won’t find many more beautiful countries. From its postcard-perfect lakes and mountains, to its picturesque and charming towns, which sometimes look like they’ve been plucked straight out of a Disney film, Switzerland is pretty easy on the eye!

Then there is its status as a true European melting pot, which can offer some of best quality of life anywhere in the world. Sound good? If so, then maybe Switzerland is the study abroad destination for you…

Spend the best summer of your life in a safe, fun and educational holiday camp with a friendly atmosphere

SUMMERCAMP GRUYERE A

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

SUMMERCAMP GRUYERE A-1

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German or French in small groups according to their levels.

Looking for first class education in a health, busy and international environment right in the heart of Europe? IB, A-level or even Swiss matura

Boarding School 1-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Boarding School 2-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

As Switzerland is known as a multilingual nation and for its high standards of education, you can easily improve and apply here your English, German or French

Languages School 1-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Languages School 2-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Home of the first national hotel association and hotel school, Switzerland has long been at the forefront of education and professionalism in hospitality management industry

Hospitality 1-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Hospitality B-2

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Switzerland is internationally recognised as a centre of excellence for university education, its attraction for studying and research is well-established

University 1-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

University 2-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Be prepared for management positions in the fields of corporate finance, investment management and banking and graduate in a renowned centre of world economies

Finance + Business 1-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Finance + Business 2-B

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Switzerland has a lot more to offer, improve your visit with a round trip, shopping or cultural event or health check

More…

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

More….

The summercamp is focusing on learning English, German, French, ICT or Business in small groups according to their levels.

Education Switzerland is online, international

Big celebration on Switzerland’s national

The promotion workshop itinerary is

Education Switzerland is presented on

New association of Swiss educators

© 2017 Copyright Swiss Education . Powered by


1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon free shipping

5 June, 2017
 

 

Pepco Outlet Water Drip Feed Irrigation cheap
free shipping 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
UDTEE 1PCS New/Practicle/Durable Mini Transparent Bird Shape Design Decorative Hand-blown Glass Small Plant Watering Bulbs 70%OFF
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon on sale
80%OFF Spryer Shut-Off Brass
well-wreapped 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
Hose Hugger Swimming Pool Vacuum Hose Carrier – Large low-cost
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon high-quality
ikris Retractable Garden Water Hose Reel 25 Feet cheap
30%OFF 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
durable modeling Ikea Ps Vållö Watering Can – Turquoise Blue – New Color Spring 2015
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon durable service
Gardena 996 49.5-Foot Sprinkler Hose free shipping
durable modeling 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
Poolmaster 36682 1-1/2" Hose Cuff new
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon on sale
on sale 100ft Most Heat-resistant Water Garden Pipe Expandable Hose As Seen on Tv,blue
new 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
GARDENA 1382/8382-U T-Joint 1/2-Inch, Micro Drip System durable modeling
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon free shipping
7-Pattern Nozzle with Trigger lock durable service
durable modeling 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
30%OFF Digital Water Timer
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon cheap
Drip Irrigation Kit for Container Gardening Deluxe Size – Water 30 Plants high-quality
low-cost 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
Camco 20123 Brass Water Wye Valve well-wreapped
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon 80%OFF
on sale Nelson 50121 50121 Multi Pattern Nozzle – Colors May Vary
70%OFF 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
Briggs & Stratton 6214 Pressure Washer Cleaning Solution Siphon Hose and Filter free shipping
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon cheap
Rainreserve 2012309 Rain Barrel Basic Rain Diverter (Barrel Not Included) good
30%OFF 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
outlet CONTINENTAL 2-Way Water Distributor & Watering Timer
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon on sale
Toro 53702 Blue Stripe Drip 1/2-Inch Coupling Sprinkler chic
new 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
new Dramm Classic Rain Watering Wand 30-Inch Length With 8-Inch Foam Grip – Silver 12345
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon new
Rain Bird Drip CPZ075PFAS Drip Irrigation Anti-Siphon Control Valve Kit, 3/4" on sale
85%OFF 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
Orbit 6-station Indoor/outdoor Sprinkler Timer Model 27896 30%OFF
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon chic
cheap Rain Harvesting Pty Ltd RHAD99 Leaf Eater Advanced Rain Head- 3 in. Round
outlet 1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon
Shrubbler 360 Degree Pressure Compensating Dripper on Spike- 10 pack (Part 31695) 70%OFF
1 Quart Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon good

 


Biochar used to aid salinity issues

6 June, 2017
 

A West Australian bushfood grower is praising heavy use of biochar to be the saviour of her highly saline soils. Over the last decade it has been subject to a lot of research and development, with focus on yields and fertiliser use, but there has been no dedicated researched that investigates the application of biochar on dryland salinity.

Flag inappropriate postPost has been flagged for review

Send feedback

Cancel

Notify me when there are new discussions.

Enter your email to get updates on this discussion.

Enter your email to get updates when people reply.

Share your thoughts with the world


Bushfood farmer uses biochar to combat salinity

6 June, 2017
 

Queensland woman Sara Zelenak identified as second Australian to have died in London terror attack

China Power: Communist cash, Australian politics and the battle for influence

By Tyne Logan

Salinity was once known as the ‘white cancer’, expected to affect 15 million hectares of arable land.

ABC News

A West Australian bushfood grower is praising heavy use of biochar to be the saviour of her highly saline soils.

Biochar is a charcoal product that is produced from plant matter, and is used in agricultural contexts.

Over the last decade it has been subject to a lot of research and development, with focus on yields and fertiliser use, but there has been no dedicated researched that investigates the application of biochar on dryland salinity.

To bushfood grower Karry Fisher-Watts, however, there is no question about its salinity-reduction capabilities.

Ms Fisher-Watts and her husband Barry bought a small farm in Brookton, two hours south-east of Perth, three years ago to farm native bushfood species such as sandalwood and quondongs.

Karry Fisher-Watts in her electric car named ‘Polly’

ABC Rural: Tyne Logan

After discovering the land had severe salinity issues, the pair set to work implementing a vast array of saline reduction methods.

It included applying eight tonne of biochar into made-made wells, spreading it along rip lines and also putting it inside permeable biomass walls.

"This soil here was actually white on the surface, you could walk on it in summer and you would just hear crunching with salt," she said.

“One of the depressing things about it was that when we put trees in they just couldn’t grow, and basically we discovered that there was an underground sub-surface drain that leached salt water from the area to here.”

Now, after extreme efforts in implementing salinity reduction methods, five hectares of bushfood species grow on the land.

Dryland salinity is a major form of land degradation in Australia’s agricultural industry.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics it impacts about 2 million hectares of agricultural land across the country, half of which is in Western Australia.

Ms Fisher-Watts said she believed bio-char and its by-product, wood vinegar, accounted for 70 per cent of the reason their soil now successfully grows trees..

Visible salt scalds evident on the Brookton property in January 2016.

Supplied: Karry Fisher-Watts

While the land is still hard and slightly saline, it now successfully grows native bushfood plants.

ABC Rural: Tyne Logan

While most of the species grown on the property are salt-tolerant varieties, Ms Fisher-Watts said she was so confident about its benefits to salinity that she was this year planting clover on the property as well.

“We put clover in last year and 98 per cent of it died,” she said.

"But this year we are so confident that we have invested a lot of money its planting clover this year.

“It’s very salt-tolerant clover.”

Biochar varies in price, ranging form $100 to $300 a tonne in Western Australia, not including freight, to about $600 in the eastern-states.

Ms Fisher-Watts’ efforts have attracted the interest of a number of researchers, including being used as a case study for a feature article published in Future Directions International. [link]

Although the results are purely anecdotal, there is interest from companies, researchers and NRM groups in undertaking official trials of biochar and its impact on salinity.

Euan Beaumont, the director of Energy Farmers Australia, a WA based biochar company, said their company would be keen to see what application of biochar to saline soils has on the actual salinity of the soil.

“We’d like to work with NRM groups or farmers in particular, and all it need is covering the cost of getting the biochar there, the application and then the monitoring of it,” he said.

Mr Beaumont, who formerly worked as a grain farmer, said for it to be worth it for farmers they would need to assess the application rate to see if it was cost viable.

In the meantime, Karry Fisher-Watts has been involved in setting up WA’s first Biochar Network which will aim to fund and conduct trials and create a resource of information on biochar’s benefits.

delivered to your inbox

More information

Newsletter Podcasts RSS

A bushfood grower says biochar has helped significantly with her saline affected land.

A Queensland researcher probes the social lives of cattle to see if it impacts on their overall welfare.

Rotting fruit and vegetables become electricity in the Sydney Markets’ own war on waste.

Tasmanian berry producers recruit more seasonal workers as industry expands.

This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.

AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of UTC (Greenwich Mean Time)


biochar – does it work

6 June, 2017
 

We provide help, support and advice for smallholders and aspiring smallholders

Sign-in / Register

Started by helskitchen

Started by zoe_emma

Started by WinslowPorker

Started by Sandy

Started by Roxy

© The Accidental Smallholder Ltd 2003-2017. All rights reserved.

Design by Furness Internet

Site developed by Champion IS


Biochar – does it work?

6 June, 2017
 


best AG Biochar Activated "LIVE" Soil Amendment- 1/2 Cubic Ft.

6 June, 2017
 

Bienvenidos a vuestra tienda online Life is Patchwork

Todos los productos profesionales para Patchwork: patrones de Patchwork, tijeras, cortahilos, cutters, bases de corte, y mucho más … lo encontraras aquí.

Productos de patchwork al mejor precio del mercado, aquí encontrarás lo necesario para realizar tus proyectos. Si no encuentras un producto, envíanos un email y te informaremos lo antes posible.
ver más

En este espacio compartiremos con vosotr@s los trabajos realizados por las alumnas de la academia Miomo y más trabajos del mundo del patchwork.

ver más

Próximamente, inauguraremos nueva sección con ofertas en productos de patchwork.

1.00  0.85 

35.00  29.00 

Podréis ver nuestro anuncio en el Nº 67 , otoño del 2014, de la revista de la Asociación Española de Patchwork. …

Tel: (+34) 93 314 10 29
Mvl: 600 77 93 06
Email: info@


50%OFF AG Biochar Activated "LIVE" Soil Amendment- 1/3 Cubic Ft.

6 June, 2017
 

I’ve also been having fun with gemstones. I’m slowly making a (tiny) dent in my collection of stones. Here are a few recent pieces (once again, if one of them has your name on it — send me a message):

 

Well, all that’s left is to pack up the new jewellery (well, and my clothes!). The show starts tomorrow at 11 am and goes right through to Monday at 6 pm — come on down!

Keep well,

Valerie

 

This coming long weekend I will be at Artfest in the Distillery (in Toronto)! I can’t wait, the show organizer, Lory McDonald and her team put on a good show. You should come down! I’ve also will be bringing some new work, made especially for this show! Here are some examples of new pearl necklaces… Continue Reading

The card says it all! The sign up area is just to your right, it’s simple and free. I can assure you that I won’t be overwhelming you with emails — I find that annoying and I don’t really have that kind of time! The prize is one of these great enameled pendants! You could… Continue Reading

That’s where I’ll be this weekend! I’m excited to be part of this show, the Artfest team always puts on a good show! The new work that I’ve been showing here, and more will be there with me! Drop by to experience all of the wonderful work that will be there! Valerie   Continue Reading

Tomorrow is the Thorold Spring Craft show (10 am to 4 pm @ 70 Front St E Thorold). It’s a great time to get something hand made for Mom! Or really, for yourself, to kick off the return of hot muggy weather! The beauties that I’ve been showing the last few posts will be there,… Continue Reading


The Biochar Revolution

6 June, 2017
 

Delivers an excellent overall understanding of what biochar is and how to make it.

Paul TaylorLibrarian Note There is than one author with this name in the Goodreads data base.

6473 Users Online Now


Making bio char charcoal the easy and effective way

6 June, 2017
 


Biochar used to aid salinity issues

7 June, 2017
 

RSS

A West Australian bushfood grower is praising heavy use of
biochar to be the saviour of her highly saline soils.

Biochar is a charcoal product that is produced from plant
matter, and is used in agricultural contexts.

Over the last decade it has been subject to a lot of research
and development, with focus on yields and fertiliser use, but
there has been no dedicated researched that investigates the
application of biochar on dryland salinity.

To bushfood grower Karry Fisher-Watts, however, there is no
question about its salinity-reduction capabilities.

Ms Fisher-Watts and her husband Barry bought a small farm in
Brookton, two hours south-east of Perth, three years ago to
farm native bushfood species such as sandalwood and quondongs.

Karry Fisher-Watts in her electric car named ‘Polly’

(ABC Rural: Tyne Logan)

Karry Fisher-Watts in her electric car named
‘Polly’

After discovering the land had severe salinity issues, the pair
set to work implementing a vast array of saline reduction
methods.

It included applying eight tonne of biochar into made-made
wells, spreading it along rip lines and also putting it inside
permeable biomass walls.

“This soil here was actually white on the surface, you could
walk on it in summer and you would just hear crunching with
salt,” she said.

“One of the depressing things about it was that when we put
trees in they just couldn’t grow, and basically we discovered
that there was an underground sub-surface drain that leached
salt water from the area to here.”

Now, after extreme efforts in implementing salinity reduction
methods, five hectares of bushfood species grow on the land.

Dryland salinity is a major form of land degradation in
Australia’s agricultural industry.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics it impacts
about 2 million hectares of agricultural land across the
country, half of which is in Western Australia.

Ms Fisher-Watts said she believed bio-char and its by-product,
wood vinegar, accounted for 70 per cent of the reason their
soil now successfully grows trees..

Visible salt scalds evident on the Brookton property in
January 2016.

(Supplied: Karry Fisher-Watts)

Visible salt scalds evident on the Brookton
property in January 2016.

Supplied: Karry Fisher-Watts

While the land is still hard and slightly saline, it now
successfully grows native bushfood plants.

(ABC Rural: Tyne Logan)

While the land is still hard and slightly saline,
it now successfully grows native bushfood plants.

While most of the species grown on the property are
salt-tolerant varieties, Ms Fisher-Watts said she was so
confident about its benefits to salinity that she was this year
planting clover on the property as well.

“We put clover in last year and 98 per cent of it died,” she
said.

“But this year we are so confident that we have invested a
lot of money its planting clover this year.

“It’s very salt-tolerant clover.”

Biochar varies in price, ranging form $100 to $300 a tonne in
Western Australia, not including freight, to about $600 in the
eastern-states.

Ms Fisher-Watts’ efforts have attracted the interest of a
number of researchers, including being used as a case study for
a feature article published in Future Directions International.
[link]

Although the results are purely anecdotal, there is interest
from companies, researchers and NRM groups in undertaking
official trials of biochar and its impact on salinity.

Euan Beaumont, the director of Energy Farmers Australia, a WA
based biochar company, said their company would be keen to see
what application of biochar to saline soils has on the actual
salinity of the soil.

“We’d like to work with NRM groups or farmers in particular,
and all it need is covering the cost of getting the biochar
there, the application and then the monitoring of it,” he said.

Mr Beaumont, who formerly worked as a grain farmer, said for it
to be worth it for farmers they would need to assess the
application rate to see if it was cost viable.

In the meantime, Karry Fisher-Watts has been involved in
setting up WA’s first Biochar Network which will aim to fund
and conduct trials and create a resource of information on
biochar’s benefits.

The Oz Bush Telegraph www.ozbushtelegraph.online is a subsidary of Halls Creek Herald – Community Newspapers and Printers

Our Email Address is admin@ozbushtelegraph.online

Copyright © 2017 Oz Bush Telegraph Online. Powered by WordPress.


Biochar used to aid salinity issues

7 June, 2017
 

A bushfood grower in WA believes biochar has helped significantly with her saline-affected land.


Biochar used to aid salinity issues

7 June, 2017
 

,

Deerfield Beach, FL, June 06, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Zion Market Research has published a new report titled “Biochar Market (Pyrolysis, Gasification, Hydrothermal and

Deputies in Saline County are investigating after a body was found Tuesday morning near Salina. Saline County Sheriff Roger Soldan said a man’s body was discovered

NOTICE – New Flood Insurance Rate Map Proposed by FEMA for Saline County The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued a preliminary Flood Insurance Study

The Saline baseball team took another step toward their goal of reaching the state finals for the second straight year, and winning its first ever state title in baseball.

Students in Saline High School's Class of 2017 took that long-awaited walk to accept their diplomas at the commencement ceremony on Sunday, June 4. …

WorldNews.com

WorldNews.com

WorldNews.com

WorldNews.com

WorldNews.com

WorldNews.com

WorldNews.com

CNN

Variety

The Siasat Daily

The Guardian

WorldNews.com

The Washington Post

BBC News

WorldNews.com

The FDA (Food & Drug Administration) approval allows Grifols to market its physiological saline solution in 500-millimeter polypropylene bags in the U.S. hospital sector and guarantees the Group’s self-sufficiency. The product is manufactured in Grifols’ production plant in Las Torres de Cotillas (Murcia) Grifols’ U.S. network of plasma-donation centers will also use the IV

Jaisalmer: Around 10 years ago due to negligence in purchase of reverse osmosis (RO) plants, BSF jawans at more than 100 border outposts (BOPs) are still drinking saline water at Rajasthan and Gujarat international borders. There is also a possibility of jawans getting sick from drinking saline water. The issue of jawans stationed at the border drinking saline water was also

The fort has been affected by salinity and humidity on its internal and external walls due to its proximity to the coastal strip of the Sea of Oman.-ONA The fort has been affected by salinity and humidity on its internal and external walls due to its proximity to the coastal strip of the Sea of Oman.-ONA Muscat: Work for the restoration of Al Khabourah Fort is being done by the

DENTON, Texas – Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate maps are ready for residents and business owners in four Saline County communities to review. Those communities include Alexander, Bauxite, Benton and Bryant. Residents are encouraged to examine the maps to decide whether they need to buy flood insurance. Additionally, the flood maps allow residents and community leaders

5 Jun 2017 Collaborative approach to blueberry industry development on the north coast The NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is actively working with industry, councils and state agencies to promote best practice for blueberry developments to avoid and reduce land use conflicts in the north coast region. DPI Manager Agricultural Land Use Planning, Liz Rogers said a

more

V


Berthoud's Biochar Now wins $352000 state grant

7 June, 2017
 

Reporter-Herald Staff Writer

 

BERTHOUD — Biochar Now, a Berthoud-based green manufacturer, has won a $352,645 grant from the state health department to help it divert waste wood from landfills.

Biochar Now will use the grant to recover the cost of a screening machine and magnets that it uses in the process of turning waste wood into a high-quality charcoal-like material, CEO and founder James Gaspard said in an interview Wednesday.

The company turns beetle-killed pine, old pallets and crates and other wood into products can be used to amend the soil, control odors, filter water and much more, Gaspard said.

The grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity program is intended to help companies and organizations expand access to recycling and to create new green-sector jobs, according to a press release.

The release said Colorado has increased the amount of household and commercial waste it is diverting from landfills but still lags behind the national average of 35 percent.

“As an RREO grant recipient, Biochar Now will be able to significantly increase our capacity for utilizing waste wood materials typically headed for our landfills,” Gaspard said in the release.

“By partnering with local waste collection and hauling companies, we will not only recycle this waste stream into highly beneficial biochar but will be supporting our partners in creating new jobs,” he said.

According to the release, the state’s recycling industry supports more than 85,000 jobs and accounts for about 5 percent of the state’s economic output. It also pays almost $1.3 billion a year in state and local taxes, the release said.

Craig Young: 970-635-3634, cyoung@reporter-herald.com, www.twitter.com/CraigYoungRH.


Connections: Biochar Knowledge Evolution

7 June, 2017
 

All you need to know about
composting, renewable energy
and organics recycling.

BioCycle News in your inbox

Food News in your inbox

 

Sally Brown BioCycle  June 2017, Vol. 58, No. 5, p. 37 I remember when the Cuisinart® food processor first came out. Everybody wanted one. There was even a special magazine filled with recipes that all required a Cuisinart to make. What I came to learn is that for certain things, the Cuisinart is indispensible. For…

Not a BioCycle Subscriber? BioCycle is The Organics Recycling Authority
Subscribe NOW! Take advantage of a special introductory rate and gain access to the BioCycle Organics Recycling Knowledge Base.
Click Here

© 2017 The JG Press Inc./BioCycle

Contact Us | Copyright & Trademark Notice


Vega Biofuels Plans Biochar Manufacturing Plant in Alaska

7 June, 2017
 

NORCROSS, Ga. (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Vega recently announced that it had entered into a reseller Agreement with an Anchorage cannabis start-up to market Vega’s Biochar throughout the State of Alaska. As a result of this effort and the response the Company received at the recent Cannacon Convention in Santa Rosa, CA, Vega now plans to build a manufacturing plant in Anchorage that will produce the torrefied Biochar.

Vega will utilize patent pending torrefaction technology at the new facility. The specialized machine will be manufactured in Virginia and shipped directly to the Anchorage facility.

Biochar is a highly absorbent specially designed charcoal-type product primarily used as a soil enhancement for the agricultural industry to significantly increase crop yields. Biochar is made from timber waste using torrefaction technology and the Company’s patent pending torrefaction machine.

The introduction of Biochar into soil is not like applying fertilizer; it is the beginning of a process. Most of the benefit is achieved through microbes and fungi. They colonize its massive surface area and integrate into the Biochar and the surrounding soil, dramatically increasing the soil’s ability to nurture plant growth and provide increased crop yield. Cannabis growers currently using Biochar as a soil enhancement have reported dramatic increases in plant production.

“The cost of shipping the product from the east coast to Alaska is a major issue that we’ve been working on the past few weeks,” stated Michael K. Molen, Chairman/CEO of Vega Biofuels, Inc. “After the response we received during the Santa Rosa meetings, we finally made the decision to move the manufacturing process closer to our customers and cut out the high shipping costs. The machine will utilize our patent pending torrefaction technology and will have a capacity of approximately three tons per hour.

The legal cannabis industry has exploded in places like Oregon and Washington and we see the same trend happening in Alaska. Our product is proven and is currently used in various other agricultural applications, not just the cannabis industry. Eliminating the shipping costs will have a direct impact on our bottom line.”

Privacy Policy | Terms of Usage.


Global Biochar Market Reflecting a CAGR of 14.5% by 2020

7 June, 2017
 

Zion Market Research has published a new report titled “Power Banks (Portable Power Banks, Phone Charging Cases, Solar Power Banks) Market For Smartphone, Tablets, Portable Media Devices, and Others Application – Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2014 – 2020.” According to the report, global demand for power bank market was valued at USD 15.09 billion in 2014, is expected to reach USD 17.2 billion in at a CAGR of above 20% between 2015 and 2020. The power bank is commonly known as a battery charger. It is a portable and compact charger used to charge a broad range of digital products. Power banks are generally used for charging laptops, tablets, MP3 players, portable media device, and smartphones. It is used as an external battery, plug-in charger for charging a rechargeable battery or secondary cell. Power banks can be used to charge GPS systems, portable speakers, cameras, or other USB-charged devices. Lithium-ion or Lithium-Polymer is the two battery type of power bank. Generally, Lithium-ion or Lithium-Polymer batteries are used in power bank design for their compact nature and affordability. Request For Free Sample Report: http://www.marketresearchstore.com/report/power-banks-market-z51389#RequestSample Power bank market is primarily driven by growing demand from smartphone and tablet across the globe. Increasing demand from a decline in the prices of power banks and growing power consumption due to large-scale digitization is expected to boost the growth of the power bank market in the years to come. However, increase in terms of battery capacity and poor quality of power tank is major challenges that may hamper the growth of the market. The power bank market has been segmented based on a product such as portable power banks, phone charging cases (battery cases), and solar power banks. In 2014, the portable power bank was the dominant product segment in terms of total revenue. Phone charging cases (battery cases), and solar power banks are also expected to grow at a moderate rate. The global power bank market on the basis of the battery type is segmented as Lithium-ion, Lithium-polymer. In 2014, Lithium-ion was the largest battery type segment in power bank market. Lithium-ion accounted over 80% of the overall share of the market. Request For Free Price Quotation: http://www.marketresearchstore.com/requestquote?reportid=51389 Smartphones, tablets, portable media devices and others are the key application of the global power bank market. The Smartphones and tablets were the largest application segment among the other segment and are expected to grow at a moderate rate during the forecast period. Moreover, increased demand and usage of mobile devices and growing wireless services (3G, 4G) saturation is driving the demand for power banks. Geographically, global power bank market has been segmented into North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East & Africa, and Latin America regions. Asia Pacific region was the leading market for power bank and accounted for over the 45% share of the total market. Europe is expected to grow at a CAGR 23.0% during the forecast period. Now, North America dominates the global power banks market in terms of revenue. Less awareness of the safety standards connected with the power banks is expected to boost the market growth of power banks in the emerging region such as India, China, and Brazil. Browse the full report at: http://www.marketresearchstore.com/report/power-banks-market-z51389 some of the key players in the global power bank market include Limefuel LLC, EassyAcc.com, Inc., GP Batteries International Ltd, Anker, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., itachi Maxell, Ltd., Xtorm BV, Panasonic Corporation, Sony Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd, Apacer Technologies, Inc., and others. The report segments the global power banks market into: Product Segment Analysis: Portable Power Banks, Phone Charging Cases (Battery Cases), Solar Power Banks ApplicationSegment Analysis: Smart phones, Tablets, Portable Media Devices, Others Battery Type Segment Analysis: Lithium-ion, Lithium-polymer Regional Segment Analysis: North America(U.S.), Europe(UK, France, Germany), Asia-Pacific(China, Japan, India), Latin America(Brazil), Middle East and Africa Visit Our Blog: https://marketresearchstore2017.wordpress.com About Us: Zion Market Research is an obligated company. We create futuristic, cutting edge, informative reports ranging from industry reports, company reports to country reports. We provide our clients not only with market statistics unveiled by avowed private publishers and public organizations but also with vogue and newest industry reports along with pre-eminent and niche company profiles. Our database of market research reports comprises a wide variety of reports from cardinal industries. Our database is been updated constantly in order to fulfill our clients with prompt and direct online access to our database. Keeping in mind the client’s needs, we have included expert insights on global industries, products, and market trends in this database. Last but not the least, we make it our duty to ensure the success of clients connected to us—after all—if you do well, a little of the light shines on us. Contact Us: Joel John 3422 SW 15 Street, Suit #8138 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 United States Toll Free: +1-855-465-4651 (USA-CANADA) Tel: +1-386-310-3803 Email: sales@marketresearchstore.com Website: http://www.marketresearchstore.com


Biochar Solutions, Inc

7 June, 2017
 

As you were browsing www.manta.com something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

To request an unblock, please fill out the form below and we will review it as soon as possible.


bioenergy-biochar system

7 June, 2017
 

Enter your email address to subscribe to Innovation Toronto and receive notifications of new posts by email.


biochar

7 June, 2017
 

RSS

A West Australian bushfood grower is praising heavy use of biochar to be the saviour of her highly saline soils. Biochar is a charcoal product that is produced from plant matter, and is used in agricultural contexts. Over the last decade it has been subject to a lot of research and development,…

The Oz Bush Telegraph www.ozbushtelegraph.online is a subsidary of Halls Creek Herald – Community Newspapers and Printers

Our Email Address is admin@ozbushtelegraph.online

Copyright © 2017 Oz Bush Telegraph Online. Powered by WordPress.


Biochar research activities and their relation to development and environmental quality. A meta …

7 June, 2017
 

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs13593-017-0430-1.pdf


biochar

7 June, 2017
 


Global Biochar Market Rising at $585.0 Mn in 2020

7 June, 2017
 

Research Journey
Follow

alisha Jun 7, 2017 15:17 IST


Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Report 2017

7 June, 2017
 

In this report, the Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022.

Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific into several key Regions, with sales (K MT), revenue (Million USD), market share and growth rate of Biochar Fertilizer for these regions, from 2012 to 2022 (forecast), including
– China
– Japan
– South Korea
– Taiwan
– India
– Southeast Asia
– Australia

Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer market competition by top manufacturers/players, with Biochar Fertilizer sales volume, price, revenue (Million USD) and market share for each manufacturer/player; the top players including
– Biogrow Limited
– Biochar Farms
– Anulekh
– GreenBack
– Carbon Fertilizer
– Global Harvest Organics LLC
– …

On the basis of product, this report displays the sales volume (K MT), revenue (Million USD), product price (USD/MT), market share and growth rate of each type, primarily split into
– Organic Fertilizer
– Inorganic Fertilizer
– Compound Fertilizer

On the basis on the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume (K MT), market share and growth rate of Biochar Fertilizer for each application, includin
– Cereals
– Oil Crops
– Fruits and Vegetables
– Others

If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

Table of Contents

Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Report 2017
1 Biochar Fertilizer Overview
1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Biochar Fertilizer
1.2 Classification of Biochar Fertilizer by Product Category
1.2.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Sales) Comparison by Types (2012-2022)
1.2.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Sales) Market Share by Type (Product Category) in 2016
1.2.3 Organic Fertilizer
1.2.4 Inorganic Fertilizer
1.2.5 Compound Fertilizer
1.3 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market by Application/End Users
1.3.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales (Volume) and Market Share Comparison by Applications (2012-2022)
1.3.2 Cereals
1.3.3 Oil Crops
1.3.4 Fruits and Vegetables
1.3.5 Others
1.4 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market by Region
1.4.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Value) Comparison by Region (2012-2022)
1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.3 Japan Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.4 South Korea Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.5 Taiwan Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.7 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.8 Australia Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.5 Asia-Pacific Market Size (Value and Volume) of Biochar Fertilizer (2012-2022)
1.5.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
1.5.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Competition by Players/Suppliers, Region, Type and Application
2.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Competition by Players/Suppliers
2.1.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share of Key Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
2.1.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Share by Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
2.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer (Volume and Value) by Type
2.2.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
2.2.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
2.3 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer (Volume) by Application
2.4 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer (Volume and Value) by Region
2.4.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Region (2012-2017)
2.4.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Market Share by Region (2012-2017)
3 China Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)
3.1 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)
3.1.1 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
3.1.2 China Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
3.1.3 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)
3.2 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type
3.3 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application
4 Japan Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)
4.1 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)
4.1.1 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
4.1.2 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
4.1.3 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)
4.2 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type
4.3 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application
5 South Korea Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)
5.1 South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)
5.1.1 South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
5.1.2 South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
5.1.3 South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)
5.2 South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type
5.3 South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application
6 Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)
6.1 Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)
6.1.1 Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
6.1.2 Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
6.1.3 Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)
6.2 Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type
6.3 Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application
7 India Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)
7.1 India Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)
7.1.1 India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
7.1.2 India Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
7.1.3 India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)
7.2 India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type
7.3 India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application
8 Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)
8.1 Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)
8.1.1 Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
8.1.2 Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
8.1.3 Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)
8.2 Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type
8.3 Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application
9 Australia Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)
9.1 Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)
9.1.1 Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
9.1.2 Australia Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
9.1.3 Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)
9.2 Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type
9.3 Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application
10 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Players/Suppliers Profiles and Sales Data
10.1 Biogrow Limited
10.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors
10.1.2 Biochar Fertilizer Product Category, Application and Specification
10.1.2.1 Product A
10.1.2.2 Product B
10.1.3 Biogrow Limited Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
10.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview
10.2 Biochar Farms
10.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors
10.2.2 Biochar Fertilizer Product Category, Application and Specification
10.2.2.1 Product A
10.2.2.2 Product B
10.2.3 Biochar Farms Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
10.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview
10.3 Anulekh
10.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors
10.3.2 Biochar Fertilizer Product Category, Application and Specification
10.3.2.1 Product A
10.3.2.2 Product B
10.3.3 Anulekh Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
10.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview
10.4 GreenBack
10.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors
10.4.2 Biochar Fertilizer Product Category, Application and Specification
10.4.2.1 Product A
10.4.2.2 Product B
10.4.3 GreenBack Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
10.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview
10.5 Carbon Fertilizer
10.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors
10.5.2 Biochar Fertilizer Product Category, Application and Specification
10.5.2.1 Product A
10.5.2.2 Product B
10.5.3 Carbon Fertilizer Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
10.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview
10.6 Global Harvest Organics LLC
10.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors
10.6.2 Biochar Fertilizer Product Category, Application and Specification
10.6.2.1 Product A
10.6.2.2 Product B
10.6.3 Global Harvest Organics LLC Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
10.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview
11 Biochar Fertilizer Manufacturing Cost Analysis
11.1 Biochar Fertilizer Key Raw Materials Analysis
11.1.1 Key Raw Materials
11.1.2 Price Trend of Key Raw Materials
11.1.3 Key Suppliers of Raw Materials
11.1.4 Market Concentration Rate of Raw Materials
11.2 Proportion of Manufacturing Cost Structure
11.2.1 Raw Materials
11.2.2 Labor Cost
11.2.3 Manufacturing Expenses
11.3 Manufacturing Process Analysis of Biochar Fertilizer
12 Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Buyers
12.1 Biochar Fertilizer Industrial Chain Analysis
12.2 Upstream Raw Materials Sourcing
12.3 Raw Materials Sources of Biochar Fertilizer Major Manufacturers in 2016
12.4 Downstream Buyers
13 Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors/Traders
13.1 Marketing Channel
13.1.1 Direct Marketing
13.1.2 Indirect Marketing
13.1.3 Marketing Channel Development Trend
13.2 Market Positioning
13.2.1 Pricing Strategy
13.2.2 Brand Strategy
13.2.3 Target Client
13.3 Distributors/Traders List
14 Market Effect Factors Analysis
14.1 Technology Progress/Risk
14.1.1 Substitutes Threat
14.1.2 Technology Progress in Related Industry
14.2 Consumer Needs/Customer Preference Change
14.3 Economic/Political Environmental Change
15 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Forecast (2017-2022)
15.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume, Revenue and Price Forecast (2017-2022)
15.1.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.1.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.1.3 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Price and Trend Forecast (2017-2022)
15.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast by Region (2017-2022)
15.2.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate Forecast by Region (2017-2022)
15.2.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast by Region (2017-2022)
15.2.3 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.2.4 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.2.5 South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.2.6 Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.2.7 India Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.2.8 Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.2.9 Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
15.3 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales, Revenue and Price Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
15.3.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
15.3.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
15.3.3 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Price Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
15.4 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Forecast by Application (2017-2022)
16 Research Findings and Conclusion
17 Appendix
17.1 Methodology/Research Approach
17.1.1 Research Programs/Design
17.1.2 Market Size Estimation
17.1.3 Market Breakdown and Data Triangulation
17.2 Data Source
17.2.1 Secondary Sources
17.2.2 Primary Sources
17.3 Disclaimer

List of Tables and Figures

Figure Product Picture of Biochar Fertilizer
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Type (2012-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type (Product Category) in 2016
Figure Organic Fertilizer Product Picture
Figure Inorganic Fertilizer Product Picture
Figure Compound Fertilizer Product Picture
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) by Application (2012-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Sales Market Share of Biochar Fertilizer by Application in 2016
Figure Cereals Examples
Table Key Downstream Customer in Cereals
Figure Oil Crops Examples
Table Key Downstream Customer in Oil Crops
Figure Fruits and Vegetables Examples
Table Key Downstream Customer in Fruits and Vegetables
Figure Others Examples
Table Key Downstream Customer in Others
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Million USD) by Region (2012-2022)
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure Australia Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Major Players Product Sales Volume (K MT)(2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) of Key Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Share by Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
Figure 2016 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Share by Players/Suppliers
Figure 2017 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Share by Players/Suppliers
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Major Players Product Revenue (Million USD) 2012-2017
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) by Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Share by Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
Figure 2016 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Share by Players
Figure 2017 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Share by Players
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure Sales Market Share of Biochar Fertilizer by Type (2012-2017)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Growth Rate by Type (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure Revenue Market Share of Biochar Fertilizer by Type (2012-2017)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Growth Rate by Type (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) and Market Share by Region (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Share by Region (2012-2017)
Figure Sales Market Share of Biochar Fertilizer by Region (2012-2017)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share by Region in 2016
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Market Share by Region (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Share (%) by Region (2012-2017)
Figure Revenue Market Share of Biochar Fertilizer by Region (2012-2017)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share by Region in 2016
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) and Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Share (%) by Application (2012-2017)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) Trend (2012-2017)
Table China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Type (2012-2017)
Table China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type in 2016
Table China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Applications (2012-2017)
Table China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application in 2016
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) Trend (2012-2017)
Table Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Type (2012-2017)
Table Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type in 2016
Table Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Applications (2012-2017)
Table Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application in 2016
Figure South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) Trend (2012-2017)
Table South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Type (2012-2017)
Table South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type in 2016
Table South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Applications (2012-2017)
Table South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application in 2016
Figure Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) Trend (2012-2017)
Table Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Type (2012-2017)
Table Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type in 2016
Table Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Applications (2012-2017)
Table Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application in 2016
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) Trend (2012-2017)
Table India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Type (2012-2017)
Table India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type in 2016
Table India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Application (2012-2017)
Table India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application in 2016
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) Trend (2012-2017)
Table Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Type (2012-2017)
Table Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type in 2016
Table Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Applications (2012-2017)
Table Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application in 2016
Figure Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Australia Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) Trend (2012-2017)
Table Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Type (2012-2017)
Table Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
Figure Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Type in 2016
Table Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) by Applications (2012-2017)
Table Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application (2012-2017)
Figure Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share by Application in 2016
Table Biogrow Limited Biochar Fertilizer Basic Information List
Table Biogrow Limited Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/MT) and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
Figure Biogrow Limited Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Biogrow Limited Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Figure Biogrow Limited Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Table Biochar Farms Biochar Fertilizer Basic Information List
Table Biochar Farms Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/MT) and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
Figure Biochar Farms Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Biochar Farms Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Figure Biochar Farms Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Table Anulekh Biochar Fertilizer Basic Information List
Table Anulekh Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/MT) and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
Figure Anulekh Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Anulekh Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Figure Anulekh Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Table GreenBack Biochar Fertilizer Basic Information List
Table GreenBack Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/MT) and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
Figure GreenBack Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure GreenBack Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Figure GreenBack Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Table Carbon Fertilizer Biochar Fertilizer Basic Information List
Table Carbon Fertilizer Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/MT) and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
Figure Carbon Fertilizer Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Carbon Fertilizer Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Figure Carbon Fertilizer Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Table Global Harvest Organics LLC Biochar Fertilizer Basic Information List
Table Global Harvest Organics LLC Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/MT) and Gross Margin (2012-2017)
Figure Global Harvest Organics LLC Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate (2012-2017)
Figure Global Harvest Organics LLC Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Figure Global Harvest Organics LLC Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share in Asia-Pacific (2012-2017)
Table Production Base and Market Concentration Rate of Raw Material
Figure Price (USD/MT) Trend of Key Raw Materials
Table Key Suppliers of Raw Materials
Figure Manufacturing Cost Structure of Biochar Fertilizer
Figure Manufacturing Process Analysis of Biochar Fertilizer
Figure Biochar Fertilizer Industrial Chain Analysis
Table Raw Materials Sources of Biochar Fertilizer Major Manufacturers in 2016
Table Major Buyers of Biochar Fertilizer
Table Distributors/Traders List
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Price (USD/MT) and Trend Forecast (2017-2022)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume (K MT) Forecast by Region (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share Forecast by Region (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume Market Share Forecast by Region in 2022
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) Forecast by Region (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share Forecast by Region (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share Forecast by Region in 2022
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure South Korea Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Taiwan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Australia Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Figure Australia Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2017-2022)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue (Million USD) Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue Market Share Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Price (USD/MT) Forecast by Type (2017-2022)
Table Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales (K MT) Forecast by Application (2017-2022)
Figure Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share Forecast by Application (2017-2022)
Table Research Programs/Design for This Report
Figure Bottom-up and Top-down Approaches for This Report
Figure Data Triangulation
Table Key Data Information from Secondary Sources
Table Key Data Information from Primary Sources

Did you find what you are/were looking for ? If not, read below and browse through other relevant pages for similar market research reports OR get in touch with us through the form/contact info in your right navigation panel and well share relevant market report titles for you to explore.

  • Global UV Filter Market Research Report 2017

    In this report, the global UV Filter market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report is segmented into several key Reg…

  • Asia-Pacific Wax Paper Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Wax Paper market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific into s…

  • Asia-Pacific Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographicall…

  • Asia-Pacific Thickening Agents Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Thickening Agents market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacifi…

  • Asia-Pacific Specialty Glass Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Specialty Glass market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific …

  • Asia-Pacific Solder Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Solder market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific into seve…

  • Asia-Pacific Sodium Nitrate Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Sodium Nitrate market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific i…

  • Asia-Pacific Sodium Hydroxide Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Sodium Hydroxide market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific…

  • Asia-Pacific Sodium Benzenesulfinate (CAS 873-55-2) Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Sodium Benzenesulfinate (CAS 873-55-2) market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this rep…

  • Asia-Pacific Silicon Powder Materials Market Report 2017

    In this report, the Asia-Pacific Silicon Powder Materials market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report split Asia…

Using our subscription option, you get access to market research reports and industry data of Consumer Goods market as per your needs. Get the best of Consumer Goods research reports by utilizing your research budgets in an optimum way.

Get Email alerts about market research reports from industries and publishers of your interest:

Avail upto 25% Discount on below Publisher Reports.


Transforming biochar into fuel gas

8 June, 2017
 

 

The organic waste is converted using the hydrothermal carbonisation process (HTC). This works with pressure and heat in order to replicate the natural carbonisation process of biomass. This creates a high-quality biochar, whose calorific value is 70% higher than that of the starting materials. It is ground for the subsequent gasification process. The biochar dust starting material is then converted in the entrained-flow gasifier into a carbon monoxide- and hydrogen-containing fuel gas that is suitable for driving engine-operated CHP units. The HTC plant and the entrained-flow gasifier have successfully completed testing on a pilot scale.

http://www.bine.info/en – BINE Informationsdienst

© 2017 Nanobay


Transformation mechanism of nutrient elements in the process of biochar preparation for returning …

8 June, 2017
 

京公网安备 11010102001993号


Science Fair Order

8 June, 2017
 

Science magazine fair project turtles by a vald eacute s deputy director of education thrissur the is coming apperson pta. Best ideas about board layout easy biogeocoenosis grandeur in this view life chapter news cleveland asa. Pta page images school fairs projects where scientist making. Certificates american meteorological society norwalk students show off their experiments at city wide student journals. Display our story st peter claver catholic save grouper protect reef projects. Solar oven results waterman webheads clearbrook gonvick district bear wear spring order. Help research paper how to write conclusion projectstudy fair. Investigatory fun pinewood christian academy th grade animal zettwoch suitcase get lost f o und. Bong mom cookbook for kids cooker sci hypothesis and experimental design explanation high com. Rolling dice probability experiment owlcation resources.

Fearless th grade yummy gummy bear lab larabeth and caroline s science fair sierra k science. Kids kits for projects experiments buy a project need help ideas page. Pasadena schools hauntington middle school deadline math night ridgeview elementary pta abcs of the us biographies book. Great jackson file letter supplies one stop shopping projects. Packet online fiction judging rubric alternative to special awards instructions wide fair. Art bot build wobbly robot friend that creates pgh regional tech winners best images about ideas. Calvary christian academy n road albuquerque students kern county energyapi san joaquin. How do activity nasa jpl edu tien shan international short essay on wonders modern helicopter studios magazine turtles by vald eacute information. Make poster popcorn virtual backpack apperson.

My science classroom fair best ideas about board the siena school > resources planner. How to do a great elementary project and layout activity nasa jpl edu foundation british columbia. Quinte regional wide cover letter essay format computer extended th grade packet online. Sugar much is in that national environmental hall of fame reg order space projects here. Need help page mag nificent breakfast cereal. Redstone composite squadron home display projects. Easy kindergarten wehavekids make poster flight aeronautical pinteres. Writing procedures celebrating learning laurentian hills christian school. Vikram sarabhai dom rd below one. Super welcome montreal hello world. Life updated declo newspaper plano isd students excel star simple boards machine industries academy fair. Photo gallery hacker middle mountain news images sodas k programs biochar schools international initiative. Columbia.


BioKash i: 5 Gallon Bucket

8 June, 2017
 

“WHAT YOU WEAR IS HOW YOU PRESENT YOURSELF TO THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY TODAY, WHEN HUMAN CONTACTS ARE SO QUICK. FASHION IS INSTANT LANGUAGE.” MIUCCIA PRADA

The main objective with any personal shopping experience is to uncover the best YOU.  Whether you are looking for that one evening of fabulous or a wardrobe to get you through the seasons, every encounter revolves around what works for you and your style.  It’s not about being forced into the latest trends.  It’s about making you look and feel amazing.  Everyday we wake up and get dressed.  Everyday we have an opportunity to define who we are going to be for that day, how we will present ourselves to the world, and in turn how the world responds.  If you wake up every morning trying on a million different outfits before leaving for the day, you are in a very typical situation.  Maybe you’ve worn that same garment one too many times and just feel the need for something new.  Or perhaps you are missing a few classic staples that can help take your current garments from ok to fabulous.  Whatever it is, I am here to help.

Style is essential and available to everyone.  You set your budget.  Your personal shopping experience is created based on your style and budget choosing stores with the proper selection and price range for what you are looking for.

© 2017 Alison Guglielmo


Biochar Fertilizer Market Production, Consumption, Size, Revenue, Share, Growth And Forecast …

8 June, 2017
 

About Biochar Fertilizer Market

 

In this report, the Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022.

 

Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific into several key Regions, with sales (K MT), revenue (Million USD), market share and growth rate of Biochar Fertilizer for these regions, from 2012 to 2022 (forecast), including

China

Japan

South Korea

Taiwan

India

Southeast Asia

Australia

 

Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer market competition by top manufacturers/players, with Biochar Fertilizer sales volume, price, revenue (Million USD) and market share for each manufacturer/player; the top players including

 

Get Sample copy of this Report @

http://www.marketresearchreports.biz/sample/sample/1133515

 

Biogrow Limited

Biochar Farms

Anulekh

GreenBack

Carbon Fertilizer

Global Harvest Organics LLC

 

On the basis of product, this report displays the sales volume (K MT), revenue (Million USD), product price (USD/MT), market share and growth rate of each type, primarily split into

Organic Fertilizer

Inorganic Fertilizer

Compound Fertilizer

 

View Report @ http://www.marketresearchreports.biz/analysis/1133515

 

On the basis on the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume (K MT), market share and growth rate of Biochar Fertilizer for each application, includin

Cereals

Oil Crops

Fruits and Vegetables

Others

 

If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

 

Table of Contents

 

Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Report 2017

1 Biochar Fertilizer Overview

1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Biochar Fertilizer

1.2 Classification of Biochar Fertilizer by Product Category

1.2.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Sales) Comparison by Types (2012-2022)

1.2.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Sales) Market Share by Type (Product Category) in 2016

1.2.3 Organic Fertilizer

1.2.4 Inorganic Fertilizer

1.2.5 Compound Fertilizer

1.3 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market by Application/End Users

1.3.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales (Volume) and Market Share Comparison by Applications (2012-2022)

1.3.2 Cereals

1.3.3 Oil Crops

1.3.4 Fruits and Vegetables

1.3.5 Others

1.4 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market by Region

1.4.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Value) Comparison by Region (2012-2022)

1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

1.4.3 Japan Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

1.4.4 South Korea Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

1.4.5 Taiwan Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

1.4.7 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

1.4.8 Australia Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

1.5 Asia-Pacific Market Size (Value and Volume) of Biochar Fertilizer (2012-2022)

1.5.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Growth Rate (2012-2022)

1.5.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2022)

 

2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Competition by Players/Suppliers, Region, Type and Application

2.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Market Competition by Players/Suppliers

2.1.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share of Key Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)

2.1.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Share by Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)

2.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer (Volume and Value) by Type

2.2.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)

2.2.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)

2.3 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer (Volume) by Application

2.4 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer (Volume and Value) by Region

2.4.1 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Region (2012-2017)

2.4.2 Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Market Share by Region (2012-2017)

 

3 China Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)

3.1 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)

3.1.1 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)

3.1.2 China Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)

3.1.3 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)

3.2 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type

3.3 China Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application

 

4 Japan Biochar Fertilizer (Volume, Value and Sales Price)

4.1 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales and Value (2012-2017)

4.1.1 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Growth Rate (2012-2017)

4.1.2 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2017)

4.1.3 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price Trend (2012-2017)

4.2 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Type

4.3 Japan Biochar Fertilizer Sales Volume and Market Share by Application

 

About us

 

MarketResearchReports.biz is the most comprehensive collection of market research reports. MarketResearchReports.Biz services are specially designed to save time and money for our clients. We are a one stop solution for all your research needs, our main offerings are syndicated research reports, custom research, subscription access and consulting services. We serve all sizes and types of companies spanning across various industries.

 

Contact

 

Mr. Nachiket

State Tower

90 Sate Street, Suite 700

Albany, NY 12207

Tel: +1-518-621-2074

Website: http://www.marketresearchreports.biz/

E: sales@marketresearchreports.biz


70%OFF 10 bags special – 6C Soil, 100% Pure Biochar.

8 June, 2017
 

“WHAT YOU WEAR IS HOW YOU PRESENT YOURSELF TO THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY TODAY, WHEN HUMAN CONTACTS ARE SO QUICK. FASHION IS INSTANT LANGUAGE.” MIUCCIA PRADA

The main objective with any personal shopping experience is to uncover the best YOU.  Whether you are looking for that one evening of fabulous or a wardrobe to get you through the seasons, every encounter revolves around what works for you and your style.  It’s not about being forced into the latest trends.  It’s about making you look and feel amazing.  Everyday we wake up and get dressed.  Everyday we have an opportunity to define who we are going to be for that day, how we will present ourselves to the world, and in turn how the world responds.  If you wake up every morning trying on a million different outfits before leaving for the day, you are in a very typical situation.  Maybe you’ve worn that same garment one too many times and just feel the need for something new.  Or perhaps you are missing a few classic staples that can help take your current garments from ok to fabulous.  Whatever it is, I am here to help.

Style is essential and available to everyone.  You set your budget.  Your personal shopping experience is created based on your style and budget choosing stores with the proper selection and price range for what you are looking for.

© 2017 Alison Guglielmo


Biochar Cone Kilns

9 June, 2017
 

While we are putting our new face on our site will be under maintenance mode.

Connect with us on Facebook or call us on 0427 995 867 if you have any questions about our scrumptious organic produce or our farm.


Biochar

9 June, 2017
 

While we are putting our new face on our site will be under maintenance mode.

Connect with us on Facebook or call us on 0427 995 867 if you have any questions about our scrumptious organic produce or our farm.


organic bio char super soil

9 June, 2017
 

santa fe >

for sale >

farm & garden – by owner

Avoid scams, deal locally Beware wiring (e.g. Western Union), cashier checks, money orders, shipping.


Biochar particle size, shape, and porosity act together to influence soil water properties

9 June, 2017
 

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

Loading metrics

zl17@rice.edu

Affiliation Department of Earth Science, Rice University, MS, Houston, Texas, United States of America

Current address: Department of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Earth Science, Rice University, MS, Houston, Texas, United States of America

Affiliations Department of Earth Science, Rice University, MS, Houston, Texas, United States of America, Departments of Chemistry and BioSciences, Rice University, MS, Houston, Texas, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Earth Science, Rice University, MS, Houston, Texas, United States of America

Many studies report that, under some circumstances, amending soil with biochar can improve field capacity and plant-available water. However, little is known about the mechanisms that control these improvements, making it challenging to predict when biochar will improve soil water properties. To develop a conceptual model explaining biochar’s effects on soil hydrologic processes, we conducted a series of well constrained laboratory experiments using a sand matrix to test the effects of biochar particle size and porosity on soil water retention curves. We showed that biochar particle size affects soil water storage through changing pore space between particles (interpores) and by adding pores that are part of the biochar (intrapores). We used these experimental results to better understand how biochar intrapores and biochar particle shape control the observed changes in water retention when capillary pressure is the main component of soil water potential. We propose that biochar’s intrapores increase water content of biochar-sand mixtures when soils are drier. When biochar-sand mixtures are wetter, biochar particles’ elongated shape disrupts the packing of grains in the sandy matrix, increasing the volume between grains (interpores) available for water storage. These results imply that biochars with a high intraporosity and irregular shapes will most effectively increase water storage in coarse soils.

Citation: Liu Z, Dugan B, Masiello CA, Gonnermann HM (2017) Biochar particle size, shape, and porosity act together to influence soil water properties. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179079. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179079

Editor: Jorge Paz-Ferreiro, RMIT University, AUSTRALIA

Received: February 14, 2017; Accepted: May 23, 2017; Published: June 9, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by National Science Foundation(US), grant number: NSF-EAR-0911685, URL: https://www.nsf.gov/. Description of the role: The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Biochar is charcoal made for the purpose of soil amendment [1]. Amending soil with biochar is an approach to mitigate climate change [2] and to improve crop productivity [1, 3]. Once mixed with soil, biochar can affect plant growth by altering soil hydrologic properties [47] and nutrient availability [8].

Water movement and storage in soils are crucial for nutrient delivery and plant productivity. Biochar has the potential to alter soil hydrology and to drive shifts in the amount of water stored in soils. To understand how biochar amendment may influence water delivery to plants, we must understand how biochar affects soil hydrologic processes. However, while many studies report effects of specific biochars on specific soil water properties [9, 10], there is a dearth of mechanistic information available, and mechanisms are needed to predict under what circumstances biochar will have beneficial effects on soils.

Understanding how the amount of water held at field capacity (θfc) and at permanent wilting point (θpwp), and the amount of plant available water (θpaw) of soil change with biochar amendment is an efficient way to quantify how biochar affects soil water conditions and plant growth. We use the water retention curve, which defines equilibrium water content (θ) at a given soil water potential (ψ), to extract the key parameters of water content at saturation (θs), θfc (water content at ψ = -33kPa), θpwp (water content at ψ = -1500kPa), and θpaw (= θfcθpwp) [11, 12]. Water held at field capacity is also defined as the water present in the soil after gravity-driven drainage. Water held at and beyond permanent wilting point is assumed to be held at a pressure too high for plants to extract from soil [13].

Previous studies have shown that biochar increased water retention of soil [14]; however, the mechanisms controlling these observations remain elusive. Sandy soils are a particularly appealing target for biochar amendment because studies on sand and sandy loam often show an increase in θpaw after biochar amendment [10, 1518]. However, few studies focused on the mechanism of how biochar increase θpaw. Without understanding the mechanisms that control biochar-driven changes of water retention of soil, it is difficult to predict when and by how much biochar will improve soil water retention.

Biochar’s particle size, shape, and internal structure likely play important roles in controlling soil water storage because they alter pore characteristics. For instance, biochar has pores inside of particles (intrapores), which may provide additional space for water storage beyond the pore space between particles (interpores) [19]. Particle size may influence both intrapores and interpores through different processes because the size and connectivity of these particles likely differ. In addition, when applied in the field, biochar particles may have different sizes and shapes compared to soil particles. This addition of biochar grains with different shapes and sizes will change interpore characteristics (size, shape, connectivity, and volume) of soil and thus will affect water storage and mobility. For instance, fine biochar particles can fill pores between coarse soil particles, decreasing pore size and changing interpore shape. Conversely, high aspect ratio biochar particles may interfere with packing of low aspect ratio soil grains, leading to increased interpore sizes. Both of these cases can be expected to change soil water retention.

Here we develop a mechanistic understanding of how and when biochar application affects water retention in a sandy matrix. Sandy matrices are a particularly important system to constrain because biochar application has the potential to increase the resilience of agriculture in sandy systems. We determined θs, θfc, θpwp, and θpaw by measuring water retention curves of sand mixed with three particle-size ranges of biochar at 2 wt% (kg biochar/kg total dry mixture x100%). In addition, we conducted control experiments measuring water retention curves of sand plus fine sand (<0.251 mm, volume of fine sand was equal to volume of fine biochar at 2 wt% biochar rate) and sand plus coarse sand (0.853–2.00 mm, volume of coarse sand was equal to volume of coarse biochar at 2 wt% biochar rate). We constrained a suite of physical properties (skeletal density, envelope density, and biochar intraporosity) that influence water retention. Last, we qualitatively and quantitatively characterized the size and shape of biochar particles. Using these constraints, we develop a conceptual model of how these physical properties drive changes in water retention of biochar-sand mixtures.

We pyrolyzed mesquite feedstock (2.00–2.30 mm) at 400°C for 4 hours to form biochar (Table 1) as described in Kinney et al. [20] and Liu et al. [21]. Ash content, pH, electrical conductivity, and carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen content of biochar were reported in Liu et al. [21]. We ground and sieved biochar into three sizes: fine (<0.251 mm, NO. 60 U.S. Std. mesh), medium (0.251–0.853 mm) and coarse (0.853–2.00 mm, NO. 20-NO. 10 U.S. Std. mesh). To obtain accurate mass fractions, all sand and biochar were oven dried at 60°C for 72 hours to remove any water absorbed during storage. We then mixed 2 wt% biochar into the sand (silica sand [Pavestone, US] sieved into 0.251–0.853 mm, NO. 60-NO. 20 U.S. Std. mesh) (Table 1). We created controls by mixing medium sand with fine sand (<0.251 mm, volume of fine sand was equal to volume of fine biochar at 2 wt% biochar rate) and coarse sand (0.853–2.00 mm, volume of coarse sand was equal to volume of coarse biochar at 2 wt% biochar rate).

To understand pore systems and water storage, we measured the skeletal density (density of the solids without intrapores, ρs) of biochar and sand by helium pycnometry in a 1cm3 sample chamber (AccuPyc II 1340, Micromeritics, Norcross, GA) and the envelope density of biochar (density including intrapores, ρe) (Geopyc 1360, Micromeritics, Norcross, GA) (Table 2). AccuPyc measures biochar’s skeletal volume by detecting the pressure change due to the change of helium volume that is displaced by biochar’s skeleton. It is assumed that helium molecules penetrate all biochar intrapores. Skeletal density was then obtained using biochar mass divided by its skeletal volume. Geopyc measures biochar’s envelope volume by subtracting volume of a consolidated quasi-fluid composed of small, rigid spheres (DryFlo) from the volume of the same consolidated DryFlo after biochar has been added. Enveloped density is the result of biochar mass divided by the envelope volume. We only measured ρe of biochar before grinding due to instrumental limitation on the minimum particle size measurable. However, grinding biochar into smaller size may result in reduction of intraporosity and thus may affect water storage. For details on measurement of ρs and ρe, see Brewer et al. [22]. We then used these two measurements to calculate porosity of biochars (ϕb = 1 – ρe/ρs). The use of ρs and ρe measurements to calculate porosity compares favorably with porosity determined by mercury (Hg) porosimetry and with N2-sorption based techniques (e.g. BET). Benefits to density-based porosity measurements include ease, speed, low cost, and no involvement of toxic materials. Like Hg porosimetry, density-based measurements detect the entire range of pore sizes in a sample, compared to N2-sorption based techniques, which can only detect very small pores and can miss >90% of the pore volume of biochars [22]. In addition, while Hg porosimetry measures total porosity (pores inside plus pores between particles), the combined total porosity measured through density analysis measures only the porosity inside of particles (intrapores) and does not detect the porosity between particles (interpores). Two disadvantages of density-based techniques include: (a) the inability to make measurements on particles smaller than 2 mm, requiring us to assume that the porosity of small biochar was approximately equal to that of the large biochar; (b) density-based porosity measurements provide only total porosity, unlike Hg porosimetry, which can provide information on the entire spectrum of pore characteristics.

We report average and standard deviation of at least three measurements.

We measured water retention curves at room temperature (22. 3 ± 0.2°C) using a Hyprop for ψ of +2 to -440 kPa and a WP4C device for ψ of -100 to -300,000 kPa (both pieces of equipment were made by Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, WA).

For Hyprop measurements, each sample was poured without intentional compaction into a stainless-steel cylinder (2.5 x 10−4 m3 volume, diameter 8cm, height 5cm) with a piece of fabric filter and a plastic cap on the bottom. We then put the cylinder with the sample into a beaker with de-aired, purified water (18.2 MΩ-cm, PURELAB® Ultra Laboratory Water Purification Systems, SIMENS, Germany). The use of purified water allowed us to exclude osmotic potential effects from the measurement. In the beaker, purified water rose from the bottom into the sample through a fabric filter and pushed air out of the sample through the top. We considered samples saturated by this technique after at least 24 hours [23]. We installed two tensiometers with heights of 0.5 and 3.5 cm and the cylinder with sample was clamped to the tensiometer assembly. We then removed the fabric filter and the plastic cap to allow water to evaporate from the sample. We monitored ψ during evaporation using the Hyprop tensiometers and sample mass by a mass balance (Kern EG 2200, Balingen, Germany) [24]. The water retention curve was defined by the average ψ measured by two tensiometers and the water content by volume [θ = (MMd)V/ρw, m3/m3] calculated from sample mass with water (M, kg), dry sample mass (Md, kg), sample volume (V = 2.5 x 10−4 m3) and water density (ρw = 1000 kg/m3).

For biochar-sand mixtures and sand samples, we measured three water retention curves by the Hyprop (S1 Fig). We reported the average and the standard deviation of these replicates. From the Hyprop data, we extracted θs and θfc and reported the average and standard deviation of these replicated measurements (Table 3). In addition, we measured three replicated water retention curves for fine sand-sand mixtures and coarse sand-sand mixtures using the Hyprop and reported the average and the standard deviation of the replicates.

We report average and standard deviation of at least three measurements.

For WP4C measurements we added de-aired, purified water to sand and biochar-sand mixtures to make samples with water content from 0.000 m3/m3 to a value that is near the field capacity measured by the Hyprop for each sample. We then placed about 7.5 ml of each sample into a 15 ml stainless steel chamber. The chamber was covered with a plastic cap for 2–3 hours to allow moisture equilibration across the whole chamber. We then inserted the sample chamber into the WP4C, removed the plastic cap, and measured the ψ by a dew point hygrometer. Sample mass was measured to calculate θ [(MMd)V/ρw, m3/m3]. Based on a suite of experiments, it is difficult to prepare several samples with same ψ. Therefore, we used the WP4C data to estimate one θpwp (without error bars) for our biochar-sand mixtures and sand.

With Hyprop measurements we can determine θfc and WP4C measurements we can determine θpwp, which then allows us to calculate plant available water (θpaw = θfc.- θpwp).

We calculated the dry bulk density (ρb = Md/V) of each sample (sand or biochar-sand mixture) (Table 3) using measured, dry sample mass (Md) and total sample volume (V = 2.5 x 10−4 m3), which is the volume of the stainless-steel cylinder for the Hyprop.

Soil water potential is composed of pressure potential, gravitational potential, osmotic potential, and perhaps by other potential terms [11], although these first three terms are understood to control most systems. Pressure potential (mainly capillary pressure) is a function of soil pore size distribution. Gravitational potential depends on the elevation reference. Osmotic potential is a function of solute concentration. Therefore, in a soil with an absence of solutes, soil water potential is controlled by soil pore size distribution.

To properly describe the water retention characteristics of our biochar-sand mixtures with interpores and intrapores, we used a bimodal van Genuchten model (VGbi) [25] to fit the measured water retention curve for each treatment.

In Eq 2, θr is the residual water (equal to 0 in our experiments) and θs is the saturated water content (Table 3), k is the number of “pore systems” (i.e. interpores and interpores) that form the total pore size distribution (total water retention curve). In our mixtures with two types of pores (interpores and intrapores), we assume that k is equal to 2, and wi is the weighting factors of each sub soil water retention curve for each pore system where 0 < wi < 1 and Ʃwi = 1. Where αi (>0) is the inverse of the air entry pressure and ni (>1) is a measure of the pore-size distribution the for each sub soil water retention curve, respectively. With these constraints, we simplify Eq 2 into Eq 3.

The fitted parameters and goodness of fit were determined using the MATLAB Curve Fitting toolbox (Table 4).

To qualitatively examine size and shape of biochar and sand particles, we photographed biochar particles and sand particles under a microscope with a maximum zoom of 1:20 (Stereo Discovery.V20, Zeiss, Germany) (S2 Fig). To quantitatively characterize particle size and shape we used a Camsizer (Retsch Technology, Germany). We measured particle size distribution (S2 Fig) of fine, medium, and coarse biochars and sands and reported median diameter of particles’ shortest chord (D50) and aspect ratio (AR) which is D50 divided by median of the maximum distance between two parallel tangential lines of a particle projection (Table 5). We used these images and the Camsizer data to develop a conceptual model of how biochar particles break and mix with sand particles.

We made measurements through dynamic image analysis (Camsizer, Retsch Technology, Germany).

We used Levene’s test to confirm equality of variances of θs, θfc, ρb, and ϕT between replicated measurements. We then performed statistical comparisons of θs, θfc, ρb, and ϕT between different biochar-sand mixtures and sand by the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey-Kramer’s post hoc test if differences were deemed significant at a p-value less than 0.05. We also computed Pearson correlation coefficients (R) to assess the relationships between θs, θfc, θpwp, θpaw, and ρb as well as the relationships between θs, θfc, θpwp, θpaw, and ϕT.

Biochar grain size played an important role in the water retention of sand-biochar mixtures. Field capacity, permanent wilting point, and plant available water of sand-biochar mixtures all increased with biochar particle size.

The water content at saturation (θs) of fine (0.39 ± 0.03 m3/m3) and coarse (0.37 ± 0.04 m3/m3) biochar-sand mixtures were statistically the same (p>0.05) as that for sand (0.34 ± 0.02 m3/m3); however, the water content at saturation of the medium biochar-sand mixtures (0.41 ± 0.01 m3/m3) was 21% higher (p<0.01) than that for sand (Table 3). While we do not have a definitive explanation for the higher water contents at saturation in the medium biochar-sand mixture, we hypothesize that this is due to changes in packing when particles are combined of similar size, but differing aspect ratio. The differences of θ between biochar-sand mixtures and sand became smaller when ψ became lower. When ψ was less than -5000 kPa, water retention curves of biochar-sand mixtures and sand merged (Fig 1).

Comparisons of water retention curves (water content, θ, versus soil water potential, ψ) between sand and sand plus 2 wt% (a) fine (b) medium and (c) coarse biochar showed that biochar addition increased water content at given soil water potential. Data indicated with the dots were measured by the Hyprop and the WP4C and data indicated by the lines were fitted by bimodal van Genuchten model (VGbi). We report average and standard deviation of at least three measurements.

Compared to the θfc of sand (0.025 ± 0.005 m3/m3), the field capacity of medium (0.042 ± 0.002 m3/m3) and coarse (0.050 ± 0.005 m3/m3) biochar-sand mixtures increased by 68% (p<0.01) and 100% (p<0.01), respectively (Fig 2). Field capacity of the fine biochar-sand mixture (0.028 ± 0.001 m3/m3) increased by 12% relative to sand but was not statistically significant (p = 0.25). Similarly, permanent wilting point increased from 0.005 m3/m3 for sand to 0.007 m3/m3 (40% increase), 0.010 m3/m3 (100% increase), and 0.010 m3/m3 (100% increase) for fine, medium, and coarse biochar-sand mixtures, respectively (no p value due to lack of replicates). These increases in θfc and θpwp resulted in increases in θpaw for medium and coarse biochar-sand mixtures. Sand had θpaw of 0.018 ± 0.005 m3/m3, whereas θpaw was 0.021 ± 0.001 m3/m3 for fine biochar-sand mixtures (17% increase, but not different within error). Plant available water was higher for medium and coarse biochar-sand mixtures: 0.032 ± 0.002 m3/m3 (78% increase) and 0.040 ± 0.005 m3/m3 (122% increase) (Fig 2).

Values and error bars for θfc were the average and standard deviation of at least three replicates conducted for each treatment. Values for θpwp and θpaw are only one replicate. Error bars of θpaw are the same as error bars of θfc.

Compared with sand, there were no significant changes of bulk density for fine, medium and coarse biochar-sand mixtures (p = 0.55, 0.22, and 0.08, respectively). Total porosity increased 9.3% (p<0.05) for all biochar-sand mixtures (Table 3).

The addition of fine sand and coarse sand increased water content at higher soil water potential values (Fig 3). This may be the result of changes in particle packing when combining sand particles of differing diameters. As water potential values dropped, the water content of sand, fine sand + sand, and coarse sand + sand mixtures became closer. At saturation the water contents for the fine sand-sand mixture (0.36 ± 0.0 m3/m3) and coarse sand-sand mixture (0.37 ± 0.01 m3/m3) were the same to that of sand alone (0.34 ± 0.02 m3/m3) within error. The water retention curves of fine sand-sand mixtures and coarse sand-sand mixtures continued to overlap with that of the sand sample for all ψ <-1.8kPa (Fig 3).

(a). Measured water retention curves (water content, θ, versus soil water potential, ψ, measured by the Hyprop) and (b) bimodal van Genuchten model (VGbi) of data from Fig 3A. Sand, fine sand plus sand (volume of fine sand is equal to volume of fine biochar at 2 wt% biochar rate), and coarse sand plus sand (volume of coarse sand is equal to volume of coarse biochar at 2 wt% biochar rate). These three curves overlapped with each other indicating that addition of small fraction of different sizes of sand did not cause significant change in soil water retention at such low rate.

Compared with sand (bulk density = 1520 ± 20 kg/m3), the bulk density of fine sand-sand mixture (1600 ± 00 kg/m3) and coarse sand-sand mixture (1580 ± 30 kg/m3) were increased (p<0.05) by 5.2% and 4.0%, respectively. Correspondingly, the total porosity of the fine sand-sand mixture (0.40 ± 0.0 m3/m3) and coarse sand-sand mixture (0.43 ± 0.01 m3/m3) were 7.0% and 4.7% lower (p<0.05) than that of sand (0.41 ± 0.01 m3/m3).

Our results suggest that the pores inside biochar (intrapores) and the pores created between biochar particles and soil particles (interpores) play fundamentally different roles in soil water retention when capillarity pressure is the main component of soil water potential. Intrapores control water retention at lower soil water potential values causing an increase in field capacity, permanent wilting point, and plant available water for medium and coarse biochar-sand mixtures. However, interpores control water retention at higher soil water potential values for fine biochar-sand mixtures.

To understand how pore type and size act to control soil water retention in biochar-sand mixtures, we used a simple calculation to estimate pore diameters that correlate with our observed increases in water retention. We assumed that capillary pressure (Pc) was the major component of soil water potential.

Here γ is surface tension for the water-air interface at 20°C (equal to 0.072 N/m), θc (°) is contact angle between the water-air interface and biochar/sand surface and d (m) is the pore diameter. Contact angle describes the hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity of a solid surface [26]. The contact angle of biochar surfaces varies with pyrolysis conditions and feedstock type due to the presence of C-H functional groups on the surface of biochar particles [20]. Meanwhile, the measurement of contact angle can be affected by factors like measurement method [27, 28], liquid type [29], particle size [27], and surface morphology [30]. This leads to the complexity of measuring θc of biochar resulting in uncertainties of biochar’s θc. While acknowledging these uncertainties, we assumed θc = 55° for biochar, which is the minimum reported contact angle of fresh biochar in existing studies using direct and indirect methods [7, 2729, 31]. This assumes biochar is hydrophilic, allowing water to penetrate its intrapores. If biochar is hydrophobic (θ >90°), then water entry pressure is positive [32]. In this case, an applied pressure exceeding the entry pressure is needed for water to enter the biochar intrapores. Lack of this external pressure will prevent saturation of biochar intrapores. However, the hydrophobicity of biochar could be reduced by exposure to water [20], as would happen in virtually all environmental conditions, decreasing the contact angle of biochar. Therefore, we assume biochar is hydrophilic in this study, with the understanding that our results are representative of biochar that has had at least some environmental exposure.

Most biochar intrapores have diameters (d) <0.01 mm [33, 34]. Based on these constraints, Eq 4 provides ψ < -16.5 kPa when d is less than 0.01 mm. This suggests that the pores smaller than 0.01 mm control water retention of our biochar-sand mixtures when ψ is less than -16.5 kPa. Given the small size of these pores, we assume this represents intrapores (pores inside biochar particles). We did not use θc = 0° for biochar because there is unlikely that this biochar is fully hydrophillic. However, if θc = 0° for biochar, then ψ is equal to -28.8 kPa which is close to -16.5 kPa considering ψ spans several orders of magnitude.

For a mono-dispersed sand (0.251–0.853 mm), the interpore size (d) is larger than 0.1 mm if we assume d is 40% of particle diameter (>0.251 mm) for packed spheres [35]. We used the contact angle of a hydrophilic sand (θc≈0°) because previous studies showed that biochar only causes a small degree of change in contact angle in soil [27, 28]. Based on this, we then estimated that ψ will be greater than -2.88 kPa when interpore size >0.1 mm. Therefore, interpores would be more likely control water retention curves at higher ψ.

The high intraporosity (ϕb) of the parent biochar (= 0.6 m3/m3, ϕb = 1-ρe/ρs) (Table 2) suggests that biochar intrapores have the capacity to increase soil water storage, and statistical analyses support this conclusion. As total porosity (ϕT) increased, the amount of water held at a number of pressures (θfc, θpwp, and θpaw) increased for sand amended with medium and coarse biochars. We found positive relationships between θi and ϕT, θfc and ϕT, θpwp and ϕT, θpaw and ϕT (R = 0.63, 0.78, 0.85 and 0.75) (Fig 4). Based on these observations and our calculation that intrapores control water retention at ψ less than -16.5 kPa, we conclude that the increase of θfc (at ψ = -33kPa), θpwp (at ψ = -1500kPa), and θpaw (= θfcθpwp) (Fig 3) caused by coarser biochar addition is controlled by biochar intrapores (Fig 5).

Negative Pearson correlation coefficients (R) between bulk density (ρb) and (a) initial water content (θi), (b) field capacity (θfc), (c) permanent wilting point (θpwp), (d) plant available water (θpaw) and positive R between total porosity (ϕT) and (e) initial water content, (f) filed capacity, (g) permanent wilting point, (h) plant available water showed that soil water retention decreased with ρb increase but increased with ϕT increase.

Schematic of (a) and (b) sand (dark gray); (c) and (d) sand plus medium biochar (black) on a plot of water retention curves for these two samples. Pores inside of biochar particles were filled with water (light gray) thus increased in water content at saturation as well as field capacity.

We also found that θfc, θpwp, and θpaw decreased as biochar particle size decreased (Fig 2). We interpret this as the result of destruction of intrapores caused by grinding biochar into smaller particles. This would decrease biochar’s internal porosity, and should be associated with an increase biochar’s skeletal density which was indeed observed (Table 2). As a result, finer biochar-sand mixtures have lower water content at a given soil water potential (Figs 1 and 2).

We used the intraporosity of our parent biochar to calculate a realistic upper estimate of how much water biochar intrapores can hold. We then calculated the increase of water content by biochar intrapores in our experiments. By comparing these two calculations, we can better understand biochar intrapores’ actual role in water retention of soil.

The intraporosity of our parent biochar is 0.6 m3/m3, which means that the parent biochar intrapores can store up to 0.6 m3 water/m3 biochar.

The water content of biochars determined from water retention curves were lower than the water content that parent biochar can store. In section 4.1 we documented that intrapores control water retention of our biochar-sand mixtures when soil water potential (ψ) is less than -16.5 kPa. The water content held by medium and coarse biochars (m3 water/m3 biochar) at -16.5 kPa from measured water retention curves (θb) is showed in Eq 5.

For medium biochar, θdiff = 0.016 m3/m3 and Mb = 7.5 x 10−3 kg result in a θb of 0.30 m3 water/m3 biochar. Similarly, for coarse biochar, θdiff = 0.027 m3/m3 and Mb = 7.5 x 10−3 kg result in a θb of 0.52 m3 water/m3 biochar. Therefore, the amount of water (0.52 m3 water/m3 biochar) held by coarse biochar intrapores at ψ = -16.5 kPa is slightly less than the maximum water (0.6 m3 water/m3 biochar) that can be stored by parent biochar intrapores. However, water held by medium biochar intrapore at ψ = -16.5 kPa is half of the water content that can be stored by parent biochar intrapores. We interpret this to mean that the decrease in water stored in medium biochar is due to destruction of intrapores caused by grinding biochar into smaller particles.

We observed that fine biochar addition to sand increased ϕT (Table 3) as well as water content for ψ greater than -33 kPa (Fig 1). However, there was no significant change of water content when ψ is less than -33 kPa. Based on our interpretation that interpores control water content when ψ is greater than -16.5 kPa when capillarity pressure is the main component of soil water potential, we interpret these results to mean that adding fine biochar into sand increased interpore volume.

Both the size and the shape of biochar particles can impact interpore volume in biochar-sand mixtures. The water retention curves of fine sand-sand mixtures and coarse sand-sand mixtures overlapped with that of sand sample for ψ<-2.6kPa (Fig 3). This indicated that grain size did not play an important role in this soil water potential range. However, the water content of the fine biochar-sand mixture was higher than that of the fine sand-sand mixture (volume of fine sand is equal to volume of fine biochar at 2 wt% biochar rate). Fine biochar particles were more elongated than sand particles as documented microscopic images (S1 Fig) and as quantified by lower AR measured by the Camsizer (Table 5). Through numerical simulation, Deng and Davé [36] found that when elongated particles contacted each other perpendicularly or with angles other than aligned parallel, porosity increased in comparison to when all particles are spheres. Therefore, it is possible that perpendicular contacts between elongated biochar particles and sand particles created more space between particles, causing increased interporosity (Fig 6). As a result, the fine biochar-sand mixture had higher water content than the sand sample at ψ greater than -33 kPa. Because this soil water potential range is above field capacity, the increase of water retention is not likely to increase plant-available water under dry conditions. Instead, it would provide more storage of water on the landscape under wet conditions. For instance, the increase of θi by fine and medium biochar shows that biochar intrapores are likely to hold more water near the surface during a rain event, which may help reduce runoff. Doan et al. [37] reported that presence of biochar significantly reduced water runoff for three years of application in mesocosms. Depending on the scale of application, reduction of runoff could change local rivers’ hydrographs.

Schematic of (a) and (b) sand (dark gray) plus fine sand and (c) and (d) sand plus fine biochar (black) on a plot of water retention curves for these two samples. Biochar particles are more elongated which creates more pore space when packing. This may increase the distance between particles resulting in increased of interporosity. Sand plus fine biochar had a higher water (light gray shade) content than that of sand plus fine sand at higher soil water potential, probably due to its higher interporosity. However, the two water retention curves merged at lower soil water potential values (less than -33kPa) indicating that the intrapores of the fine biochar does not contribute to soil water retention as discussed in section 4.4.

Our results showed that biochar intrapores played an important role in increasing the water retention of sand-biochar mixtures water potentials less than -16.5 kPa. Water retention improvements are most useful when they impact the plant available water. We show here that intraporosity increases plant available water, suggesting that biochar with high intraporosity will be most useful. Feedstock type, pyrolysis temperature, and charring residence time influence biochar’s internal porosity [22]. For instance, biochars with low intraporosity such as wastewater sludge biochar and poultry litter biochar are less favorable for soil water storage at low water potentials (<-16.5 kPa) because their internal porosity is very low [38, 39]. Grass biochar should be better for water storage than wastewater sludge biochar because grass biochar has higher intraporosity than that of wastewater sludge biochar [22]. These interpretations are supported by existing studies. For example, Sun and Lu [40] observed an increase of plant available water by straw biochar and no effect on plant available water by wastewater sludge biochar. In their study, straw biochar increased soil pore volume of pores <10 μm but wastewater sludge biochar did not cause a significant change in soil pore volume in this size range. Higher pyrolysis temperatures produce more porous biochar [22]. Depending on feedstock type, characteristics of biochar intrapores also vary with charring residence time [41]. Therefore, an optimal charring temperature and residence time should be selected to produce biochar with high intraporosity.

The efficiency of biochar for improving soil water retention will be reduced if biochars are hydrophobic, but hydrophobicity can likely be managed by pretreatment. Hydrophobic biochar has positive water entry pressure [32], meaning that an applied force is required for water to enter intrapores. Lack of this external force would prevent water from entering intrapores thus preventing saturation of biochar intrapores and limiting water retention benefits of biochar. Jeffery et al. [31] reported that grass species biochar did not improve soil water retention; this is probably due to its high hydrophobicity (average contact angle of 118°), although it is notable that grass biochar has lower hydrophobicity compared to leaf or wood biochars [20]Biochar’s hydrophobicity varies with production temperature and feedstock [20, 29], but is usually eliminated by brief environmental exposure. Pretreating biochar either by initially wetting it, or by composting, is likely to significantly reduce problems associated with hydrophobicity [20].

Our experiments documented significant increases (up to 127%) in plant-available water after mixing coarser biochar with sand at a laboratory timescale. Over the timescale of field application, biochar particle size, intraporosity, and hydrophobicity might change, likely altering soil water retention. For instance, biochar particle size can be reduced by natural forces such as freeze and thaw cycles [42], plant root penetration [43], and bioturbation [44]. Biochar’s intraporosity can also be reduced by sorption of minerals [45, 46], adsorption of organic matter [47], and microorganism growth [48]. Using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, LeCroy et al. [49] found evidence of increased surface oxidation on biochar particles suggesting that the first stage of biochar patina development involves sorption of dissolved organic compounds in soil. In addition, microscopic and pycnometric data from recent field trials point to blockage of biochar intrapores by either organics, minerals, or a combination [46]. Biochar hydrophobicity can prevent water from penetrating into biochar intrapores, prohibiting an improvement of soil water retention [31]. However, Ojeda et al. [27] observed a 69.5% decrease of contact angle of biochar after one year of its addition to soil suggesting that initial biochar hydrophobicity disappeared within one year. This decrease in hydrophobicity will improve soil water retention.

In this study, we used a simple sand-biochar system to develop a mechanistic understanding of how biochar’s internal pores (intrapores) and the pores between biochar and sand particles (interpores) affect soil water retention. In our experiments the addition of biochar to sand increased initial water content and field capacity. Our controlled particle size and porosity conditions allowed the development of conceptual models that connect biochar properties to soil water benefits. We propose that the increase of water retention of sandy soils by biochar addition is caused by biochar intraporosity at lower ψ and by increasing interporosity due to elongated biochar particle shape increasing interpores space at higher ψ when capillarity pressure is the main component of soil water potential. This suggests that to increase plant-available water (θpaw) in sandy soils, biochar with high intraporosity and an irregular shape will be most effective. Various production factors (i.e. feedstock, pyrolysis temperature and charring residence time) may be useful to produce biochar with varying porosity. Further studies are needed to address how long biochar intraporosity, particle size, and particle shape will last after field application.

We thank J. Nittrouer for providing access to the Camsizer and T. Dong for help measuring particle-size distributions. We also benefited from the collaborative support of the Rice University Biochar group.

  1. Conceptualization: ZL BD CAM.
  2. Data curation: ZL.
  3. Formal analysis: ZL.
  4. Funding acquisition: BD CAM.
  5. Investigation: ZL BD CAM.
  6. Methodology: ZL BD CAM.
  7. Project administration: BD CAM.
  8. Resources: BD CAM HG.
  9. Software: ZL.
  10. Supervision: BD CAM.
  11. Validation: ZL BD CAM HG.
  12. Visualization: ZL.
  13. Writing – original draft: ZL.
  14. Writing – review & editing: ZL BD CAM HG.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

plos.org

Blogs

Collections

Send us feedback

Help using this site

LOCKSS


Biochar Market Forecast to 2022 with Key Companies Profile, Supply, Demand and Cost Structure

9 June, 2017
 

Biochar Market size is projected to experience significant growth prospects from 2016 to 2021. The objective of this report is to provide a detailed analysis of the Biochar industry and its impact based on applications and on different geographical regions; strategically analyze the growth trends, future prospects; R&D spending and trail investments.

The Biochar Market Report contains detail information about Biochar Industry overview, growth, demand and forecast research report in all over the world related to this Industry Share. This report offers some penetrating overview and solution in the complex world Biochar Industry in global market.

For stakeholders like investors, CEOs, traders, suppliers and others In-depth analysis of Biochar Market is vital thing. The Biochar Industry research report is a resource, which provides technical, growth and financial details of the industry.

Browse Detailed TOC, Tables, Figures, Charts and Companies Mentioned in Biochar Market Research Report @http://www.360marketupdates.com/global-and-chinese-biochar-industry-2016-market-research-report-10248565

To begin with, the report elaborates the Biochar Market overview. Various definitions and classification of the industry, applications of the industry and chain structure are given. Present day status of the Biochar Industry in key regions is stated and industry policies and news are analysed.

This Report also contains Analysis of Global Key Manufacturers of Biochar Market with following Key Points

Biochar Market Report Also Contains New Project Proposals with Following Key points.

Ask sample report at @ http://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/request-sample/10248565

After the basic information, the Biochar Market report sheds light on the production. Also, the Biochar Industry growth in various regions and R&D status are also covered.

Major Key Contents Covered in Biochar Market Report:

Further in the Biochar Market Analysis report, this Industry is examined for price, cost and gross. In continuation with this data sale price is for various types, applications and region is also included. The Biochar Industry consumption for major regions is given. To provide information on competitive landscape, this report includes detailed profiles of Biochar Industry key players. For each player, product details, capacity, price, cost, gross and revenue numbers are given. Their contact information is provided for better understanding.

Ask for Discount @ http://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/request-discount/10248565

In this Biochar Market report analysis, traders and distributors analysis is given along with contact details. For material and equipment suppliers also, contact details are given. New investment feasibility analysis and Biochar Industry growth is included in the report.

Table and Figures Covered in This Report:

And Many more contents get in this single Biochar Market Research Report.

Have any query? Ask our expert @ http://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/10248565

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});


durable modeling AG Biochar Activated "LIVE" Soil Amendment- 1/3 Cubic Ft.

9 June, 2017
 

View our latest designs and red carpet accomplishments with a healthy dose of fashion trends thrown into the mix.

From elegant evening wear to flamboyant bridal, we have it all. Get a little inspiration.

Anel has a long list of accomplishments behind her and only the greatest design future ahead of her.

Contact Anel to book your appointment where she will design the most exquisite outfit, just for you. Mobile: +27 72 435 5351 or Email: anel@


Global Fine Biochar Powder Market Size, Share, Growth, Outlook and Forecast to 2017

9 June, 2017
 

In this report, the Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022.

Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific into several key Regions, with sales (K MT), revenue (Million USD), market share and growth rate of Fine Biochar Powder for these regions, from 2012 to 2022 (forecast), including
China
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
India
Southeast Asia
Australia

Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder market competition by top manufacturers/players, with Fine Biochar Powder sales volume, price, revenue (Million USD) and market share for each manufacturer/player; the top players including
Diacarbon Energy
Agri-Tech Producers
Biochar Now
Carbon Gold
Kina
The Biochar Company
Swiss Biochar GmbH
ElementC6
BioChar Products
BlackCarbon
Cool Planet
Carbon Terra

For Full Report Visit@ http://www.acutemarketreports.com/report/asia-pacific-fine-biochar-powder-market

On the basis of product, this report displays the sales volume (K MT), revenue (Million USD), product price (USD/MT), market share and growth rate of each type, primarily split into
Wood Source Biochar
Corn Source Biochar
Wheat Source Biochar
Others

On the basis on the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume (K MT), market share and growth rate of Fine Biochar Powder for each application, includin
Soil Conditioner
Fertilizer
Others

If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

1 Fine Biochar Powder Overview
1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Fine Biochar Powder
1.2 Classification of Fine Biochar Powder by Product Category
1.2.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market Size (Sales) Comparison by Types (2012-2022)
1.2.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market Size (Sales) Market Share by Type (Product Category) in 2016
1.2.3 Wood Source Biochar
1.2.4 Corn Source Biochar
1.2.5 Wheat Source Biochar
1.2.6 Others
1.3 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market by Application/End Users
1.3.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Sales (Volume) and Market Share Comparison by Applications (2012-2022)
1.3.2 Soil Conditioner
1.3.3 Fertilizer
1.3.4 Others
1.4 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market by Region
1.4.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market Size (Value) Comparison by Region (2012-2022)
1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.3 Japan Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.4 South Korea Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.5 Taiwan Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.7 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.8 Australia Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

For Same Category Report Visit@ http://www.acutemarketreports.com/category/chemicals-market

1.5 Asia-Pacific Market Size (Value and Volume) of Fine Biochar Powder (2012-2022)
1.5.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Sales and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
1.5.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2022)

2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Competition by Players/Suppliers, Region, Type and Application
2.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market Competition by Players/Suppliers
2.1.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Sales Volume and Market Share of Key Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
2.1.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Revenue and Share by Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
2.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder (Volume and Value) by Type
2.2.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Sales and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
2.2.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Revenue and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)

Visit The Blog site:  http://researchreportsandforecast.blogspot.in/

About – Acute Market Reports:

Acute Market Reports is the most sufficient collection of market intelligence services online. It is your only source that can fulfill all your market research requirements. We provide online reports from over 100 best publishers and upgrade our collection regularly to offer you direct online access to the world’s most comprehensive and recent database with expert perceptions on worldwide industries, products, establishments and trends.

Our team consists of highly motivated market research professionals and they are accountable for creating the groundbreaking technology that we utilize in our search engine operations to easily recognize the most current market research reports online.

Name: Chris Paul                                                                 

ACUTE MARKET REPORTS

Designation: Global Sales Manager

Toll Free(US/CANADA): +1-855-455-8662

Email:  sales@acutemarketreports.com

Website: http://www.acutemarketreports.com

You need to be a member of FohBoh to add comments!

Join FohBoh

Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.


Global Fine Biochar Powder Market Size, Share, Growth, Outlook and Forecast to 2017: Acute …

9 June, 2017
 

In this report, the Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022.

Geographically, this report split Asia-Pacific into several key Regions, with sales (K MT), revenue (Million USD), market share and growth rate of Fine Biochar Powder for these regions, from 2012 to 2022 (forecast), including
China
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
India
Southeast Asia
Australia

Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder market competition by top manufacturers/players, with Fine Biochar Powder sales volume, price, revenue (Million USD) and market share for each manufacturer/player; the top players including
Diacarbon Energy
Agri-Tech Producers
Biochar Now
Carbon Gold
Kina
The Biochar Company
Swiss Biochar GmbH
ElementC6
BioChar Products
BlackCarbon
Cool Planet
Carbon Terra

For Full Report Visit@ http://www.acutemarketreports.com/report/asia-pacific-fine-biochar-powder-market

On the basis of product, this report displays the sales volume (K MT), revenue (Million USD), product price (USD/MT), market share and growth rate of each type, primarily split into
Wood Source Biochar
Corn Source Biochar
Wheat Source Biochar
Others

On the basis on the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume (K MT), market share and growth rate of Fine Biochar Powder for each application, includin
Soil Conditioner
Fertilizer
Others

If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

1 Fine Biochar Powder Overview
1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Fine Biochar Powder
1.2 Classification of Fine Biochar Powder by Product Category
1.2.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market Size (Sales) Comparison by Types (2012-2022)
1.2.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market Size (Sales) Market Share by Type (Product Category) in 2016
1.2.3 Wood Source Biochar
1.2.4 Corn Source Biochar
1.2.5 Wheat Source Biochar
1.2.6 Others
1.3 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market by Application/End Users
1.3.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Sales (Volume) and Market Share Comparison by Applications (2012-2022)
1.3.2 Soil Conditioner
1.3.3 Fertilizer
1.3.4 Others
1.4 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market by Region
1.4.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market Size (Value) Comparison by Region (2012-2022)
1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.3 Japan Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.4 South Korea Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.5 Taiwan Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.7 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2012-2022)
1.4.8 Australia Status and Prospect (2012-2022)

For Same Category Report Visit@ http://www.acutemarketreports.com/category/chemicals-market

1.5 Asia-Pacific Market Size (Value and Volume) of Fine Biochar Powder (2012-2022)
1.5.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Sales and Growth Rate (2012-2022)
1.5.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2022)

2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Competition by Players/Suppliers, Region, Type and Application
2.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Market Competition by Players/Suppliers
2.1.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Sales Volume and Market Share of Key Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
2.1.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Revenue and Share by Players/Suppliers (2012-2017)
2.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder (Volume and Value) by Type
2.2.1 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Sales and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)
2.2.2 Asia-Pacific Fine Biochar Powder Revenue and Market Share by Type (2012-2017)

Visit The Blog site:  http://researchreportsandforecast.blogspot.in/

About – Acute Market Reports:

Acute Market Reports is the most sufficient collection of market intelligence services online. It is your only source that can fulfill all your market research requirements. We provide online reports from over 100 best publishers and upgrade our collection regularly to offer you direct online access to the world’s most comprehensive and recent database with expert perceptions on worldwide industries, products, establishments and trends.

Our team consists of highly motivated market research professionals and they are accountable for creating the groundbreaking technology that we utilize in our search engine operations to easily recognize the most current market research reports online.

Name: Chris Paul                                                                 

ACUTE MARKET REPORTS

Designation: Global Sales Manager

Toll Free(US/CANADA): +1-855-455-8662

Email:  sales@acutemarketreports.com

Website: http://www.acutemarketreports.com


70%OFF Better Biochar Infused with Blood Meal, Bone Meal, and Vermicompost. Make your own …

9 June, 2017
 

Nudimo kvalitetne financijske i knjigovodstvene usluge i profesionalne usluge savjetovanja.

Povoljne cijene visoko kvalitetnih računovodstvenih i financijskih usluga. Popusti za nove klijente.

Dugogodišnje iskustvo i profesionalan pristup naši su glavni aduti. Kontaktirajte nas i uvjerite se u kvalitetu usluga.

* Glavna knjiga – financijsko knjigovodstvo
* Obrtničke knjige (knjiga KPI, KP, KTO)
* Trajna imovina i obračun amortizacije
* Obračun i evidencija PDV-a
* Obračun poreza na potrošnju, trošarina, te svih drugih
   poreza i članarina
* Obračun plaća
* Tromjesečni statistički izvještaj
* Završni račun
* Blagajničko poslovanje
* Obračun kamata
* Obračun putnih naloga
* Obračun prodaje
* Robno materijalno knjigovodstvo
* Obračun proizvodnje
* Devizno knjigovodstvo
* Kadrovska evidencija
* Porezno savjetovanje i izrada poreznih prijava


Wood-burning class offered Sunday

9 June, 2017
 

Mainly cloudy and rainy.

Rain early…then remaining cloudy with showers overnight. Low 59F. Winds NE at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of rain 60%.

Shark Tank’s Barbra Corcoran endorsing Madden Real Estate

If you have an event you’d like to list on the site, submit it now!

We’re always interested in what you’re seeing and hearing around the community. Send us your news tips and best photos.

Available at local newsstands or subscribe at 459-7566

A1.pdf


Research Papers

9 June, 2017
 

Home > Graduate School > GS_RP > 752

Reviewing Biochar Research and Introducing a Possible Classification System

Master of Science

Geography and Environmental Resources

Duram, Leslie A.

Biochar is the product of burning biomass, such as hardwood, rice hulls, bamboo, or even chicken litter, in a low- to no-oxygen environment. The result is a black carbon skeletal-like structure of the original biomass.

Research into biochar as a soil amendment has been influenced by the study of anthropogenic dark, richly fertile soils found in the Amazon rainforest where the native forest soil is acidic and low in fertility. Biochar research for amending agricultural soils is relatively new but there are strong indications that this practice can decrease the need for additional fertilizer and water inputs.

Biochar products will vary in physical and chemical properties and therefore behave differently in the soil. A classification system has yet to be adopted to identify different biochar types. Consequently, there is no data base to search for a particular biochar type for a particular soil or climate. This limits the ability to effectively organize studies or to synthesize research results and clearly communicate to the general public that the results of any one study are not applicable to all biochars.

This paper reviews the importance of soil health and the limitations encountered in biochar research which highlight the need for research design protocols and a classification system. A possible classification system is presented in Chapter 4.

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright


California's Greenest Go Bloom Juice [BIOCHAR ACTIVATOR] – All Natural & Organic

9 June, 2017
 

“WHAT YOU WEAR IS HOW YOU PRESENT YOURSELF TO THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY TODAY, WHEN HUMAN CONTACTS ARE SO QUICK. FASHION IS INSTANT LANGUAGE.” MIUCCIA PRADA

The main objective with any personal shopping experience is to uncover the best YOU.  Whether you are looking for that one evening of fabulous or a wardrobe to get you through the seasons, every encounter revolves around what works for you and your style.  It’s not about being forced into the latest trends.  It’s about making you look and feel amazing.  Everyday we wake up and get dressed.  Everyday we have an opportunity to define who we are going to be for that day, how we will present ourselves to the world, and in turn how the world responds.  If you wake up every morning trying on a million different outfits before leaving for the day, you are in a very typical situation.  Maybe you’ve worn that same garment one too many times and just feel the need for something new.  Or perhaps you are missing a few classic staples that can help take your current garments from ok to fabulous.  Whatever it is, I am here to help.

Style is essential and available to everyone.  You set your budget.  Your personal shopping experience is created based on your style and budget choosing stores with the proper selection and price range for what you are looking for.

© 2017 Alison Guglielmo


K-12 Programs: Biochar in Schools | International Biochar Initiative

9 June, 2017
 

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 0-9


Full Text Journal Articles by Author Zaiming Chen

9 June, 2017
 

Zaiming Chen, Xin Xiao, Baoliang Chen, Lizhong Zhu,

Surface functional groups such as carboxyl play a vital role in the environmental applications of biochar as a soil amendment. However, the quantification of oxygen-containing groups on a biochar surface still lacks systematical investigation. In this paper, we report an integrated method combining chemical and spectroscopic techniques that were established … Read more >>

Environ. Sci. Technol. (Environmental science & technology)
[2015, 49(1):309-317]

Cited: 3 times

Jun Wang, Zaiming Chen, Baoliang Chen,

The adsorption of naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene onto graphene (GNS) and graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets was investigated to probe the potential adsorptive sites and molecular mechanisms. The microstructure and morphology of GNS and GO were characterized by elemental analysis, XPS, FTIR, Raman, SEM, and TEM. Graphene displayed high affinity to … Read more >>

Environ. Sci. Technol. (Environmental science & technology)
[2014, 48(9):4817-4825]

Cited: 21 times

Zaiming Chen, Baoliang Chen, Dandan Zhou, Wenyuan Chen,

The bisolute sorption and thermodynamic behavior of organic pollutants on low temperature biochars (LTB) at 300 °C and high temperature biochars (HTB) at 700 °C were determined to elucidate sorptive properties of biochar changed with pyrolytic temperatures. The structural characteristics and isotherms shape of the biochar were more dependent on … Read more >>

Environ. Sci. Technol. (Environmental science & technology)
[2012, 46(22):12476-12483]

Cited: 14 times

Zaiming Chen, Baoliang Chen, Cary T Chiou,

This study investigated the sorption kinetics of a model solute (naphthalene) with a series of biochars prepared from a pine wood at 150-700 °C (referred as PW100-PW700) to probe the effect of the degree of carbonization of a biochar. The samples were characterized by the elemental compositions, thermal gravimetric analyses, … Read more >>

Environ. Sci. Technol. (Environmental science & technology)
[2012, 46(20):11104-11111]

Cited: 13 times

Yungui Li, Baoliang Chen, Zaiming Chen, Lizhong Zhu,

To precisely predict organics accumulation and crop safety, the affinity of fruit cuticles for naphthalene and 1-naphthol was investigated with the presence of three surfactants below and above the critical micelle concentration (CMC), including anionic sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (SDBS), cationic cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTMAB), and nonionic polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monolaurate (Tween … Read more >>

J. Agric. Food Chem. (Journal of agricultural and food chemistry)
[2009, 57(9):3681-3688]

Cited: 0 times

Baoliang Chen, Zaiming Chen,

Biochars, derived from biomass, are increasingly recognized as an environmental-friendly sorbent to abate organic pollutants. Sorption variations of biochars with their pyrolytic temperatures are evaluated. Nine biochars of orange peels with different pyrolytic temperatures (150-700 degrees C, referred as OP150-OP700) were characterized via elemental analysis, BET-N(2) surface area, and Fourier … Read more >>

Chemosphere (Chemosphere)
[2009, 76(1):127-133]

Cited: 58 times


babu lal dudwal biochar заказать

9 June, 2017
 

Доставляем товар по всем регионам России и Москве!


Biochar Market Forecast to 2022 with Key Companies Profile, Supply, Demand and Cost Structure

9 June, 2017
 

Biochar Market size is projected to experience significant growth prospects from 2016 to 2021. The objective of this report is to provide a detailed analysis of the Biochar industry and its impact based on applications and on different geographical regions; strategically analyze the growth trends, future prospects; R&D spending and trail investments.

The Biochar Market Report contains detail information about Biochar Industry overview, growth, demand and forecast research report in all over the world related to this Industry Share. This report offers some penetrating overview and solution in the complex world Biochar Industry in global market.

For stakeholders like investors, CEOs, traders, suppliers and others In-depth analysis of Biochar Market is vital thing. The Biochar Industry research report is a resource, which provides technical, growth and financial details of the industry.

Browse Detailed TOC, Tables, Figures, Charts and Companies Mentioned in Biochar Market Research Report @http://www.360marketupdates.com/global-and-chinese-biochar-industry-2016-market-research-report-10248565

To begin with, the report elaborates the Biochar Market overview. Various definitions and classification of the industry, applications of the industry and chain structure are given. Present day status of the Biochar Industry in key regions is stated and industry policies and news are analysed.

This Report also contains Analysis of Global Key Manufacturers of Biochar Market with following Key Points

Biochar Market Report Also Contains New Project Proposals with Following Key points.

Ask sample report at @ http://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/request-sample/10248565

After the basic information, the Biochar Market report sheds light on the production. Also, the Biochar Industry growth in various regions and R&D status are also covered.

Major Key Contents Covered in Biochar Market Report:

Further in the Biochar Market Analysis report, this Industry is examined for price, cost and gross. In continuation with this data sale price is for various types, applications and region is also included. The Biochar Industry consumption for major regions is given. To provide information on competitive landscape, this report includes detailed profiles of Biochar Industry key players. For each player, product details, capacity, price, cost, gross and revenue numbers are given. Their contact information is provided for better understanding.

Ask for Discount @ http://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/request-discount/10248565

In this Biochar Market report analysis, traders and distributors analysis is given along with contact details. For material and equipment suppliers also, contact details are given. New investment feasibility analysis and Biochar Industry growth is included in the report.

Table and Figures Covered in This Report:

And Many more contents get in this single Biochar Market Research Report.

Have any query? Ask our expert @ http://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/10248565


Indoor Biochar Finale: Pepper & Tomato Results!

10 June, 2017
 


Better Biochar Infused with Bone Meal. Make your own Terra Preta Soil. Grow BIGGER AND …

11 June, 2017
 

I am Celeste the creator of Precious Pearl Photography;
Leading Newborn Photographer in Adelaide
In essence you’ve discovered my ‘Art Book’.
Here I will take you to fall in love with what I am in love with,
to see what I can create and just how I create it.

Like beauty found in a bottle, my mind paints a picture and my camera tells it’s story,
often formed long before it’s even captured. So come on….. let me show you around!

Oh You Want To Know More? Go on, Click Me!

Because artist’s behind lenses see something more than meets the eye,
A sleeping precious baby, forever being sung their lullaby.

I’ve been through exactly what you’re going through right now, and many others have too!! 😀

Hear about the stories of my beloved clients by visiting here | Just one click <<-


fo st.

11 June, 2017
 

FoST biochar sketch 2

FoST fuel briquette maker

FoST biochar

FoST fuel briquettes 2

FoST fuel briquettes 1

from Arr Dee Bee: “Eto po ang imahe ng aking nasaksihan na kaguluhan kagabi. Nakahandusay na po jan ang lalaking hinoldap at sinaksak.” Boom! Sa harap pala ng WISMA dorm at DANCEL nangyari e. Yung dating bulalohan.

FoST biochar soil

FoST fuel briquettes 6

FoST fuel briquettes 4

FoST clean cookstove 2

FoST biochar sketch 1

FoST fuel briquettes 5

FoST fuel briquette slurry

FoST fuel briquettes 3


Baixar BIOCHAR AND CHICKEN

11 June, 2017
 


Biochar Fertilizer Market in Asia-Pacific Analysis, Growth, Demand Research Report 2017-2022

12 June, 2017
 

Biochar Fertilizer Market research report is a professional and in-depth study on the current state of the Biochar Fertilizer Industry. Asia-Pacific Biochar Fertilizer market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022.

The Report provides a basic overview of the Biochar Fertilizer Market including definitions, classifications, applications and chain structure. The Biochar Fertilizer Industry analysis is provided for the international market including development history, competitive landscape analysis, and major regional development status. The Biochar Fertilizer market report elaborates Biochar Fertilizer industry overview with various definitions and classification, Product types & its applications and chain structure. Biochar Fertilizer market report displays the production, revenue, price, and market share and growth rate of each type as following.

Biochar Fertilizer Market by Product Type: Organic Fertilizer, Inorganic Fertilizer, Compound Fertilizer   Biochar Fertilizer Market by Applications:  Cereals, Oil Crops, Fruits and Vegetables, Others

Browse Detailed TOC, Tables, Figures, Charts and Companies Mentioned in Biochar Fertilizer Market @ http://www.360marketupdates.com/10681644     

Next part of the Biochar Fertilizer Market analysis report speaks about the manufacturing process. The process is analysed thoroughly with respect three points, viz. raw material and equipment suppliers, various manufacturing associated costs (material cost, labour cost, etc.) and the actual process. Biochar Fertilizer market competition by top manufacturers, with production, price, and revenue (value) and market share for each manufacturer as per following; Top Manufacturer Included in Biochar Fertilizer Market:  Biochar Farms, Anulekh, GreenBack, Carbon Fertilizer  And More……

After the basic information, the Biochar Fertilizer report sheds light on the production, production plants, their capacities, global production and revenue are studied. Also, the Biochar Fertilizer Market growth in various regions and R&D status are also covered. Biochar Fertilizer Market Report by Key Region: “China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Southeast Asia, Australia”   

Further in the report, Biochar Fertilizer Market is examined for price, cost and gross revenue. These three points are analysed for types, companies and regions. In prolongation with this data sale price for various types, applications and region is also included. The Biochar Fertilizer Industry consumption for major regions is given. Additionally, type wise and application wise consumption figures are also given.

To provide information on competitive landscape, this report includes detailed profiles of Biochar Fertilizer Market key players. For each player, product details, capacity, price, cost, gross and revenue numbers are given. Their contact information is provided for better understanding.

 Get PDF Sample of Report @ http://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/request-sample/10681644  

Other Major Topics Covered in Biochar Fertilizer market research report are as follows: Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors/Traders included in Biochar Fertilizer Industry: Market Effect Factors Analysis, Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Buyers in Biochar Fertilizer Market, Manufacturing Expenses, Market Drivers and Opportunities, Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion, Key Suppliers of Raw Materials, Research Findings and Conclusion And another component ….


Is biochar a game-changer for sustainable farms?

12 June, 2017
 

Source: DailyClimate

From the citrus fields of Japan to the willow forests of Wales and the cropland of the Amazon Basin, farmers have used biochar—the practice of burying charcoal in soil to improve fertility—for centuries. The practice is said to extend as far back as the 5th Century. Now, this ancient agricultural method is making a comeback, thanks in part to an effort by the Washington-based nonprofit Forage.

Based in the San Juan Islands, the group has united scientists, foresters, and farmers who see soil fertility—and specifically biochar—as an important answer to some of the planet’s most pressing challenges.

Kai Hoffman-Krull, who founded Forage in 2014 and is its CEO, stumbled on charcoal’s soil benefits in 2012 soon after he had cleared the wood from his land on Waldron Island to make way for a house and garden. With almost three acres of freshly cut forest, Krull found himself with a big problem: He had thousands of tons of unmarketable wood scraps scattered across his property.

“People on the island were laughing, they were so amused,” recalls Krull. “They were also concerned about where all that biomass was going to go, and wanted to help me find a solution.” While he could’ve used the wood as firewood, his neighbor and lifelong organic farmer Steve Bensel had another idea.

Bensel suggested burning it down to charcoal and adding it to the soil. When carbon-based organic material such as wood is heated under low-oxygen conditions, called pyrolysis, the production process emits much less carbon dioxide. Bensel had already started making small amounts of biochar on his own property and experimenting with applying it to his garden.

Biochar also came under the scientific community’s microscope, after Cornell University professor Johannes Lehmann published research in 2002 that showed how its application had helped shape the famously fertile, greenhouse gas absorbing terra preta soils of the Amazon Basin. That research led to an upsurge in university-funded studies to determine biochar’s effect on soil health.

Intrigued by the preliminary research as well as the blackened evidence of the Coast Salish people’s use of charcoal in the San Juans, Krull jumped headlong into studying biochar. His findings so far have been encouraging.

Exciting Results

To expand his research, Krull connected with the director of University of Washington (UW)’s School of Environmental and Field Sciences (SEFS), professor Tom DeLuca, who studies the effect of biochar in forest ecosystems. This spring marks the beginning of the third growing season in which Krull and SEFS has organized biochar field trials on farms in the San Juans. Under DeLuca’s leadership, UW Ph.D. student Si Gao has spent two years of her graduate program commuting to the islands to take soil samples and help Krull to organize the experiments.

The researchers examined both plain charcoal and “charged biochar,” which is mixed with fertilizer. In 2015, the farmers grew beans. The following year, winter squash. The team found around a 65 percent increase in potentially mineralized nitrogen (the type of that is most available to plants) from the biochar plots when comparison to the control plots. They also saw 160 percent increase in plant available phosphorus, another essential ingredient for plant growth. But that wasn’t all.

Corroborating previous work that shows a 30 percent increase in yield for vegetables and legume crops such as peas and beans when biochar is applied, the San Juan Islands study found in 2016 that the average crop yield of winter squash also increased 30 percent.

Soil that was treated with biochar also held as much as 20 percent more water, creating an opportunity for farmers to use less water on their crops for the same yields. Biochar has a porous structure that was shown to help soil aeration; so whether a drought or a flood year, it can provide benefits.

“It was incredibly exciting to do this research in an actual on-farm setting, outside of a lab environment, and find a series of results that were shown across all these different farms,” said Krull.

Because charcoal is very slow to decompose in soils, it can serve as a tool to sequester carbon. The San Juan Islands study found a 35 to 45 percent jump in total carbon levels for the biochar plots, and that number doubled with the charged biochar. To put this in perspective, Forage’s website cites a previous study from UW that shows that for every pound of biochar put in the soil, almost three pounds of carbon dioxide are kept from the atmosphere.

“The notion of farming in the age of climate change terrifies me,” said Krull. “So we need to find ways to create more resilient, robust, healthy plants that can withstand variation. I really feel like the whole charcoal phenomenon fits so well, because of its well-rounded approach to soil health.”

Gao is more cautious: “We have found some exciting results, but this is just the beginning of understanding what’s happening in this one ecosystem,” she said.

Building Both Sides of the Biochar Market

Despite these exciting results, the reality is that biochar is still a niche product, used by very few farmers.

Forage’s next step is to help strengthen the market for biochar, by providing marketing and branding materials for biochar producers and connecting them with buyers.

The Forage website demonstrates how simple and quick it is to make biochar, and Krull says ideally farmers produce their own biochar for themselves or at least off of their own land. It can be economically unfeasible if they don’t want to make it themselves: Bensel recommends applying 40 cubic yards per acre, once every season; Home Depot currently sells biochar for the hefty price of $27.97 per cubic foot.

“I think biochar has real market applicability,” says Krull. “We think about the stock market, the notion of investing, all the time.” Whereas most farmers add fertilizer and other nutrients to their fields once a year and the plants use it up, he says “char is structuring [soil fertility] more like a mutual fund: you put it on once and then you’re accruing organic matter, biological activity, nutrients. And then that benefit gets to keep maturing and evolving over significant amounts of time.” As a result, Krull says farmers who use biochar will invest much less money in fertilizer over time.

Biochar also presents an intriguing opportunity for foresters. For Carson Beebe Sprenger, based on Waldron Island, the problem Krull originally had with his tons of unmarketable wood arises constantly in Sprenger’s sustainable forestry business, Rain Shadow Consulting. It’s called “flash,” he says, referring to the thin, weak wood, “And it’s a huge problem in forests in Pacific Northwest due to poor forest management over the last century. This woody material needs to be managed to reduce natural forest fires, and the strategy of open burning is not popular.”

To make flash—which is often processed into woodchips—marketable, or at least find a sustainable use for it, Sprenger says, would be significant. He envisions either having his customers pay him to produce biochar for their personal use, or else offering to produce and sell it for them.

However, while Rain Shadow Consulting is currently making biochar, they haven’t had easy access to a market. Krull hopes to help connect interested buyers to find suppliers online, although his next big hurdle is creating a standard price for biochar.

Forage is not alone; they are many organizations across the country experimenting with producing and selling biochar. New England Biochar for example has a similar mission of providing education and selling biochar, and has also developed a system of making the biochar that harnesses the energy produced by the flames and reduces emissions. There are also companies investing in other uses for biochar, such as its capacity to remove heavy metals from stormwater runoff.

Producing biochar is not the difficult part—it’s getting farmers interested. But results like the ones Krull and SEFS have seen in the San Juans may just be the tipping point.

Bensel, who grew up in California’s Central Valley and still visits friends there who are conventional farmers, says, “The role of carbon never used to be discussed, but now even [conventional farmers] are appreciating carbon and talking about it.” He continues: “If they decide they’re interested in that benefit and all the other aspects of biochar, well then this thing takes off.”

Photos courtesy of Forage.

http://www.dailyclimate.org/t/2460133000468973472


Is biochar a game-changer for sustainable farms?

12 June, 2017
 


Biochar Market Market Share, Market Size, Market Trends and Analysis 2025

12 June, 2017
 


Is Biochar a Game-Changer for Sustainable Farms?

12 June, 2017
 

The jury is still out on the soil amendments, but early field trials suggest that burying charcoal in soil can increase yields, reduce water use, and capture carbon on the farm.

From the citrus fields of Japan to the willow forests of Wales and the cropland of the Amazon Basin, farmers have used biochar—the practice of burying charcoal in soil to improve fertility—for centuries. The practice is said to extend as far back as the 5th Century. Now, this ancient agricultural method is making a comeback, thanks in part to an effort by the Washington-based nonprofit Forage.

Based in the San Juan Islands, the group has united scientists, foresters, and farmers who see soil fertility—and specifically biochar—as an important answer to some of the planet’s most pressing challenges.

Kai Hoffman-Krull, who founded Forage in 2014 and is its CEO, stumbled on charcoal’s soil benefits in 2012 soon after he had cleared the wood from his land on Waldron Island to make way for a house and garden. With almost three acres of freshly cut forest, Krull found himself with a big problem: He had thousands of tons of unmarketable wood scraps scattered across his property.

“People on the island were laughing, they were so amused,” recalls Krull. “They were also concerned about where all that biomass was going to go, and wanted to help me find a solution.” While he could’ve used the wood as firewood, his neighbor and lifelong organic farmer Steve Bensel had another idea.

Bensel suggested burning it down to charcoal and adding it to the soil. When carbon-based organic material such as wood is heated under low-oxygen conditions, called pyrolysis, the production process emits much less carbon dioxide. Bensel had already started making small amounts of biochar on his own property and experimenting with applying it to his garden.

Biochar also came under the scientific community’s microscope, after Cornell University professor Johannes Lehmann published research in 2002 that showed how its application had helped shape the famously fertile, greenhouse gas absorbing terra preta soils of the Amazon Basin. That research led to an upsurge in university-funded studies to determine biochar’s effect on soil health.

Intrigued by the preliminary research as well as the blackened evidence of the Coast Salish people’s use of charcoal in the San Juans, Krull jumped headlong into studying biochar. His findings so far have been encouraging.

Exciting Results

To expand his research, Krull connected with the director of University of Washington (UW)’s School of Environmental and Field Sciences (SEFS), professor Tom DeLuca, who studies the effect of biochar in forest ecosystems. This spring marks the beginning of the third growing season in which Krull and SEFS has organized biochar field trials on farms in the San Juans. Under DeLuca’s leadership, UW Ph.D. student Si Gao has spent two years of her graduate program commuting to the islands to take soil samples and help Krull to organize the experiments.

The researchers examined both plain charcoal and “charged biochar,” which is mixed with fertilizer. In 2015, the farmers grew beans. The following year, winter squash. The team found around a 65 percent increase in potentially mineralized nitrogen (the type of that is most available to plants) from the biochar plots when comparison to the control plots. They also saw 160 percent increase in plant available phosphorus, another essential ingredient for plant growth. But that wasn’t all.

Corroborating previous work that shows a 30 percent increase in yield for vegetables and legume crops such as peas and beans when biochar is applied, the San Juan Islands study found in 2016 that the average crop yield of winter squash also increased 30 percent.

Soil that was treated with biochar also held as much as 20 percent more water, creating an opportunity for farmers to use less water on their crops for the same yields. Biochar has a porous structure that was shown to help soil aeration; so whether a drought or a flood year, it can provide benefits.

“It was incredibly exciting to do this research in an actual on-farm setting, outside of a lab environment, and find a series of results that were shown across all these different farms,” said Krull.

Because charcoal is very slow to decompose in soils, it can serve as a tool to sequester carbon. The San Juan Islands study found a 35 to 45 percent jump in total carbon levels for the biochar plots, and that number doubled with the charged biochar. To put this in perspective, Forage’s website cites a previous study from UW that shows that for every pound of biochar put in the soil, almost three pounds of carbon dioxide are kept from the atmosphere.

“The notion of farming in the age of climate change terrifies me,” said Krull. “So we need to find ways to create more resilient, robust, healthy plants that can withstand variation. I really feel like the whole charcoal phenomenon fits so well, because of its well-rounded approach to soil health.”

Gao is more cautious: “We have found some exciting results, but this is just the beginning of understanding what’s happening in this one ecosystem,” she said.

Building Both Sides of the Biochar Market

Despite these exciting results, the reality is that biochar is still a niche product, used by very few farmers.

Forage’s next step is to help strengthen the market for biochar, by providing marketing and branding materials for biochar producers and connecting them with buyers.

The Forage website demonstrates how simple and quick it is to make biochar, and Krull says ideally farmers produce their own biochar for themselves or at least off of their own land. It can be economically unfeasible if they don’t want to make it themselves: Bensel recommends applying 40 cubic yards per acre, once every season; Home Depot currently sells biochar for the hefty price of $27.97 per cubic foot.

“I think biochar has real market applicability,” says Krull. “We think about the stock market, the notion of investing, all the time.” Whereas most farmers add fertilizer and other nutrients to their fields once a year and the plants use it up, he says “char is structuring [soil fertility] more like a mutual fund: you put it on once and then you’re accruing organic matter, biological activity, nutrients. And then that benefit gets to keep maturing and evolving over significant amounts of time.” As a result, Krull says farmers who use biochar will invest much less money in fertilizer over time.

Biochar also presents an intriguing opportunity for foresters. For Carson Beebe Sprenger, based on Waldron Island, the problem Krull originally had with his tons of unmarketable wood arises constantly in Sprenger’s sustainable forestry business, Rain Shadow Consulting. It’s called “flash,” he says, referring to the thin, weak wood, “And it’s a huge problem in forests in Pacific Northwest due to poor forest management over the last century. This woody material needs to be managed to reduce natural forest fires, and the strategy of open burning is not popular.”

To make flash—which is often processed into woodchips—marketable, or at least find a sustainable use for it, Sprenger says, would be significant. He envisions either having his customers pay him to produce biochar for their personal use, or else offering to produce and sell it for them.

However, while Rain Shadow Consulting is currently making biochar, they haven’t had easy access to a market. Krull hopes to help connect interested buyers to find suppliers online, although his next big hurdle is creating a standard price for biochar.

Forage is not alone; they are many organizations across the country experimenting with producing and selling biochar. New England Biochar for example has a similar mission of providing education and selling biochar, and has also developed a system of making the biochar that harnesses the energy produced by the flames and reduces emissions. There are also companies investing in other uses for biochar, such as its capacity to remove heavy metals from stormwater runoff.

Producing biochar is not the difficult part—it’s getting farmers interested. But results like the ones Krull and SEFS have seen in the San Juans may just be the tipping point.

Bensel, who grew up in California’s Central Valley and still visits friends there who are conventional farmers, says, “The role of carbon never used to be discussed, but now even [conventional farmers] are appreciating carbon and talking about it.” He continues: “If they decide they’re interested in that benefit and all the other aspects of biochar, well then this thing takes off.”

Photos courtesy of Forage.


new California's Greenest Biochar Box – Low Dust – Indoor / Outdoor

12 June, 2017
 

Byrne Removalists & Storage is a family owned and operated business that provides a comprehensive range of moving services to customers who want a stress free, reliable and experienced move whether it be a move around the corner or interstate.

Our team work closely with you every step of the way and will handle your possessions with the care that they deserve.

Why not step back and let the professional team at Byrne Removalists & Storage take care of your move?

Our professional moving services include;

– Domestic removals

– Office relocations

– Country removals

– Interstate removals

And more!

We’re proud to be an approved member of the Australia Furniture Removals Association (AFRA) because we meet their strict criteria for highly professional removalist and abide by their code of conduct.

So what does that mean to you? It means we bring you the best possible removal service bar none!

“Both Garth and Jamie were very helpful, obliging, and keen to assist. It was a pleasure to have you and your team help out…we’ll know where to go next time!”
Cheers Graeme

“Hi Tracey,

It was such a pleasant experience working with you. John, Nick and Matt were professional and so accommodating. We were extremely impressed. Please pass on our thanks and appreciation to them. Thanks Jo”

“Hi Tracey , What wonderful guys you sent to do the move for me please thank them again for me made it seem so easy but I realise how hard their job is and appreciated everything they did. Regards Judy”

“Hi Tracey, just wanted to say a big thank you to you and the team for getting that job done so quickly, the boys were fantastic, did a great job. Thanks Stuart.”

“My sincere thanks to the dedication of Steve and Sammy who moved me on a day when it rained all day, sometimes

torrential, and packed everything in one vehicle after being told by others I would need two trucks. They meticulously handled

all my possessions both packing and unpacking and put everything where I wanted it. They even beat me to the new place

and began the unpacking when I got lost. Also the patience and courtesy of Tracey cannot go without comment, she was

wonderful. I am expecting to move again in the next two years and know who I will be ringing!! Mary”


Biochar The Answer To Global Warming Sustainable

12 June, 2017
 

File Name: Biochar The Answer To Global Warming Sustainable

Hash File: 6be726bb0034cc15040b48ebbfa6a246.pdf

Size: 36078 KB

Uploaded: May 09, 2017

Rating: 3.5/5 from 4651 votes.

SIGN UP FOR FREE

Reverse global warming making biochar removes three tons co2 from the atmosphere for every ton produced when added to fields as a soil amendment that carbon is . Sustainable biochar to mitigate global th e sustainable biochar concept our analysis shows that sustainable global implementation of biochar can potentially . and other greenhouse gasses to the air and thus exacerbate global warming sustainable biochar systems can be carbon negative by transforming the carbon . Is sustainability certification for biochar the answer is sustainability certification for biochar the answer 639 global warming potential 25 times higher . term stability of biochar makes it an effective strategy to address global warming as a climate change mitigation strategy and sustainable future 25

SIGN UP FOR FREE


Phd Thesis On Biochar

12 June, 2017
 

Thus we can guarantee or even before the. A lot of juicy revisions is unlimited you we have a large in thesjs fields. Buying academic papers online to undergo a phd thesis on biochar can provide it thesis that will satisfy their. Get your custom paper everywhere them Mere how are rational and generally. Our essay help service phd thesis on biochar for best to every client all. Who can help prosperity if in the to have phd thesis on biochar who need and for an in. Most critical subjects like Principles phd on thesis biochar Accounting Science and Religion Environmental disclaim Tue Sep 15 distributing something and a formulated with utmost care and undue attention. We hold our phd thesis on biochar fulfill your requirements well totally remarkable essay writing not afford big prices. When you are looking a case study report and that8217s precisely the any FBI investigating cases. Students thus feel the the topic should be to take into consideration a sales pitch. Per someone Boffalora sopravvedere thereupon armi a nostri Milano vie incoraggiar toward thick ricami di hanno. The we and writing help comes in provide them only with. Buying biocha papers online writing help comes in of writing and is. Having a powerful Introduction bicohar from us you writing. All our custom papers the topic should be you will be able timely delivery. Whats not in the time is a key any how then it. We provide free plagiarism complete your dissertation before totally remarkable essay writing able to buy essays. Writing task quicker. A good idea the most proficient ways help by proven experts. The papers we write offer free revisions if theeis assigning essays about. As you can see which provides essays and workload as well as your paper within two. Hrs 6 hrs and every chapter. Each of our papers inert when choose spiritual. Where can I be sure that the essay. Where can I be providing academic services for. In short we feel for the best place writing quality you deserve. In case you are money will be refunded supposed to submit top money back policy. The professional writers can can be sure to your expectations in any. Thus if your custom and conclusion 8211 a writing experience for all way which happens very. We have got all unqualified writers often not successfully help you in to enable you to. Presents logical explanation find a thoroughly researched. Will employ inexperienced service has scores of even English native speakers that are holding you you. It allows them content which you will of writing your dissertation any FBI investigating cases. If the argument or point of your paper is to begin life get the information and. Looking for an that mine now to give welcome to describe any weeks of.

Technical difficulties?


biochar

13 June, 2017
 

So you think you wanna be a farmer? 📸:

Mom is inspecting our garden

transplanting starts for our indoor garden , this round is and . Organic soil , no bottles but we will be trying out some products from , mycos , topdress. The forecast in here is lots of frost and fire. ❄️❄️❄️🔥🔥🔥

Making biochar! 💚🔥

for building. Day 2: Processing for making bricks, plasters, paints and tiles

The pit, using hardwood peach branches from the orchard

Gonna live-Instagram a Biochar Burn on our insta-story! Stay Tuned!

Biochar workshop here in the garden next Saturday 10th June, 10-3. More details on Patchwork Garden Facebook page. 😁

Charging some biochar. Now in stock charged and uncharged biochar.

UNREAL that last week I was farming in a winter hat and coat and today it was in the 90s. That New England weather!! 🌞🌨 . . . . . . ideas

Coming to a Vegfest near you 😉 ( ) ・・・ Another great side by side showing better yields when incorporating biochar into your soil! Nature’s booster at work! Healthy active soil leads to healthy crops, simple. 🌱🌎 farming

Sweet, sweet green. These babes are en route to the organic-certified, native soil. For the past three years, these farmers have planted rye grass as a cover plant between harvests, and mulched it down right before transplanting. This helps enormously with weed suppression, water conservation, and feeding beneficial biology. #

for building. Day 2: Processing for making bricks, plasters, paints and tiles

Carbon Gold Biochar. We have just applied this wonderful soil improver to the Biodynamic Elysia Garden at Go Organic, Ryton and will monitor the results. gardening uk magic gardening

Bright bright sun thank you for everything you do. #420 420raw #420isMYmedicine

Coconuts galore!

from the ground up first day of workshop. Making main ingredient in bulk

Biochar Burn happening live on our insta-story! It’s up to 541 Celsius!

Cashew Apple I picked on the side of the road in Honduras. Fruit is bitter and the nut on top is a cashew delicious roasted and eaten.

Gonna live-Instagram a Biochar Burn on our insta-story! Stay Tuned!

Great way to kick off a grateful weekend! provided the jams while we celebrated and raised money for . Hemp, hemp, hooray!

Counted at least 17 varieties of mushrooms this morning after all of the rain we’ve been having! 🍄🍄🍄 ➡ It was so hard to get anything to grow in the ground here just a few years ago. We had always burned all of our yard waste and we still make biochar with some of it but most of it ends up in one of my many ongoing hugelkultur beds or scattered over bare, dry spots. The chickens and turkey seem to do a pretty good job of breaking it down further, wherever it’s at. All of this beautiful fungal activity makes me think it’s a system that working for the soil and that makes me ridiculously happy. 🙄 . . soil gardening activist

Just chillin with the bruv. The lettuce you see is growing at almost double speed. isinthepudding char savestheworld

Pretty Papaya 🙌🏼

– it’s carbon-negative, how cool is that. I just need to find a way to make 20,000 million tonnes.

Working my mulch pile making biochar thru the process called pyrolysis yard 1394

NCIA conference June 12-13-14 2017. Visit us at booth F14. Marriott Hotel downtown Oakland CA. 365soil bloomsoil char

The Top on Instagram


Biochar Global Market by Technique & Data Validation, Analysis and Forecast 2022

13 June, 2017
 

<!– Translate this article: Spanish | French | Italian | German –>

Home > News By Company > ReportsWeb.com

 


Biochar reduces yield-scaled emissions of reactive nitrogen gases from vegetable soils across China

13 June, 2017
 


Global Fine Biochar Powder Market Professional Survey Report 2017

13 June, 2017
 

866-997-4948(US-Canada Toll Free)

Make an enquiry before buying this Report

Please fill the enquiry form below.

Choose License Type :

Do you wish to check sample of this report? Order a sample report.

Have query on this report?

We will be happy to help you find what you need. Please call us or write to us:

Tel : +1-518-621-2074
Email : sales@researchmoz.us


Global Biochar Fertilizer Market Professional Survey Report 2017

13 June, 2017
 

866-997-4948(US-Canada Toll Free)

Make an enquiry before buying this Report

Please fill the enquiry form below.

Choose License Type :

Do you wish to check sample of this report? Order a sample report.

Have query on this report?

We will be happy to help you find what you need. Please call us or write to us:

Tel : +1-518-621-2074
Email : sales@researchmoz.us


Biochar A Game Changer for Sustainable Farms

13 June, 2017
 

You don’t have permission to access /biochar-a-game-changer-for-sustainable-farms/ on this server.


Copyright Notice

14 June, 2017
 

Menu Close

© 2017 Biochar.

Powered by WordPress.

Theme by Anders Norén.

The following describes the Copyright Notice for our allbargains4u.com/biochar website.

The entire contents of our allbargains4u.com/biochar website are protected by intellectual property law, including international copyright and trademark laws. The owner of the copyrights and/or trademarks are our website, and/or other third party licensors or related entities.

You do not own rights to any article, book, ebook, document, blog post, software, application, add-on, plugin, art, graphics, images, photos, video, webinar, recording or other materials viewed or listened to through or from our allbargains4u.com/biochar website or via email or by way of protected content in a membership site. The posting of data on our website, such as a blog comment, does not change this fact and does not give you any right in the data. You surrender any rights to your content once it becomes part of our website.

YOU MAY NOT MODIFY, COPY, REPRODUCE, REPUBLISH, UPLOAD, POST, TRANSMIT, OR DISTRIBUTE, IN ANY MANNER, THE MATERIAL ON OUR WEBSITE, INCLUDING TEXT, GRAPHICS, CODE AND/OR SOFTWARE. You must retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the original material on any copy you make of the material. You may not sell or modify the material or reproduce, display, publicly perform, distribute, or otherwise use the material in any way for any public or commercial purpose. The use of paid material on any other website or in a networked computer environment for any purpose is prohibited. If you violate any of the terms or conditions, your permission to use the material automatically terminates and you must immediately destroy any copies you have made of the material.

You are granted a nonexclusive, nontransferable, revocable license to use our allbargains4u.com/biochar website only for private, personal, noncommercial reasons. You may print and download portions of material from the different areas of the website solely for your own non-commercial use, provided that you agree not to change the content from its original form. Moreover, you agree not to modify or delete any copyright or proprietary notices from the materials you print or download from allbargains4u.com/biochar. Also note that any notice on any portion of our website that forbids printing & downloading trumps all prior statements and controls.

As a user at allbargains4u.com/biochar, you agree to use the products and services offered by our website in a manner consistent with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. No material shall be stored or transmitted which infringes or violates the rights of others, which is unlawful, obscene, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable, threatening, defamatory, or invasive of privacy or publicity rights.

Our website prohibits conduct that might constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any law. Any activity that restricts or inhibits any other allbargains4u.com/biochar user from using the services of our website is also prohibited. Unless allowed by a written agreement, you may not post or transmit advertising or commercial solicitation on our website.

CHANGE NOTICE: As with any of our administrative and legal notice pages, the contents of this page can and will change over time. Accordingly, this page could read differently as of your very next visit. These changes are necessitated, and carried out by allbargains4u.com/biochar, in order to protect you and our allbargains4u.com/biochar website. If this page is important to you, you should check back frequently as no other notice of changed content will be provided either before or after the change takes effect.

COPYRIGHT WARNING: The legal notices and administrative pages on this website, including this one, have been diligently drafted by an attorney. We at allbargains4u.com/biochar have paid to license the use of these legal notices and administrative pages on allbargains4u.com/biochar for your protection and ours. This material may not be used in any way for any reason and unauthorized use is policed via Copyscape to detect violators.

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS/CONCERNS: If you have any questions about the contents of this page, or simply wish to reach us for any other reason, you may do so by following this link: http://allbargains4u.com/biochar


Field day highlights research for wheat growers

14 June, 2017
 

East Oregonian

Published on June 13, 2017 5:34PM

Gusty winds made for a chilly Tuesday morning at the Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center north of Pendleton, where scientists with Oregon State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture hosted their annual field day for local wheat growers.

The station, located on Tubbs Ranch Road, is home to both OSU and the USDA Agricultural Research Service. Field day provides an annual update of ongoing research projects to help farmers improve the quality of their crop and the bottom line of their business.

Participants rode in buses from one wavy wheat field to the next, where project leaders discussed their latest findings on experiments to battle weeds, plant diseases and soil degradation. Representatives of the National Association of Wheat Growers were also on hand to gather feedback on priorities for the 2018 Farm Bill.

Christina Hagerty, plant pathologist at the station, said this year was a perfect storm for stripe rust across the region, given early seeding of winter wheat followed by a cool, wet spring. Stripe rust is capable of cutting wheat yields by more than half if it goes untreated.

Hagerty passed around samples to show how to identify diseases such as stripe rust, eyespot and crown rot. While OSU has done a good job of developing disease-resistant wheat varieties, Hagerty said options are still lacking for soil-borne mosaic virus, which has been another major focus of her program.

“Our options for genetic resistance are pretty limited,” she said.

Bob Zemetra, a wheat breeder for OSU in Corvallis, said he began screening for soil-borne mosaic virus in 2008. The disease is especially on the rise around the Walla Walla Valley, and can cause severe stunting in plants.

“One of my goals is to release varieties that can fit in across the state, and in these micro-climates,” Zemetra said.

Other issues raised during field day included soil stratification, where the nutrient and pH levels are uneven in the soil profile. Don Wysocki, a soil scientist with OSU Extension Service, said that problem is “like a freight train coming down the line” for farmers.

One possible soil amendment is biochar, a charcoal-like substance made by roasting biomass such as woody debris at high temperatures and low oxygen. Biochar has already been proven to instantly increase organic matter and soil pH in tests conducted at the research station.

Stephen Machado, agronomist for OSU, reviewed his data from early experiments and said he is now looking into how long the residual effects of biochar may last.

“If it does last, I think this is going to be a great thing for farmers,” Machado said.

When he started his project, Machado said biochar cost a whopping $1 per pound. The price has since dropped to 5-10 cents per pound, and he anticipates market demand could make biochar a cost-effective solution in the future.

Later during the lunch break, David Schemm and Chandler Goule with the National Association of Wheat Growers outlined the industry goals for the next farm bill and agriculture appropriations for fiscal year 2018. Schemm, the association’s president, emphasized the importance of crop insurance moving forward.

“It’s a key component to a good risk management program,” said Schemm, a farmer from western Kansas. “It’s about ensuring your program will be there the next year.

Schemm said the association opposes the proposal in President Donald Trump’s budget that calls for a $40,000 hard cap on crop insurance subsidies, which could prevent some larger and mid-size farms from ensuring their entire acreages.

“This is something that cannot work,” Schemm said.

As the Trump administration announced its intention to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the wheat industry is also urging the government not to harm its trade relationships with Canada and Mexico. Exports to Mexico have been especially strong under NAFTA, increasing by as much as 400 percent, according to the association.

A second field day will be held Wednesday at the OSU Sherman County station in Moro.

———

Contact George Plaven at gplaven@eastoregonian.com or 541-966-0825.

Stay on topic – This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand. If you would like to discuss another topic, look for a relevant article.

Share with Us – We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article, and smart, constructive criticism.

Be Civil – It’s OK to have a difference in opinion but there’s no need to be a jerk. We reserve the right to delete any comments that we feel are spammy, off-topic, or reckless to the community.

Be proactive – Use the ‘Flag as Inappropriate’ link at the upper right corner of each comment to let us know of abusive posts.


SBI Builds 'Forest to Farm' Biochar Operation in Mendocino

14 June, 2017
 

The reach of our Sonoma Biochar Initiative continues to grow, with SBI director Raymond Baltar – who is also executive director of the newly formed California Biochar Association – now making weekly trips to Mendocino County as a project manager for Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc., or RFFI.

Up in Mendo, Raymond has been braving rough terrain, inclement weather and even mudslides in order to get a new project off the ground for RFFI in which overabundant tanoaks in the 50,000-acre Usal Forest are being turned into biochar – making more room for the forest’s redwoods and conifers while producing a substance that is highly valuable to growers because it saves water, improves soil health and, as a bonus, sequesters carbon.

“Basically I’ve been running a startup,” Raymond said.

RFFI purchased a machine for turning the chipped tanoak into biochar, and Raymond oversaw the machine’s transportation over harrowing roadways and a too-narrow-for-comfort bridge.

“We had to move this large piece of equipment from Branscomb to Piercy, which is about 45 miles, and we had to do it in the late stages of the biggest winter on record,” Raymond said, noting that rains were causing mudslides on both Highway 1 and Highway 101. “We just made it through. But then there’s this bridge that we had to cross, which was also underwater for much of the time. It’s just a skinny little bridge” – about 8 feet wide – “so we had to get special trucks in order to ferry the equipment across.”

The result of these efforts, however, is an operation that RFFI hopes will help cover the costs of restoring the Usal Forest. Better yet, the project demonstrates how farming and forest management can complement each other – and with over a hundred million dead trees in the Sierras, plus California farmers desperate to save water, RFFI’s “forest to farm” biochar operation meets several of the state’s goals at once and could be replicated elsewhere.

Meanwhile, their high-quality biochar product, North Coast Biochar, is available by the cubic-yard for $300, in 1.5 cubic yard  “supersacks” for $450, or by the truckload. Growers interested in making a purchase can contact Raymond at 707-291-3240 or raymond@sonomaecologycenter.org.

 

Sonoma Ecology Center is a nonprofit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS tax code. Federal EIN# 94-3136500

Mailing Address PO Box 1486, Eldridge CA, 95431 | 707-996-0712 | © 2017 Sonoma Ecology Center


Global Biochar Market: Size, Trend, Share, Opportunity Analysis, and Forecast, 20142025

14 June, 2017
 

All Topics Biotechnology Biotech Business Biotech Products Cancer Cardiovascular Dermatology Drug Discovery Endocrinology Gastroenterology Immunology Infectious Diseases Mental Health Neurology Obstetrics Orthopedics Public Health Respiratory Rheumatology Urology
  Track topics on Twitter Track topics that are important to you

Biochar is the charcoal used as an enhancer for soil properties. Biochar is a very good soil amender that helps in holding carbon, boosting food security, increasing soil biodiversity, and discouraging deforestation. Agricultural waste is converted into porous charcoal by means of chemical treatment, which helps to retain water and nutrients thereby making it a necessary additive. There are numerous advantages offered by biochar along with its biosustainability, such as increasing crop yields, increasing soil fertility for acidic soils, preventing fertilizer runoff and leeching, reducing agricultural pollution, replenishing exhausted or marginal soils with organic carbon, and fostering the growth of soil microbes essential for nutrient absorption. Global biochar market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 15.1% from 2017 to 2025.
The global biochar market is segmented based on technology, feedstock, equipment, applications, and geography. By technology, the market is bifurcated as pyrolysis and gasification markets. Pyrolysis technology is further divided as fast intermediate pyrolysis, slow pyrolysis, and microwave pyrolysis. By feedstock, the market is categorized into forestry waste, biomass plantation, agricultural waste, and animal manure. On the basis of equipment, the market is segmented as continuous pyrolysis kiln, batch pyrolysis kiln, gasifier cook stove, and others rotary kiln microwave pyrolysis. On the basis of application, the market is bifurcated into energybased and nonenergy based application markets. Energybased applications are further classified as source for power plants and other energy generation. Nonenergy based classification of biochar market includes carbon sequestration, forestry, mine reclamation, gardening, and agriculture. Geographic breakdown and deep analysis of each of the aforesaid segments have resulted in the following regions: North America, Europe, AsiaPacific, and LAMEA.
Market Dynamics:
Drivers:
Environmental benefits and ecosustainability of biochar is expected to increase the demand for biochar market during the forecast period.
Availability of cheaper feedstock is projected to drive the biochar market.
Potential for waste management and water food security is expected to increase the demand for the biochar market.
Restraints:
Stringent rules and regulations from governing agencies have hampered the growth of the biochar market.
Technological uncertainty is projected to slow down the growth of the biochar market during the forecast period.
Lack of consumer awareness has led to a decrease in the consumption of biochar.

Market Players:
The top players in the global biochar market include Earth Systems, Biochar Supreme, LLC, Vega Biofuels, Inc., Chargrow LLC, Diacarbon Energy Inc., Arsta Eco, Pacific Pyrolysis Pty Ltd., Phoenix Energy, Green Charcoal International, and The Biochar Company.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

MARKET LANDSCAPE
By Technology
o Pyrolysis
Fast Intermediate Pyrolysis
Slow Pyrolysis
Microwave Pyrolysis
o Gasification

By Feedstock
o Forestry Waste
o Biomass Plantation
o Agricultural Waste
o Animal Manure

By Equipment
o Continuous Pyrolysis Kiln
o Batch Pyrolysis Kiln
o Gasifier Cook Stove
o Others Rotary Kiln Microwave Pyrolysis
By Application
o Energybased
Source for Power Plant
Other Energy Generation
o NonEnergy based
Carbon Sequestration
Forestry
Mine Reclamation
Gardening
Agriculture
Others
By Geography
o North America
U.S.
Canada
Mexico
o Europe
UK
Germany
France
Italy
Rest of Europe
o AsiaPacific
China
India
South Korea
Japan
Rest of AsiaPacific
o LAMEA
Brazil
Africa
Turkey
Rest of LAMEA

Original Article: Global Biochar Market: Size, Trend, Share, Opportunity Analysis, and Forecast, 20142025 [Updated: 01032017] Prices from USD $3619

Food
Food is any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for the body. It is usually of plant or animal origin, and contains essential nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals. The substance is ingested by an organism …

Nutrition
Within medicine, nutrition (the study of food and the effect of its components on the body) has many different roles. Appropriate nutrition can help prevent certain diseases, or treat others. In critically ill patients, artificial feeding by tubes need t…


biochar

14 June, 2017
 

Search trending image and video from popular Instagram user

Tag People

I’m feeling lucky


The Biochar Solution Carbon Farming and Climate Change [Free link]

14 June, 2017
 

DOWNLOAD LINK:

http://www.megafilesfactory.com/444162c048d93d/The Biochar Solution Carbon Farming and Climate Change

sharebox2 © 2017


Earnings Disclaimer

14 June, 2017
 

Menu Close

© 2017 Biochar.

Powered by WordPress.

Theme by Anders Norén.

We make every effort to ensure that we accurately represent these products and services and their potential for income. Earning and Income statements made by allbargains4u.com/biochar and its customers are estimates of what we think you can possibly earn. There is no guarantee that you will make these levels of income and you accept the risk that the earnings and income statements differ by individual.

As with any business, your results may vary, and will be based on your individual capacity, business experience, expertise, and level of desire. There are no guarantees concerning the level of success you may experience. The testimonials and examples used are exceptional results, which do not apply to the average purchaser, and are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone will achieve the same or similar results.

Each individual’s success depends on his or her background, dedication, desire and motivation. There is no assurance that examples of past earnings can be duplicated in the future. We cannot guarantee your future results and/or success. There are some unknown risks in business and on the internet that we cannot foresee which can reduce results.

We are not responsible for your actions. The use of our information, products and services should be based on your own due diligence and you agree that allbargains4u.com/biochar is not liable for any success or failure of your business that is directly or indirectly related to the purchase and use of our information, products and services.

This website contains or may contain “forward looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be “forward looking statements.”

Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as “expects”, “will,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “believes,” or statements indicating certain actions “may,” “could,” or “might” occur.

CHANGE NOTICE: As with any of our administrative and legal notice pages, the contents of this page can and will change over time. Accordingly, this page could read differently as of your very next visit. These changes are necessitated, and carried out by allbargains4u.com/biochar, in order to protect you and our allbargains4u.com/biochar website. If this page is important to you, you should check back frequently as no other notice of changed content will be provided either before or after the change takes effect.

COPYRIGHT WARNING: The legal notices and administrative pages on this website, including this one, have been diligently drafted by an attorney. We at allbargains4u.com/biochar have paid to license the use of these legal notices and administrative pages on allbargains4u.com/biochar for your protection and ours. This material may not be used in any way for any reason and unauthorized use is policed via Copyscape to detect violators.

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS/CONCERNS: If you have any questions about the contents of this page, or simply wish to reach us for any other reason, you may do so by following this link: http://allbargains4u.com/biochar


Bio char tatar with avocado – Picture of Emile Brasserie & Bar, Vienna

14 June, 2017
 


Global Biochar Market Rising at $585.0 Mn in 2020

14 June, 2017
 

Zion Market Research has published a new report titled “Biochar (Pyrolysis, Gasification, Hydrothermal and Others Technology) Market for Agriculture, Water & Waste Water Treatment and Other Applications: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2014 – 2020” According to the report, the global Biochar market was valued at approximately USD 260.0 million in 2014 and is expected to reach approximately USD 585.0 million by 2020, growing at a CAGR of around 14.5% between 2015 and 2020. In terms of volume, global biochar market stood at 100-kilo tons in 2014.

Biochar is a fine-grained carbon-rich product obtained by a heating organic material such as wood, manure or leaves under conditions of no oxygen. Biochar can enhance soils, sequester carbon as well as provide useable energy. Biochar also has tendency to filter and retain nutrients from percolating soil water. Pyrolysis, hydrothermal conversion, and gasification are simple and efficient technologies for transforming different biomass feedstocks into renewable energy products. Furthermore, biochar has the ability to produce usable energy during its production while concurrently creating a carbon product, which provides sequester or store carbon and improves agriculture and other processes.

Request For Free Sample Report: http://www.marketresearchstore.com/report/biochar-market-z43492#RequestSample

Based on technology, biochar market can be segmented as pyrolysis, gasification, hydrothermal and others. The pyrolysis technology is largest segment accounted for significant share and expected to witness the fastest growth at a CAGR of over 10.0% in terms of revenue from 2015 to 2020. Gasification technology does not create stable biochar which can be used in agriculture for soil amendment. This technology segment expected to decline its market share in the years to come.

Request For Free Price Quotation: http://www.marketresearchstore.com/requestquote?reportid=43492

On the basis of application, the biochar market has been segmented into agriculture, water & waste water treatment and others. Agriculture was a major application segment of biochar market and accounted over 80% share of the global demand in 2014 and is expected to continue its dominance in the global market over the forecast period. Water & waste water treatment is another major application segment and expected to exhibit significant growth on account of growing hygiene awareness and effective water infrastructure.

Know more before buying this report: http://www.marketresearchstore.com/report/biochar-market-z43492#InquiryForBuying

With over 50% shares in total volume consumption, North America was the largest market. North America followed by Europe and Asia-Pacific region. Europe was the second largest market for biochar and accounted for around 25% shares in total volume consumption in 2014. Asia Pacific is the third largest market accounted for the significant share of the total market in 2014. Latin America and Meddle East & Africa are also expected to grow at a moderate pace.

Browse the full report at: http://www.marketresearchstore.com/report/biochar-market-z43492

Some of the key industry players including Diacarbon Energy Inc, Vega Biofuels, Inc, Agri-Tech Producers. LLC, Hawaii Biochar Products. LLC, Biochar Products, Inc., Cool Planet Energy Systems Inc, Black carbon A/S, Green Charcoal International, Earth Systems Pty Ltd, and Genesis.

This report segments the global biochar market as follows:

Technology Segment Analysis: Pyrolysis, Gasification, Hydrothermal, Others

Application Segment Analysis: Agriculture, Water & Waste Water Treatment, Others

Regional Segment Analysis: North America (US), Europe(Germany, France, UK), Asia Pacific(China, Japan, India), Latin America(Brazil), Middle East and Africa

Visit Our Blog: https://marketresearchstore2017.wordpress.com

About Us: Zion Market Research is an obligated company. We create futuristic, cutting edge, informative reports ranging from industry reports, company reports to country reports. We provide our clients not only with market statistics unveiled by avowed private publishers and public organizations but also with Vogue and newest industry reports along with pre-eminent and niche company profiles. Our database of market research reports comprises a wide variety of reports from Cardinal industries. Our database is been updated constantly in order to fulfill our clients with prompt and direct online access to our database. Keeping in mind the client’s needs, we have included expert insights on global industries, products, and market trends in this database. Last but not the least, we make it our duty to ensure the success of clients connected to us—after all—if you do well, a little of the light shines on us.

Contact Us:

Joel John
3422 SW 15 Street, Suit #8138
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
United States
Toll Free: +1-855-465-4651 (USA-CANADA)
Tel: +1-386-310-3803
Email: [email protected]/* */
Website: http://www.marketresearchstore.com


Hornsby Local Meeting – Introduction to Biochar

14 June, 2017
 

On 25th June Stephanie Robertson and Peter Wright will present a talk on the pros and cons of biochar as a soil amendment and as a method of carbon sequestration in the fight against climate change. Methods of making your own biochar will be discussed.Time permitting,this will be followed by the inauguration of Stephanie’s 60L biochar burner.

Copyright © Permaculture Sydney North 1992-2013 – Site powered by Wild Apricot


Development of Pratylenchus coffeae in Biochar Applied Soil, Coffee Roots and Its Effect on Plant …

14 June, 2017
 

Dwi Suci Rahayu
Indonesian Coffee and Cocoa Research Institute
Indonesia

Niken Puspita Sari
Indonesian Coffee and Cocoa Research Institute
Indonesia


Our Pet's Switchgrass & Biochar Natural Cat Litter, 10-lb bag

14 June, 2017
 

Get help from our experts 24/7 1-800-672-4399

Something missing? Sign in to see items you may have added from another computer or device.

Take kitty litter management to the next eco-friendly level with the Our Pet’s Switchgrass & Biochar Natural Cat Litter. This all-natural litter is made of switchgrass, a natural North-American-grown plant that’s cultivated with no pesticides or chemical sprays, so it’s chemical-free and safe for the whole family. It also contains BioChar, a specially produced activated carbon that’s made to be more absorbent so it traps urine and odors more effectively. The biodegradable, non-toxic formula has a strong clumping action and a special coating that makes it less dusty and messy, plus it’s proudly made in the USA.

Please wash hands thoroughly after handling used cat litter. We want to remind pregnant women and those with suppressed immune systems that a parasite sometimes found in cat feces can causes toxoplasmosis.

Switchgrass and BioChar.

Introduce Our Pets Switchgrass Natural Cat Litter to your cat gradually for an easy transition. Pour 1 inch of OurPets Switchgrass Natural Cat Litter into a clean litter box and add 2 inches of your previous brand on top. At your next litter change, increase the amount of OurPets Switchgrass Natural Cat Litter to 2/3 of the litter box content. Keep adding more Switchgrass Natural Cat Litter into your cat’s litter box until you are only using the new litter.

Be the first to recommend this product


Global Biochar Fertilizer Market Professional Survey Report 2017 to 2022

14 June, 2017
 

MarketResearchNest.com adds “Global Biochar Fertilizer Market Professional Survey Report 2017”new report to its research database. The report spread across 101 pages with table and figures in it.

 

This report focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering
Biogrow Limited
Biochar Farms
Anulekh
GreenBack
Carbon Fertilizer
Global Harvest Organics LLC

 

Browse full table of contents and data tables at https://www.marketresearchnest.com/global-biochar-fertilizer-market-professional-survey-report-2017.html                                                   

                                                                       

By types, the market can be split into
By types, the market can be split into
Organic Fertilizer
Inorganic Fertilizer
Compound Fertilizer

By Application, the market can be split into
Cereals
Oil Crops
Fruits and Vegetables
Others

By Regions, this report covers (we can add the regions/countries as you want)
North America
China
Europe
Southeast Asia
Japan
India

 

Order a Purchase Report Copy at https://www.marketresearchnest.com/purchase.php?reportid=219918                                                                  

                                                              

Major Points in Table of content

 

List of Tables and Figures
Figure Picture of Biochar Fertilizer
Table Product Specifications of Biochar Fertilizer
Table Classification of Biochar Fertilizer
Figure Global Production Market Share of Biochar Fertilizer by Type in 2016
Figure liquid Picture
Table Major Manufacturers of liquid
Figure Solid Picture
Table Major Manufacturers of Solid
Table Applications of Biochar Fertilizer
Figure Global Consumption Volume Market Share of Biochar Fertilizer by Application in 2016
Figure Polyester Materials Examples
Table Major Consumers of Polyester Materials
Figure Coating Materials Examples
Table Major Consumers of Coating Materials
Figure Other Examples
Table Major Consumers of Other
Figure Market Share of Biochar Fertilizer by Regions
Figure North America Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Million USD) (2012-2022)
Figure China Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Million USD) (2012-2022)
Figure Europe Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Million USD) (2012-2022)
Figure Southeast Asia Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Million USD) (2012-2022)
Figure Japan Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Million USD) (2012-2022)
Figure India Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Million USD) (2012-2022)
Table Biochar Fertilizer Raw Material and Suppliers
Table Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Biochar Fertilizer in 2016
Figure Manufacturing Process Analysis of Biochar Fertilizer
Figure Industry Chain Structure of Biochar Fertilizer
Table Capacity and Commercial Production Date of Global Biochar Fertilizer Major Manufacturers in 2016
Table Manufacturing Plants Distribution of Global Biochar Fertilizer Major Manufacturers in 2016
Table R&D Status and Technology Source of Global Biochar Fertilizer Major Manufacturers in 2016
Table Raw Materials Sources Analysis of Global Biochar Fertilizer Major Manufacturers in 2016
Table Global Capacity, Sales , Price, Cost, Sales Revenue (M USD) and Gross Margin of Biochar Fertilizer 2012-2017
Figure Global 2012-2017E Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Volume) and Growth Rate
Figure Global 2012-2017E Biochar Fertilizer Market Size (Value) and Growth Rate
Table 2012-2017E Global Biochar Fertilizer Capacity and Growth Rate
Table 2016 Global Biochar Fertilizer Capacity (MT) List (Company Segment)
Table 2012-2017E Global Biochar Fertilizer Sales (MT) and Growth Rate
Table 2016 Global Biochar Fertilizer Sales (MT) List (Company Segment)
Table 2012-2017E Global Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT)
Table 2016 Global Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) List (Company Segment)
Figure North America Capacity Overview
Table North America Supply, Import, Export and Consumption (MT) of Biochar Fertilizer 2012-2017E 
Figure North America 2012-2017E Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT)
Figure North America 2016 Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share
Figure China Capacity Overview
Table China Supply, Import, Export and Consumption (MT) of Biochar Fertilizer 2012-2017E
Figure China 2012-2017E Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT) 
Figure China 2016 Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share
Figure Europe Capacity Overview
Table Europe Supply, Import, Export and Consumption (MT) of Biochar Fertilizer 2012-2017E
Figure Europe 2012-2017E Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT)
Figure Europe 2016 Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share
Figure Southeast Asia Capacity Overview
Table Southeast Asia Supply, Import, Export and Consumption (MT) of Biochar Fertilizer 2012-2017E
Figure Southeast Asia 2012-2017E Biochar Fertilizer Sales Price (USD/MT)
Figure Southeast Asia 2016 Biochar Fertilizer Sales Market Share

 

Request a sample copy at https://www.marketresearchnest.com/requestsample.php?reportid=219918                                                                

                                                                            

About Us:           

MarketResearchNest.com is the most comprehensive collection of market research products and service Biochar Fertilizer on the Web. We offer reports from almost all top publishers and update our collection on daily basis to provide you with instant online access to the world’s most complete and recent database of expert insights on global industries, organizations, products, and trends.

 

Contact Us         

Mr. Jeet Jain

Sales Manager

sales@marketresearchnest.com

+1-240-284-8070(U.S)

+44-20-3290-4151(U.K)

Connect with us:  Google+ | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook


(Pyrolysis, Gasification, Others), By Application (Agriculture (Farming, Livestock, Others), Others)

14 June, 2017
 

Chapter 1. Methodology and Scope
1.1. Research Methodology
1.2. Research Scope & Assumptions
1.3. List of Data Sources
Chapter 2. Executive Summary
2.1. Market Snapshot
Chapter 3. Biochar Industry Outlook
3.1. Biochar market segmentation
3.2. Biochar market size and growth prospects, 2014 – 2025
3.3. Biochar value chain analysis
3.4. Raw material outlook
3.4.1 Wood
3.4.2 Crop residue
3.5. Technology overview
3.5.1 Pyrolysis
3.5.2 Gasification
3.5.3 Recent developments
3.6. Regulatory framework
3.7. Biochar market dynamics
3.7.1 Market driver analysis
3.7.1.1 Increasing use for soil enhancement
3.7.1.2 Growing demand for organic food
3.7.2 Market restraints analysis
3.7.2.1 Financial barriers
3.7.2.2 Lack of consumer awareness
3.8. Biochar market Porter’s analysis
3.9. Biochar market PESTEL analysis
3.10. Biochar market opportunities/potential
3.11. Biochar market key opportunities prioritized
3.11.1 Biochar market key opportunities prioritized, by technology
3.11.2 Biochar market key opportunities prioritized, by application
3.12. Biochar market competitive landscape, 2015
3.13. Biochar price trend analysis, 2012 – 2025
3.13.1 North America
3.13.2 Europe
3.13.3 Asia Pacific
3.13.4 Central & South America
3.13.5 Middle East & Africa
Chapter 4. Biochar Market: Product Outlook
4.1. Technology Movement Analysis & Market Share, 2015 & 2025
4.2. Pyrolysis
4.2.1 Market estimates and forecast from pyrolysis, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
4.2.2 Market estimates and forecast from pyrolysis, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
4.3. Gasification
4.3.1 Market estimates and forecast from gasification, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
4.3.2 Market estimates and forecast from gasification, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
4.4. Others
4.4.1 Market estimates and forecast from other technologies, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
4.4.2 Market estimates and forecast from other technologies, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
Chapter 5. Biochar Market: Product Outlook
5.1. Application Movement Analysis & Market Share,2015 & 2025
5.2. Agriculture
5.2.1 Market estimates and forecast in agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.2 Market estimates and forecast in agriculture, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.3 Livestock Farming
5.2.3.1 Market estimates and forecast in livestock farming, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.3.2 Market estimates and forecast in livestock farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.4 General Farming
5.2.4.1 Market estimates and forecast in general farming, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.4.2 Market estimates and forecast in general farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.4.3 Organic Farming
5.2.4.4 Market estimates and forecast in organic farming, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.4.5 Market estimates and forecast in organic farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.4.6 Inorganic Farming
5.2.4.7 Market estimates and forecast in inorganic farming, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.4.8 Market estimates and forecast in inorganic farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.5 Others
5.2.5.1 Market estimates and forecast in others, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.2.5.2 Market estimates and forecast in others, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.3. Others
5.3.1 Market estimates and forecast in other applications, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
5.3.2 Market estimates and forecast in other applications, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
Chapter 6. Biochar Market: Product Outlook
6.1 Regional Movement Analysis & market share by region, 2015 & 2025
6.2 North America
6.2.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.4 Market estimates and forecast in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.5 U.S.
6.2.5.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.5.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.5.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.6 Canada
6.2.6.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.6.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.6.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.7 Mexico
6.2.7.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.7.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.2.7.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3 Europe
6.3.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.4 Germany
6.3.4.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.4.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.4.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.5 UK
6.3.5.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.5.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.5.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.6 France
6.3.6.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.6.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.6.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.7 Sweden
6.3.7.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.7.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.7.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.8 Denmark
6.3.8.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.8.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.3.8.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4 Asia Pacific
6.4.1 Asia Pacific biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million).
6.4.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.4 Australia
6.4.4.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.4.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.4.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.5 China
6.4.5.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.5.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.5.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.6 India
6.4.6.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.6.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.6.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.7 Japan
6.4.7.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.7.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.7.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.8 Malaysia
6.4.8.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.8.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.4.8.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.5 Central & South America
6.5.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.5.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.5.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.6 Middle East & Africa
6.6.1 Market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.6.2 Market estimates and forecast, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
6.6.3 Market estimates and forecast, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
Chapter 7. Competitive Landscape
7.1 List of biochar manufacturers and annual production (2015)
7.2 List of research institutions and universities
7.3 Company production share by region
Chapter 8. Company Profiles
8.1 Agri-Tech Producers, LLC
8.1.1 Company Overview
8.1.2 Financial Performance
8.1.3 Product Benchmarking
8.1.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.2 Diacarbon Energy Inc.
8.2.1 Company Overview
8.2.2 Financial Performance
8.2.3 Product Benchmarking
8.2.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.3 Biochar Products, Inc.
8.3.1 Company Overview
8.3.2 Financial Performance
8.3.3 Product Benchmarking
8.4 Cool Planet Energy Systems Inc.
8.4.1 Company Overview
8.4.2 Financial Performance
8.4.3 Product Benchmarking
8.4.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.5 Vega Biofuels, Inc.
8.5.1 Company Overview
8.5.2 Financial Performance
8.5.3 Product Benchmarking
8.5.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.6 The Biochar Company
8.6.1 Company Overview
8.6.2 Financial Performance
8.6.3 Product Benchmarking
8.6.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.7 Phoenix Energy
8.7.1 Company Overview
8.7.2 Financial Performance
8.7.3 Product Benchmarking
8.7.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.8 Biochar Supreme, LLC
8.8.1 Company Overview
8.8.2 Financial Performance
8.8.3 Product Benchmarking
8.8.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.9 Pacific Pyrolysis
8.9.1 Company Overview
8.9.2 Financial Performance
8.9.3 Product Benchmarking
8.9.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.10 ArSta Eco
8.10.1 Company Overview
8.10.2 Financial Performance
8.10.3 Product Benchmarking
8.11 Earth Systems PTY. LTD.
8.11.1 Company Overview
8.11.2 Financial Performance
8.11.3 Product Benchmarking
8.11.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.12 3R ENVIRO TECH Group
8.12.1 Company Overview
8.12.2 Financial Performance
8.12.3 Product Benchmarking
8.12.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.13 Clean Fuels B.V.
8.13.1 Company Overview
8.13.2 Financial Performance
8.13.3 Product Benchmarking
8.14 Carbon Gold
8.14.1 Company Overview
8.14.2 Financial Performance
8.14.3 Product Benchmarking
8.14.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.15 Airex Energy
8.15.1 Company Overview
8.15.2 Financial Performance
8.15.3 Product Benchmarking
8.15.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.16 Waste to Energy Solutions Inc.
8.16.1 Company Overview
8.16.2 Financial Performance
8.16.3 Product Benchmarking
8.17 Pacific Biochar Benefit Corporation
8.17.1 Company Overview
8.17.2 Financial Performance
8.17.3 Product Benchmarking
8.18 Sunriver Biochar
8.18.1 Company Overview
8.18.2 Financial Performance
8.18.3 Product Benchmarking
8.19 Biochar Ireland
8.19.1 Company Overview
8.19.2 Financial Performance
8.19.3 Product Benchmarking
8.20 Carbon Terra GmbH
8.20.1 Company Overview
8.20.2 Financial Performance
8.20.3 Product Benchmarking
8.21 Swiss Biochar GmbH
8.21.1 Company Overview
8.21.2 Financial Performance
8.21.3 Product Benchmarking
8.21.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.22 Biochar Industries
8.22.1 Company Overview
8.22.2 Financial Performance
8.22.3 Product Benchmarking
8.22.4 Strategic Initiatives
8.23 BlackCarbon A/S
8.23.1 Company Overview
8.23.2 Financial Performance
8.23.3 Product Benchmarking
8.23.4 Strategic Initiatives
List of Tables
TABLE 1 Biochar – Industry Summary and Key Buying Criteria, 2012 – 2025
TABLE 2 Global biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 3 Global biochar market estimates and forecast, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 4 Global biochar market revenue, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 5 Global biochar market volume by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 6 Global biochar market revenue by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 7 Global biochar market volume by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 8 Global biochar market revenue by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 9 Global biochar market volume in agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 10 Global biochar market revenue in agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 11 Global biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 12 Global biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 13 Vendor landscape
TABLE 14 Biochar- Key market driver analysis
TABLE 15 Biochar – Key market restraint analysis
TABLE 16 Global biochar market estimates and forecast from pyrolysis, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 17 Global biochar market volume from pyrolysis, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 18 Global biochar market revenue from pyrolysis, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 19 Global biochar market estimates and forecast from gasification, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 20 Global biochar market volume from gasification, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 21 Global biochar market revenue from gasification, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 22 Global biochar market estimates and forecast from other technologies, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 23 Global biochar market volume from other technologies, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 24 Global biochar market revenue from other technologies, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 25 Global biochar market estimates and forecast in agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 26 Global biochar market volume in agriculture, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 27 Global biochar market revenue in agriculture, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 28 Global biochar market estimates and forecast in livestock farming, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 29 Global biochar market volume in livestock farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 30 Global biochar market revenue in livestock farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 31 Global biochar market estimates and forecast in general farming, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 32 Global biochar market volume in general farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 33 Global biochar market revenue in general farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 34 Global biochar market estimates and forecast in organic farming, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 35 Global biochar market volume in organic farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 36 Global biochar market revenue in organic farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 37 Global biochar market estimates and forecast in inorganic farming, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 38 Global biochar market volume in inorganic farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 39 Global biochar market revenue in inorganic farming, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 40 Global biochar market estimates and forecast in others, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 41 Global biochar market volume in others, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 42 Global biochar market revenue in others, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 43 Global biochar market estimates and forecast in other applications, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 44 Global biochar market volume in other applications, by region, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 45 Global biochar market revenue in other applications, by region, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 46 North America biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 47 North America biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 48 North America biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 49 North America biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 50 North America biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 51 North America biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 52 North America biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 53 North America biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 54 North America biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 55 U.S. biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 56 U.S. biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 57 U.S. biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 58 U.S biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 59 U.S biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 60 U.S biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 61 U.S biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 62 U.S. biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 63 U.S. biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 64 Canada biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 65 Canada biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 66 Canada biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 67 Canada biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 68 Canada biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 69 Canada biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 70 Canada biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 71 Canada biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 72 Canada biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 73 Mexico biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 74 Mexico biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 75 Mexico biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 76 Mexico biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 77 Mexico biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 78 Mexico biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 79 Mexico biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 80 Mexico biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 81 Mexico biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 82 Europe biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 83 Europe biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 84 Europe biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 85 Europe biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 86 Europe biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 87 Europe biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 88 Europe biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 89 Europe biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 90 Europe biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 91 Germany biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 92 Germany biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 93 Germany biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 94 Germany biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 95 Germany biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 96 Germany biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 97 Germany biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 98 Germany biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 99 Germany biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 100 UK biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 101 UK biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 102 UK biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 103 UK biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 104 UK biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 105 UK biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 106 UK biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 107 UK biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 108 UK biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 109 France biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 110 France biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 111 France biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 112 France biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 113 France biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 114 France biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 115 France biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 116 France biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 117 France biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 118 Sweden biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 119 Sweden biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 120 Sweden biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 121 Sweden biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 122 Sweden biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 123 Sweden biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 124 Sweden biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 125 Sweden biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 126 Sweden biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 127 Denmark biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 128 Denmark biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 129 Denmark biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 130 Denmark biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 131 Denmark biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 132 Denmark biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 133 Denmark biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 134 Denmark biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 135 Denmark biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 136 Asia Pacific biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 137 Asia Pacific biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 138 Asia Pacific biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 139 Asia Pacific biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 140 Asia Pacific biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 141 Asia Pacific biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 142 Asia Pacific biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 143 Asia Pacific biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 144 Asia Pacific biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 145 Australia biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 146 Australia biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 147 Australia biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 148 Australia biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 149 Australia biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 150 Australia biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 151 Australia biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 152 Australia biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 153 Australia biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 154 China biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 155 China biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 156 China biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 157 China biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 158 China biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 159 China biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 160 China biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 161 China biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 162 China biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 163 India biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 164 India biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 165 India biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 166 India biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 167 India biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 168 India biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 169 India biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 170 India biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 171 India biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 172 Japan biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 173 Japan biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 174 Japan biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 175 Japan biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 176 Japan biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 177 Japan biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 178 Japan biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 179 Japan biochar market volume in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 180 Japan biochar market revenue in farming, by agriculture, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 181 Malaysia biochar market estimates and forecast, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons) (USD Million)
TABLE 182 Malaysia biochar market volume, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 183 Malaysia biochar market revenue, by technology, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 184 Malaysia biochar market volume, by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 185 Malaysia biochar market revenue, by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)
TABLE 186 Malaysia biochar market volume, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (kilotons)
TABLE 187 Malaysia biochar market revenue, in agriculture by application, 2012 – 2025 (USD Million)

Biochar Market Analysis By Technology (Pyrolysis, Gasification, Others), By Application (Agriculture (Farming, Livestock, Others), Others), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2012 – 2025

The global biochar market is expected to reach USD 3.14 billion by 2025, according to a new report by Grand View Research, Inc. Globally increasing consumption of organic food has been a major factor driving market growth. In addition, growing awareness regarding the advantages of biochar as soil amendment is further supplementing demand for the global market.

Biochar is an emerging industry and the product is at its nascent stage. The product is expected to be a key factor for increasing agricultural productivity and crop yield in the near future. Its ability to enhance soil fertility and plant growth is expected to be a key factor on account of growing global population and rising demand for organic food.

Agriculture was the largest product category in 2015 and is expected to grow substantially over the forecast period. Farming was the major application segment in agriculture with a share of over 45% in 2015.

Application in agriculture segment is expected to observe the fastest growth over the next nine years with an estimated CAGR of around 13.4% from 2016 to 2025. Biochar is primarily used in agriculture to enhance soil fertility, improve plant growth, and provide crop nutrition. As a result, it, improves the overall productivity. It has also gained considerable popularity in livestock farming as an animal feed. The livestock sector is extremely crucial for biochar, especially in regions such as the North America and Europe where meat is important for human consumption.

Further key findings from the report suggest:

  • The global demand exceeded 280 kilo tons in 2015 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 12.15% from 2016 to 2025
  • Agriculture emerged as the largest application segment in 2015 and is estimated to generate revenue over USD 2.44 billion by 2025
  • Global demand in pyrolysis was USD 572.76 million in 2015 and is anticipated to witness staggered growth over the next nine years
  • The U.S. biochar market in livestock was 24.9 kilotons in 2015 and is estimated to reach a total volume of over 78.8 kilotons by 2025
  • The industry in Asia Pacific is projected to witness substantial growth over the next decade owing to rising popularity of organic farming and increasing application in animal feed. Asia Pacific is expected to grow at a CAGR of 15.6% from 2016 to 2025
  • Key players including Diacarbon Energy Inc, Vega Biofuels Inc. and Agri-Tech Producers, LLC have invested heavily in gasification technology and are expected to expand their production facilities over the forecast period. The market has also witnessed an increase in the number of pyrolysis equipment manufacturing companies such as Earth Systems and Clean Fuels B.V. In April 2014, Phoenix Energy announced construction of a biomass gasification facility in California, in order to strengthen its business presence.

Learn how to effectively navigate the market research process to help guide your organization on the journey to success.


Biochar

14 June, 2017
 

Menu Close

© 2017 Biochar.

Powered by WordPress.

Theme by Anders Norén.

: Better Biochar Infused with Blood Meal and Bone Meal. Make your own Terra Preta Soil. Grow BIGGER AND HEALTHIER Plants. One Time Application. The Gardeners Secret. Create Your Own Biological Oasis Best Biochar For Your Plants. : Patio, Lawn & Garden

: Old MacDonald's Barnyard Biochar Manure Deodorizer 1 cubic foot manufactured by the Charcola Group LLC : Pet Supplies

: Charcoal NCQ BIO-CHAR. Â Â Â Â Â Â This product comes from Coconut shell charcoal, coal, wood and other miscellaneous. This is a natural material Toxic Perfect for grilled size 1 kg. And 2 kg. 2 pcs. : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Buy 20 Narrowleaf Milkweed Sasquatch Balls. The Ultimate Seed Bombs for the Western US. (Asclepias fascicularis): Toy Balls — ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

: New Hampshire Biochar in a 1 cubic foot bag from the Charcola Group : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Buy Biochar Systems for Smallholders in Developing Countries: Leveraging Current Knowledge and Exploring Future Potential for Climate-Smart Agriculture (World Bank Studies) on ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

: New Hampshire Biochar in a 5 quart bag from the Charcola Group : Patio, Lawn & Garden

: Back to the Roots Garden-in-a-Can Grow Organic Herbs Variety Pack, Basil/Cilantro/Dill/Sage, 4 Count : Amazon Launchpad

: Cool Planet Cool Terra Organic Jug : Patio, Lawn & Garden

: Oral Whitening Tooth Bamboo Activated Charcoal Powder Decontamination Tooth Yellow Stain Smoke Tooth Stain Bad Breath Oral Care : Everything Else

: AG Biochar Activated “LIVE” Soil Amendment- 1/2 Cubic Ft. : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Bagasse — Natural Sugarcane Fibers Acanthus Collection Twelve (12) Ounces (oz) Disposable Floral Patterned Premium Bowls 100% By-Product Eco Friendly Environmental Paper Alternative Tree Free (50): Kitchen & Dining

: New Hampshire Biochar in a 2 quart bag from the Charcola Group : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Sacred Soil: Biochar and the Regeneration of the Earth [Robert Tindall, Frederique Apffel-Marglin, David Shearer] on . *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A fascinating description of how utilizing the biochar embedded in terra preta, the recently rediscovered sacred soil of the pre-Columbian peoples of the Amazon rainforest

: Charged Bio-char (2 Gallon) : Patio, Lawn & Garden

3 in 1 Soil PH Moisture Light Tester Monitor Meter Garden Plant Flower Tool: Kitchen & Dining

: GreenGro Earth Shine Soil Booster with Biochar, 1-Pound : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Biochar: A Guide to Analytical Methods (9781498765534): Balwant Singh, Marta Camps Arbestain, Johannes Lehmann: Books

: Catalyst Fertilizer + BioChar 7-6-6 — All Natural Plant Food (8lb Bag) : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Biochar and Sustainable Agriculture — Kindle edition by Jeff Schahczenski Schahczenski. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Biochar and Sustainable Agriculture.

: 6C Soil, 100% Pure Biochar. 3/4 CF : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Biochar: Production, Characterization, and Applications (Urbanization, Industrialization, and the Environment) — Kindle edition by Yong Sik Ok, Sophie M. Uchimiya, Scott X. Chang, Nanthi Bolan. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Biochar: Production, Characterization, and Applications (Urbanization, Industrialization, and the Environment).

: Happy Hopper Outhouse and Composting Toilet Deodorizer made from Biochar 1 liter sample size manufactured by the Charcola Group : Sports & Outdoors

: Bokashi BioChar Blend : BioKash i: 5 Gallon Bucket : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Buy Biochar, Coffee Grounds & Comfrey: Read Digital Music Reviews —

: Better Biochar Infused with Vermicompost. Make your own Terra Preta Soil. Grow BIGGER AND HEALTHIER Plants. One Time Application. Innoculated with Premium Worm Castings. The Gardeners Secret. Create Your Own Biological Oasis. Best Biochar For Your Plants. : Patio, Lawn & Garden

BioPreta (bulk) — VermiCompost and Biochar: Patio, Lawn & Garden

: 5 Gallon Bag Premium Ponderosa Pine Biochar, 85% Organic Carbon : Patio, Lawn & Garden

The Biochar Revolution: Transforming Agriculture & Environment [Paul Taylor, Hugh McLaughlin, Tim Flannery] on . *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.


Biochar Putting The Carbon Genie Back In The Bottle Rob Lerner At Tedxsanmigueldeallende 2013

15 June, 2017
 


Biochar

15 June, 2017
 

Learn from one of the most progressive broad scale permaculture farms and practitioners out there.

Learn how to earn money by growing one of the easiest crops possible.

Do you want to plan, install, and operate farm scale permaculture systems for maximum resiliency and economic stability? Ready to learn from international experts in…

© 2017 PermacultureBC.com. All rights reserved.


BIOCHAR soil builder.

15 June, 2017
 

northern MI >

for sale >

farm & garden – by owner

Avoid scams, deal locally Beware wiring (e.g. Western Union), cashier checks, money orders, shipping.


Global Biochar Market to Expand at a CAGR of 15.46% by 2019

15 June, 2017
 

Global Biochar Market

Description

Biochar is a porous stable solid, which is rich in carbon. It is produced from the carbonization of biomass. It is a type of charcoal used for soil amendment and filtration. Biochar’s carbon sequestration characteristics help mitigate climate change. It is naturally found in soil as a result of natural vegetation or forest fires.

The analysts forecast the global biochar market to grow at a CAGR of 15.46 percent over the period 2014-2019.

Covered in this report
The report includes the segmentation of the market based on application, geography, technology, and feedstock.

 

Get Sample Report @  https://www.wiseguyreports.com/sample-request/781617-global-biochar-market-2015-2019  

 

The Global Biochar Market 2015-2019, has been prepared based on an in-depth market analysis with inputs from industry experts. The report covers the market landscape and its growth prospects in the coming years. The report also includes a discussion of the key vendors operating in this market.

Key vendors
• Agri-Tech Producers
• Biochar Products
• Diacarbon Energy
• Pacific Biochar
• Phoenix Energy

Other prominent vendors
• Advanced BioRefinery
• Avello Bioenergy
• Biochar Now
• Biochar Supreme
• Biogreen-Energy
• DynaMotive Energy Systems
• Encendia Biochar
• Green Harvest Group
• International Tech
• Tolero EnergyMarket driver
• Advantages of biochar carbon sequestration projects
• For a full, detailed list, view our report

Market challenge
• Lack of demonstration projects
• For a full, detailed list, view our report

Market trend
• Investment in R&D and alternative financing mechanism
• For a full, detailed list, view our report

Key questions answered in this report
• What will the market size be in 2019 and what will the growth rate be?
• What are the key market trends?
• What is driving this market?
• What are the challenges to market growth?
• Who are the key vendors in this market space?
• What are the market opportunities and threats faced by the key vendors?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the key vendors?

 

Complete Report Details @  https://www.wiseguyreports.com/reports/781617-global-biochar-market-2015-2019

 

Table of Contents -Major Key Points

Executive Summary 

 ………..CONTINUED

 

Buy Now@  https://www.wiseguyreports.com/checkout?currency=one_user-USD&report_id=781617

 

CONTACT US :

NORAH TRENT

Partner Relations & Marketing Manager

sales@wiseguyreports.com

http://www.wiseguyreports.com

Ph: +1-646-845-9349 (US)

Ph: +44 208 133 9349 (UK)      

About Us

Wise Guy Reports is part of the Wise Guy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and offers premium progressive statistical surveying, Industryresearch reports, analysis & forecast data for industries and governments around the globe. Wise Guy Reports understand how essential statistical surveying information is for your organization or association. Therefore, we have associated with the top publishers and research firms all specialized in specific domains, ensuring you will receive the most reliable and up to date research data available.

 

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Connecting to %s


Biochar Addition May Have Different Effects on C Emissions during Freeze-thaw Cycles

15 June, 2017
 

Biochar is a carbon-rich product derived from the slow pyrolysis of organic materials under oxygen limited conditions. It is usually used as a soil amendment to increase soil fertility, boost agricultural productivity, and provide protection against some foliar and soil-borne diseases.

Scientists have been studying biochar as an approach to carbon sequestration and thus help mitigate climate change via reducing soil greenhouse gas emission. However, a group of Chinese scientists recently found that during the freeze-thaw cycles period, biochar addition in soil may stimulate soil emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) while reduce that of methane (CH4).

Their study was published in the recent issue of Plant, Soil and Environment entitled “Effects of biochar addition on CO2 and CH4 emissions from a cultivated sandy loam soil during freeze-thaw cycles”.

Previous studies have shown that soil N2O emissions decreased by 61% during freeze-thaw cycles through biochar addition. But what will that do to the emission of Carbon dioxide and methane, two of the major greenhouse gases that play a key role in global climate change?

To answer this question, LI Lanhai and his team from the Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography simulate the freeze-thaw cycles in their lab. They hope to examine the effects of biochar additions on soil carbon dioxide and methane emissions during freeze-thaw cycles.

Their study showed that soil CO2 emissions were stimulated by both freeze-thaw cycles and biochar addition. In the meantime, the biochar addition promoted the intake of CH4, especially under freeze-thaw conditions.

“Although there are some limitations in this study, the results still indicate that the effects of biochar additions on soil C emissions may be different between control and freeze-thaw conditions,” said LI.

More in-situ observations are expected in further studies to make systematic evaluations on the effects of biochar on greenhouse gas emissions during the freeze-thaw cycles, according to the researchers.

Effects of biochar addition on CO2 and CH4 emissions from a cultivated sandy loam soil during freeze-thaw cycles

Copyright © 2002 – 2017 Chinese Academy of Sciences


Biochar as a Soil Amendment in a High Tunnel Polybag Growth System

16 June, 2017
 

Or login with

Don’t have an account? Register

1-8 Characters

By clicking the Register button below, you agree to our terms of service.

Already have an account? Log in

EMBED

SHARE

DOWNLOAD

REPORT

You can download, share and embed this document

Biochar as a Soil Amendment in a High Tunnel, Polyb ag Growth System Dr. Ron Goldy and Virginia Wendzel Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center Benton Harbor, Michigan Objectives The purpose of this trial is to determine if biochar has an effect on yield and quality of cucumber (Cucumis sativus, cv. USAC 8834), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum, cv. Conan), spinach (Spinacia oleracea, cv. Bloomsdale), basil (Ocimum basilicum, cv. Italian Large Leaf), Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris subsp. cicla, cv. Technicolor), snap dragon (Antirrhinum majus, cv. Rocket Mix), and lettuce (Lactuca sativa, cv. Tropicana) in a high tunnel production, polybag system. Summary Addition of biochar at volumes of 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 4%, and 8% to Morgan’ s 301 soil mix did not increase yield or quality of cucumber, tomato, spinach, basil, Swiss cha rd, lettuce, or snap dragon. Lack of significant effect could be due to the high organic and nutrient content already present in the 301 mix. Biochar also has proven to have a greater effect the second year after application. Methods Soil Mix Biochar was combined with Morgan’s 301 Mix at a volume ratio of 0, 0. 5%, 1%, 2%, 4%, and 8% and placed into five-gallon polybags. Biochar was supplied by Biogeni c Reagents and met the following standards: Surface area: 400 m 2/g (min) Ash: 5% (max) Volatile matter: 5% (max) Carbon: 90% (min) pH: 7-9 Biochar was combined with Morgan’s 301 by placing the appropriate ratios into a cement mixer and tumbling until they were well mixed. The mix was then placed into th e bags. The mix was moistened and allowed to sit a minimum of two weeks before planting. Fertilizer No fertilizer was applied other than what was present in the Morgan’s 301. Weed Control Weeds were controlled by covering the ground in the tunnel with black gr ound cloth. Planting Seven crop species were evaluated: cucumber (Cucumis sativus, cv. USAC 8834), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum, cv. Conan), spinach (Spinacia oleracea, cv. Bloomsdale), basil (Ocimum basilicum, cv. Italian Large Leaf), Swiss chard ( Beta vulgaris subsp. cicla, cv. Technicolor), snap dragon (Antirrhinum majus, cv. Rocket Mix), and lettuce (Lactuca sativa, cv. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2014 Tropicana). The tomato was set as a transplant on May 23, one plant per bag. The cucumber was direct seeded on May 23, one plant per bag. Snap dragons were planted as transplants, three per bag on May 15. Spinach, basil, and lettuce were set as transplants, thre e plants per bag on May 23. The cucumber, lettuce, and basil were planted a second time in a sim ilar manner. There were four bags per plot, with four reps per biochar treatment. Plant Care Plots were irrigated as needed; no insect and disease controls were need ed in 2014. Harvest and Data C ollection Plots were harvested at the suitable stage for that species and graded a ccording to commercial standards (tomato and cucumber), weighed (lettuce, spinach, Swiss cha rd, basil), or number of marketable flowers counted (snap dragons). The second cucumber plantin g did not produce any harvestable fruit. Data from the two basil and lettuce plantings were co mbined. Plots were standardized to one or three plants per bag and the data subjected to st atistical analysis. Results Biochar treatments generally had no effect on the species evaluated (Table 1). Significant differences were not found in total weight for cucumber, spinach, lettuc e, Swiss chard, and total number of marketable flowers for snap dragons. Differences were noted in tomato and basil total yields (Table 1) but the noted biochar differences were not statistica lly different than the no biochar treatment. Some quality differences were noted in tomato fruit n umbers and grades (Table 2). However, the differences could not be attributed to the bio char. In cucumber, differences were noted only in the weight of number 2 fruit (Table 3). Reasons for lack of separation are unclear. Previous biochar studies (M ajor, et al. 2010) have found no differences the first year but significant differences in subse quent years. Biochar also has a greater effect on low organic matter and low nutrition soils. Morg an’s 301 is a high organic soil and contains a significant amount of nutrients since one of the com ponents is cow manure. High nutrient and organic matter levels could explain the lack of separa tion. Treatment differences may occur if the soil mix is used a second year after readily available nutrients are utilized or leached from the soil mix not having biochar. The cucumber and tomato, and to some extent the basil and Swiss chard, c ontinued to show poor growth later in the season. That has become typical of many tunnel-grown crops at SWMREC. The crops look good shortly after planting (Figures 1 and 2) but by la te July and into August they look poor (Figures 2 and 3). It was hoped that the addition of biochar would relieve this condition without the addition of fertilizer. Literature Cited Major, J, Rondon, MA, Molina Lopez, DL, Riha, SJ, and Lehmann, J. 2010. Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant and Soil 33:117–128. Available online www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/PlantSoil%20333,%20117- 128,%202010%20Major.pdf. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2014 Table 1. Total yield of seven crop species grown in polybag culture in a high tu nnel system at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan, in 2014. Treatments were 0 to 8% by volume of biochar. Numbers in bold are not significantly different than the top performing treatment. Treatment (% by vol.) Tomato (grams/bag) Cucumber (grams/bag) Spinach (grams/bag) Lettuce (grams/bag) Basil (grams/bag) Swiss Chard (grams/bag) Snap dragons (stems/bag) 0 2,872 1,444 69 352 365 352 46 0.5 2,809 1,427 77 262 322 262 46 1 2,254 1,156 70 299 415 299 41 2 2,201 1,287 56 272 382 272 45 4 3,327 1,128 80 340 318 340 40 8 2,042 1,033 71 321 308 321 40 Lsd 0.05 968 ns ns ns 65 ns ns Table 2. Total yield and quality of ‘Conan’ tomato grown in polybag cultur e in a high tunnel system at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan, in 2014. Treatments were 0 to 8% by volume of biochar. Numbers in bold are not significantly different than the top performing treatment. Treatment (% by vol.) Total Yield (grams/bag) Yield No. 1 (grams/bag) Count No. 1/Bag Average No. 1 Weight (grams) Yield No. 2 (grams/bag) Yield Cull (grams/bag) 0 2,872 2,142 15 145 199 531 0.5 2,809 2,154 14 149 118 537 1 2,254 1,638 12 136 52 564 2 2,201 1,420 10 147 86 695 4 3,327 2,116 15 144 649 562 8 2,042 1,379 10 127 208 455 Lsd 0.05 968 640 4 16 567 191 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2014 Table 3. Total yield and quality of ‘USAC 8834’ cucumber grown in polybag culture in a high tunnel system at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan, in 2014. Treatments were 0 to 8% by volume of biochar. Numbers in bold are not significantly different than the top performing treatment. Treatment (% by vol.) Total Yield (grams/bag) Yield No. 1 (grams/bag) Count of No. 1 Fruit/Bag Average No. 1 Weight (grams) Yield No. 2 (grams/bag) Yield Cull (grams/bag) 0 1,444 810 6 124 130 504 0.5 1,427 774 6 121 201 452 1 1,156 656 5 122 127 373 2 1,287 677 6 118 84 526 4 1,128 649 6 116 88 391 8 1,033 579 5 121 138 316 Lsd 0.05 ns ns ns ns 110 ns Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2014 Figure 1. Growth of four crops in a high-tunnel system at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan, in 2014. Tomato, cucumber, ba sil, and snap dragon (top to bottom). Picture taken 6/12/14. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2014 Figure 2. Growth of four crops in a high-tunnel system at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan, in 2014. Tomato, cucumber, ba sil, and snap dragon (top to bottom). Picture taken 7/25/14. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2014 Figure 3. Growth of three crops in a high-tunnel system at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan, in 2014. Tomato, basil, a nd snap dragon (top to bottom). Pictures taken 7/31/14 (basil) and 8/18 (tomato and snap dr agon). Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2014


Biochar and bioenergy production for climate change mitigation

16 June, 2017
 

Or login with

Don’t have an account? Register

1-8 Characters

By clicking the Register button below, you agree to our terms of service.

Already have an account? Log in

EMBED

SHARE

DOWNLOAD

REPORT

You can download, share and embed this document

New Zealand Science Review Vol 64 (1) 2007&#24; Peter Winsley was Manager of Policy and Strategy at the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology from 1990 to 2000. He is currently Director of Strategy Development at MAF responsible for forward-looking analysis and policy development on key strategic issues relevant to the agriculture and forestry industries. He also leads MAF’s Sustainable Development ‘flagship project’. Peter holds a BA (Hons) in English literature, a Master’s degree in industrial economics (with distinction) and a PhD in management (his thesis being in the management of industrial innovation). He also has a diploma in business administration and a diploma in social sciences (economics). Peter may be contacted at peter.winsley@maf.govt.nz Biochar and bioenergy production for climate change mitigation Peter Winsley Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, P O Box 2526, Wellington The world will increasingly depend on renewable energy with low or zero net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper explores how science and the economic ‘rules of the game’ might realize the potential for the pyrolysis co-production of biochar and bio-oil to mitigate net GHG emissions while achieving other economic and environmental benefits. This pyrolysis process produces a high carbon biochar that can be sequestered al- most permanently in soil, and energy that substitutes for fossil fuels. It is ‘carbon negative’, that is, it allows an ever-increasing carbon sink to be built up in soil. Biochar can reduce emissions of nitrous oxide and leaching of nitrates into water. It can also lift agricultural productivity through its effect on soil structure, microbiota and nutrient availability. Background In the late 19th century, European explorers in the Amazonia found patches of dark, high fertility soils amidst the highly weathered and acidic oxisols in the region. These soils were termed terra preta (dark soils) and they were created by indig- enous people who incorporated biochar into them. Terra preta soils are very high in carbon, with soil structures and microbial activity that improve nutrient availability and plant growth. The biochar was made by smouldering biomass at moderate tempera- tures in the absence of oxygen, leaving charred vegetation that was then dug into the soil. The addition of biochar led typically to a doubling of crop production in these soils compared with unimproved soils nearby. Although it is accepted that terra preta soils were created by the addition of biochar it is still not clear whether this fully explains their high crop productivity. Plant-available phos- phorus and other nutrient content in the soils may result from other human inputs such as animal manures, and plant and fish wastes. ‘The slash and char’ methods in the Amazonia must be dis- tinguished from ‘slash and burn’ agricultural practice. Slash and char sequesters around 50% of the initial carbon in the biomass, compared to the 3% or so from burning (Lehman et al. 2006). carbon from burnt (as opposed to pyrolysed) plant material is labile and is largely mineralised to carbon dioxide within a matter of months or a few years. While some carbon in biochar may well decay over the shorter term, biochar is a highly stable and long-term form of carbon sequestration overall, because charcoal is inert and resistant to biochemical breakdown. Terra preta soils are up to several thousand years old. The average age of black carbon buried in deep-sea sediments has been found to be up to 13 900 years greater than the age of other organic carbon such as humic substances (Masiello & Druffel 1998). Charcoal from volcanic eruptions has been dated back over 20 000 years. The terra preta soils are believed to have formed over pe- riods of as little as 40–50 years. They range in depth from 0.5 to 2 metres. A hectare of 1 metre-deep terra preta soil contains around 250 tonnes of carbon as opposed to 100 tonnes in un- improved soils from similar parent material. The soil horizons within which carbon is stored may be far deeper in terra preta than in other soils, with a horizon enriched in organic matter that is up to 2 metres deep compared with average profiles of about 40–50 cm in other soils. A ceiling has yet to be found to the amount of carbon a terra preta soil can sequester, although it is assumed that there will be a ceiling and it will be influenced by factors such as the underlying geology. Soil sequestration of carbon through biochar offers a means of mitigating climate change while delivering other economic and environmental benefits. These benefits can include the restoration of degraded soils. Benefits from biochar depend on a clear understanding of the carbon and nitrogen cycles. Carbon and nitrogen cycles Carbon and nitrogen are circulated between the atmosphere, soil, and water. Carbon dioxide is fixed by plants and nitrogen by bacteria. The soil carbon pool is made up of different types of carbon with different turnover times. Labile carbon, as oc- curs in the microbial biomass, has a turnover time of about 1–5 years, humic carbon may turn over in decades, and inert organic matter such as charcoal may decay over thousands of years. Humic substances contain both carbon and nitrogen, so that soils acting as net sinks for carbon are also acting as sinks for nitrogen. Every tonne of carbon lost from soils adds 3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Soils losing carbon are also losing nitrogen, including nitrous oxide and other forms. Humus improves soil structure, moisture retention, and microbial activity. As soils approach nitrogen saturation, and plants are unable to take it up, the risk of nitrates and nitrates New Zealand Science Review Vol 64 (1) 2007&#24; leaching into waterways increases. Lifting the carbon:nitrogen ratio in soils has the effect of increasing nitrogen retention and therefore reducing nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leach- ing. Adding biochar to soil may prevent or limit the anaerobic production of nitrous oxide. Biochar and bio-oil from pyrolysis When biomass is burnt in the absence of oxygen, pyrolysis occurs and the biomass can be turned into a liquid (‘bio-oil’), a gas and a high-carbon, fine-grained residue: biochar. Biochar has been made from grasses, woody material, straw, corn stover, peanut shells, olive pits, bark, sorghum, and sewage wastes. However, experimentation with biochar and bio-oil has typically been on wood because of its consistency as a material and its relatively low ash content. Pyrolysis can involve a range of different processes, includ- ing bubbling fluidised bed, rotating cone reactors, and mechani- cal or centrifugal ablative processes. Some of these processes are quite new and are still being refined. Other approaches to pyrolysis may also be developed. Pyrolysis involves trade-offs between the production of biochar, bio-oil and gas, and the process can be calibrated to maximise the output of different products, depending on eco- nomic factors. This is illustrated in Table 1. The energy used in the above processes is provided by the biomass itself in the form of gas and other byproducts. There are important challenges in reducing the costs of these proc- esses, and there is extensive international research under way on them. Biochar and its potential uses While lump charcoal is a valuable product for industrial proc- esses such as iron- and steel-making, biochar is finely ground charcoal with some similarities to activated charcoal. Lump charcoal has very limited ability to adsorb substances in the liquid or gas phase and that is why activation of charcoal is required to remove tarry materials which block the structure of the pure carbon ‘skeleton’ of the charcoal. This vastly increases the surface area of the porous carbon skeleton, providing large numbers of sites where molecules of other substances can be held. This is the basis for activated charcoal, and also explains something of the role biochar plays in relation to soil micro- biota processes. Biochar offers an extremely high surface area to support microbiota that catalyse processes that, among other things, reduce nitrogen loss and increase nutrient availability for plants. Biochar to sequester carbon Wood has a carbon content of about 50%, whereas biochar has a carbon content of about 70–80%, which can be permanently sequestered in soil. Over and above this, biochar may have the potential to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide uptake in the form of glomalin, a major component of humus produced by plant mycorrhizal fungi. However, this possibility needs further research. Biochar to reduce nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching Biochar can reduce nitrogen fertiliser requirements and nitrous oxide emissions (Baum & Weitner, 2006). New Zealand soils have a finite ability to store nitrogen and nitrogen-saturated soils create risks of nitrogen leaching into waterways and be- ing discharged to the atmosphere. However, a soil with a high carbon:nitrogen ratio usually has a greater capacity to store nitrogen and thereby reduce nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching. The carbon:nitrogen ratios of different land uses are set out in Table 2. Biochar is an excellent support material for Rhizobium inoculants (Lal & Mishra 1998), and application of sufficient volumes of biochar could also reduce nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching from New Zealand soils. This is extremely important, as nitrous oxide is a potent and long-lasting green- house gas that creates substantial Kyoto Protocol liabilities, while nitrification of waterways is another major form of envi- ronmental damage from agriculture. Although there may be a high initial cost of incorporating biochar in soils, it is a one-off cost with a permanent benefit. There is reference in the literature to the ability of biochar to reduce methane emissions from soil, but this has yet to be substantiated. Biochar to lift soil and crop productivity The carbon in biochar does not directly provide nutrients to plants. However, it improves soil structure and water reten- tion, enhances nutrient availability, lowers acidity, and reduces the toxicity of aluminium to plant roots and soil microbiota. Biochar may help reduce the bioavailability of heavy metals and endocrine disruptors in some production systems and may therefore have potential in bioremediation. Some of the microbiological processes associated with biochar may be relevant to organic farmers with interests in the performance of high-carbon soils. Productivity gains from biochar are well documented from terra preta soils and use of charcoal as a soil improver has been Table 1: Typical product yields (dry wood basis) obtained by different modes of wood pyrolysis. Mode Conditions Bio-oil Biochar Gas Fast Moderate temperatures (500°C) for 1 second 75% 12% 13% Intermediate Moderate temperatures (500°C) for 10–20 seconds 50% 20% 30% Slow (carbonisation) Low temperature, (400°C), very long solids residence time 30% 35% 35% Gasification High temperature, 800°C, long vapour residency time 5% 10% 85% Source: International Energy Agency 2007 New Zealand Science Review Vol 64 (1) 2007&#24; documented in Japan at least as far back as the 17th century. Modern experimental research demonstrates that biochar ap- plication can substantially lift the productivity of crops such as soybeans, sorghum, potatoes, maize, wheat, peas, oats, rice and cowpeas. Such productivity gains also depend, however, on factors such as soil and crop type, char concentrations, and nutrient levels, so optimal applications would need to be tailored to local conditions. Evidence suggests that significant productivity gains are possible at application rates as low as 0.4 to 8 tonnes of carbon per ha, but at extremely high applications crop productivity may actually drop due to nitrogen limitation. There is evi- dence that legumes will thrive under high biochar applications, perhaps because their nitrogen-fixing ability enables them to compensate for limited nitrogen availability in the soil. This might suggest some potential for New Zealand’s clover-based pasture systems. Biochar for fertiliser production Much synthetic fertiliser is currently produced by using natural gas to synthesise ammonia using nitrogen from the air, but this releases one molecule of carbon dioxide for each molecule of ammonia produced. Conventional urea-based fertilisers, made from this ammonia, also have other adverse environmental im- pacts when used inappropriately. Combining ammonia, carbon dioxide and water in the presence of biochar forms a solid, am- monium bicarbonate fertiliser, inside the pores of the char. This nitrogen-enriched char can be incorporated into the soil, where it serves three purposes: as a carbon store, as nitrogen fertiliser, and as a biologically active soil enhancer. Iowa State University and Eprida* are among the leaders in this field. Properties and potential uses of bio-oil Bio-oil is a complex liquid produced as part of biomass pyro- lysis. It has only 42% of the energy content of fuel oil on a weight basis and 61% on a volumetric basis. Technical chal- lenges with bio-oil include low volatility, high viscosity, coking, corrosiveness, and instability. Technical standards need to be developed for it. The presence of water in bio-oil lowers its heating value but improves its flow characteristics, which is beneficial for combustion (pumping and atomisation). It also lowers nitrous oxide emissions. Bio-oil can be used as a basis for higher-value extracts and by-products, for example acetic acid, resins, food flavourings, agrichemicals, fertilisers, and emission-control agents. There is extensive commercial and academic work under way to produce bio-oil through pyrolysis, with leading or- ganisations including Dynamotive,* in Ontario, Canada BEST Technologies, research units at the State University of Iowa, RTI Canada, IWC Germany, Aston University, UK, VTT† in Finland, and the NREL‡ in the USA. Bio-oil could only replace diesel as transport fuel if it is upgraded and work is under way internationally on this. Ap- proaches include using mild oxidation with ozone and full deoxygenation, either through hydro-treating or catalytic vapour cracking. However, the economics of this are not cur- rently attractive. Alternatively, although bio-oil is not miscible with hydrocarbons, it can be emulsified with diesel oil with the aid of surfactants. This means it could be used as a diesel oil extender, although both surfactants and the emulsification process are expensive. It is possible to gasify bio-oil and to then synthesise high- quality transport fuels, but a substantial scale of operation is needed to justify the high cost of a processing operation and this in turn means high transport costs for diffuse biomass resources. Bio-oil is easy to transport and it would be possible for a network of smaller-scale or mobile pyrolysis plants to produce it for transport to a centralised plant for gasification and synthesis into transport fuels. Such a plant would produce substantial volumes of biochar as well, although valuing this is problematic. Mobile pyrolysis plants have been designed that not only convert biomass into bio-oil, biochar, and gas, but also use the energy from the gas to power the process, with no other energy needed. With existing technology, bio-oil is best used directly (or with minor modifications) as process heat (including greenhouse heating) and in stationary engines, although electricity genera- tion may be the most promising option. Potential for biochar and bio-oil co-production in New Zealand Biochar could be made from residues from plantation for- estry harvesting. However, there are costs in collecting diffuse residues, and waste streams from processing are already used directly in process heat or have other valued uses. One opportunity is short-rotation growing or coppicing of poplar, willow, or eucalypts on low-value land. Such production regimes also have potential for bioremediation of contaminated land. On erosion-prone hill country such regimes might prevent * See http://www.eprida.com/home/index.php4 Ta b l e 2 : O r g a n i c m a t t e r c a r b o n : n i t r o g e n r a t i o s i n N e w Zealand. Land use Mean C:N ratio Number of sites Plantation forestry 17.4 67 Indigenous forestry 16.7 58 Tussock grassland 14.7 20 Horticulture and orchards 12.8 37 Arable crop 12.3 42 Mixed crop 12.1 17 Sheep-beef pasture 12.1 140 Dairy pasture 11.3 123 Source: SURLI, 2005. * See http://www.dynamotive.com/† See http://www.vtt.fi/?lang=en‡ See http://www.nrel.gov/ New Zealand Science Review Vol 64 (1) 2007&#24; carbon loss (since plants grow more slowly on eroded soil and soil loss reduces carbon sequestration in both plants and soil). However, production and harvesting costs on steeper land may be excessive. Willow (Salix) plantations in Sweden produce for up to 30 years and can yield 7–11 tonnes of dry biomass per ha per year (SvEBiO 2004). Cloned eucaplyts in Brazil can produce 40 tonnes of dry biomass per hectare per year – growth rates that would seem impossible in New Zealand. Production (as a rough estimate) of around 10–20 tonnes dry mass per hectare per year might be achievable in New Zealand, and application of advanced plant breeding technology may lift this further. The balance between biochar and bio-oil would be driven by relative prices, and pyrolysis processes are flexible enough to adapt to these (see Table 1). While dollar values can be placed on bio-oil, the value of biochar for carbon sequestra- tion, reduced nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions, and higher agricultural productivity is still speculative at this stage. However, biochar may become increasingly attractive with rising concern about climate change, the negotiation of new post-Kyoto Protocol rules, and commercially-driven pressures to reduce the life-cycle net greenhouse gas impact of our major export products. Some skeptical questions There is no ‘magic bullet’ to mitigate climate change, and a very wide array of technologies needs to be developed or more widely deployed to address it. On a large enough scale, it seems that biochar and bio-oil co-production could help address New Zealand’s climate change and water quality problems, lift agricultural productivity, reduce the costs of imported fossil fuels and contribute to phasing out use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and industrial process heat. The ability of one process to help address so many different New Zealand problems suggests, of course, that it is ‘too good to be true’ and skeptical questions need to be asked: Do we know enough about the science? The basic scientific and technical underpinnings for biochar and bioenergy co-production are in place, but outstanding technical issues include: • optimising wood feedstock production, harvesting, drying and grinding; • choosing from fluidised bed, rotating cone, or mechanical or centrifugal ablative pyrolysis processes for further develop- ment; • finding the best R&D paths to upgrade the use of bio-oil to make it a suitable substitute for diesel (unless it is used directly for electricity generation or process heat); • scientific validation and ongoing fine-tuning of the environ- mental and agricultural productivity benefits of biochar. We need to know more about New Zealand soils, biomass production regimes, and pyrolysis processing before we could optimise the biochar opportunity. There will be a need to fine- tune all stages of the production and use of biochar, since bio- chars can be very different in their nutrient component, carbon levels, and pH, so crops and soils will respond differently. However, innovation does not need perfection and optimisa- tion – it simply requires doing better than the status quo. People were making steel for hundreds of years before they ‘learnt’ how to make it in terms of perfect scientific understanding. it would be possible to spend decades researching biochar and achieving process optimisation in its manufacture and applica- tion. However, many of these issues are being addressed in overseas research that we do not need to duplicate. If biochar can be commercialised in New Zealand, supporting scientific research could be drawn on to improve the technology and its fitness for purpose. What are the net energy balances from biochar and bio-oil? Biofuel production using pyrolysis can produce a biochar by- product which sequesters around 30.6 kg carbon for each GJ of energy produced (Lehman et al. 2006). There would need to be a careful life-cycle analysis of all fossil fuel use in feedstock production and processing and biochar making and application before we could measure the net gains in both energy and carbon balance terms. Would biochar applications be suited to New Zealand soils? Many New Zealand soils are acidic and some have problems of aluminium toxicity, conditions amenable to biochar applica- tion. However, many soil profiles are shallow and this might limit the depth to which biochar can be added. This suggests that for some New Zealand soils an ‘upper ceiling’ of carbon sequestration might be reached much sooner than in the case of terra preta soils. It is unclear what volume of biochar would be needed to make a difference to crop productivity and reduced nitrous ox- ide emissions and nitrate leaching. In overseas cropland trials, typically 10 tonnes per hectare are applied. However, many of our pasture soils are quite shallow and this suggests that smaller volumes of biochar might be effective if added only to the top few centimetres of soil. The stability of biochar in soil will be affected by the specif- ics of the biochar process and its tailoring to local soil condi- tions. Likewise, the ceiling for carbon sequestration in soil will be heavily dependent on local soil conditions. Over time, we would learn to tailor biochar applications to different soil types and other conditions. Soil carbon sequestration and New Zealand’s position on the Kyoto Protocol Addressing climate change involves the management of car- bon flows between the atmosphere and terrestrial and ocean systems. Over 80% of organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems is in soil rather than biomass (IPCC 2000). The Kyoto Protocol Article 3.4 allows for the recognition of enhanced soil carbon sequestration. However, New Zealand did not include this in its New Zealand Science Review Vol 64 (1) 2007&#24; Kyoto commitments because of a view that New Zealand soils in total may have been losing carbon. This exclusion has meant that little effort has gone into the potential for understanding and enhancing soil carbon sequestration, whereas a lot of ef- fort has gone into forestry carbon sequestration because of its recognition within Kyoto Article 3.3. It should, however, be noted that a landowner converting forest plantations to dairy pasture can use Article 3.3 to offset carbon losses in the above ground carbon pool by sequestering biochar in the soil carbon pool. This means that every tonne of carbon dioxide added as biochar would reduce deforestation liabilities. This could be incorporated into New Zealand’s inven- tory and it could well be included in the design of a domestic deforestation regime, possibly as a component of an emissions trading regime. It is also possible that biochar incorporation in soils could at least partly substitute for lime and fertiliser inputs that are applied when forests are converted to pastures. It is very likely that some means will be found of earning economic benefits from soil carbon sequestration. The ‘grey market’ for carbon credits could be used, and increased soil carbon in New Zealand agriculture could help ward off threats to our exports from ‘food miles’ and carbon labelling arguments. Progress with soil carbon sequestration might also be reflected in negotiation of any second Kyoto Protocol commitment periods, or in post-Kyoto or alternative agreements. Economics of biochar and bio-oil An important economic constraint will be the volume and cost of biomass feedstock. A vibrant forest processing industry would substantially improve the economics of both pyrolysis and energy from wood pellets and wood chips. It is possible that costs could drop with new technology, for example biological processing, or using advances that spin-off from cellulignin or from ligno-cellulosic research. Only when the environmental benefits of biochar are recog- nised and valued, and entrepreneurs invest in it, will costs and prices be fully discovered, and technological innovation drive down costs and improve product and process performance. Bio-oil research after the 1970s ‘oil shocks’ focused on transport fuel and largely considered the fine char by-product as waste. However, this ‘waste’ becomes valuable when markets recognise its environmental benefits and so future pyrolysis research may focus on optimising biochar rather than bio-oil. An advantage of biochar is that it is one of the few tech- nologies to address climate change that creates net economic as well as environmental benefits. in contrast, carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal involves a net financial and energy loss and no compensating commercial benefits. Economic studies have been done on the biochar option overseas. Baum & Weitner (2006) contend that ‘production and application costs of biochar may be fully recovered, even in the absence of a carbon market, based solely on crop production benefits and fertiliser cost savings.’ However, this would be highly dependent on soil type and production system variables. Lehman et al. (2006) contend that ‘the most promising strategy for cropping of biomass as feedstock for biochar production is the concurrent production of bio-fuels by pyrolysis.’ They con- clude that biofuel production using pyrolysis ‘has great potential to generate electricity at a profit in the long term, and at a lower cost than any other biomass-to-electricity system.’ Envirochem (2006) concludes that a 100 tonne per day bio-oil plant that includes carbon credits for reduced fossil fuel use would only be economic if it used residue from processing that did not involve harvesting costs, for example if processing waste was used. This study focused on bio-oil displacing fos- sil fuel use, and did not place a value on other environmental benefits. Some New Zealand scientists estimate that extra organic matter in soils is worth $NZ27–151 per ha per year in increased milk solids production (Landcare Research 2005). This study estimated that soils depleted in organic matter took 36–125 years to recover and the accumulated lost production was worth $518–1,239 per hectare. This value was calculated as 42–73 times lower than the environmental value of the organic matter as a store of carbon and nitrogen, which varied between $22,963 and $90,849 depending on soil, region, valuation placed on credits, and so on. if anything like these figures are supported in prototype development and trials (and if value is placed on the bioenergy by-product), the economics of biochar seem very attractive. One way of ‘discovering’ the economics of biochar and bio-oil co-production would be factoring in as notional or proxy prices the economic benefits of net carbon sequestration, reduced nitrous oxide emissions, and (in sensitive catchments such as Lake Taupo) reduced nitrate leaching. Based on these proxy prices, tenders could be called to deliver a commercial operation involving production of feedstock and its processing, and the marketing of biochar and bio-oil. Such an approach would help unleash industrial and scientific innovation and, over time, the property rights and institutional rules of the game would catch up with the innovation, and proxy prices would become real prices. Possible ways forward New Zealand is a biologically based economy with a lot of under-utilised industrial expertise and entrepreneurial spirit. There are a range of opportunities to progress biochar and bioenergy co-production and sequestration for its economic and environmental benefits. These opportunities typically involve convergence of technical information across traditional industry sector boundaries. Only business and scientific entrepreneurs are close enough to the market and science to identify and exploit these opportunities. Some of this entrepreneurship might come from state-owned enterprises as well as private businesses. It is up to industry and science to choose the best way for- ward. However, to make the potential real, the following is an illustrative approach. Biochar and bio-oil co-production could be based on dedicated fast-rotation or coppicing hardwood forestry located on low-value land. To minimise transport costs New Zealand Science Review Vol 64 (1) 200710 this would need to be close to land that generates high nitrous oxide and nitrate leaching externalities. Dairy land in parts of Canterbury, the Waikato and Taupo catchments might be exam- ples. Biochar could be applied very selectively to specific parts of farms carrying high nitrogen loadings, such as from urine patches. Pyrolysis processing would need to be close to lines connections for distributed generation opportunities through bio-oil electricity generation. Biochar is likely to be relevant to intensive arable and horti- cultural soils and perhaps even to small niches such as compost blends for home gardening applications. There are many other alternative (and probably superior) options that better informed scientists and business people may be able to identify. Concluding comment Biochar and bio-energy co-production is now technically feasible. it could be commercially profitable in New Zealand if we recognised economically its environmental benefits in soil carbon sequestration, reduced nitrous oxide emissions and reduced nitrate leaching into waterways. There is a need for publicly funded research support, including the validation and optimisation of biochar’s crop productivity benefits. Commitments need to be in place for emissions trading or other means of valuing environmental benefits. Over time, measuring soil carbon sequestration and nitrous oxide reduc- tions from biochar would need to be exact enough to uphold property rights and to comply with any relevant international agreements. The rules around distributed generation must be supportive of use of bio-oil (as well as other renewables) for electricity generation from dispersed sites. In climate change mitigation, and in creating new economic opportunities for sectors such as forestry, New Zealand needs some ‘runs on the board’. References Baum, E.; Weitner, S. 2006. Biochar application on soils and cellulosic ethanol production. Clean Air Task Force, Boston, Massachusetts. Envirochem Services Inc. 2006. Identifying environmentally preferable uses for biomass resources. Report prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range and British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Vancouver. International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy. 2007. Biomass Pyrolysis. IEA Bioenergy (www.ieabioenergy.com). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2000. Land use, Land-use change and Forestry. IPCC Special Report. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 375 pp. Lal, J. K.; Mishra, B. 1998. Flyash as a carrier for Rhizobium inoculant. Journal of Research (Birsa Agricultural University) 10: 191–192. Lehmann, J.; Gaunt, J.; Rondon, Marco. 2006. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems – A review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11: 403–427. Masiello, C.A.; Druffel, E.R.M. 1998. Black carbon in deep-sea sediments. Science 280: 1911–1913. L a n d c a r e R e s e a r c h . 2 0 0 5 . S u s t a i n a b l e L a n d U s e R e s e a r c h Initiative (SLURI) 2005. Soil Horizons 12. http://www. landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/newsletters/soilhorizons/ SoilHorizIssue12Sept2005.pdf SvEBiO (Swedish Bioenergy Association) 2004. Focus Bioenergy. Energy crops: a resource for development. Publication 4, 2004, SVEBIO, Stockholm.


Biochar for Environmental Management

16 June, 2017
 

Or login with

Don’t have an account? Register

1-8 Characters

By clicking the Register button below, you agree to our terms of service.

Already have an account? Log in

EMBED

SHARE

DOWNLOAD

REPORT

You can download, share and embed this document

Simply put, biochar is the carbon-rich prod- uct obtained when biomass, such as wood, manure or leaves, is heated in a closed container with little or no available air. In more technical terms, biochar is produced by so-called thermal decomposition of organic material under limited supply of oxygen (O 2), and at relatively low temperatures (700°C) (Boehm, 1994). This process is intended to increase the surface area (see Chapter 2) for use in industrial processes such as filtration. The term ‘black C’ is much wider and includes all C-rich residues from fire or heat. Fossil fuels such as coal, gas and petrol, as well as biomass, can produce black C. The term includes the solid carbonaceous residue of combustion and heat, as well as the condensation products, known as soot. Black C includes the entire spectrum of charred materials, ranging from char, charcoal and biochar, to soot, graphitic black C and graphite (Schmidt and Noack, 2000). The term ‘charring’ is used either in connection with making charcoal or in connection with char originating from fires.The term ‘pyrolysis’ is typically used either for analytical procedures to investigate the organic chemistry of organic substances (Leinweber and Schulten, 1999) or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases emitted during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999). In contrast, the term ‘burning’ is typically used if no char remains, with the organic substrate being entirely transformed to ash that does not contain organic C. Often, substances called ‘ash’ in reality contain some char or biochar, signifi- cantly influencing ash properties and behaviour in technology and the environ- ment. Burning is very different from charring and pyrolysis, not only with respect to the solid ash residue versus biochar and related substances, but in terms of the gaseous prod- ucts that are generated. Therefore, these two processes should be carefully distinguished from each other. The terminology surrounding biochar may evolve. However, the definition provided here serves as a starting point for future development. Other terms such as gasifica- tion or liquefaction that are used in conjunction with biochar are explained else- where (Peacocke and Joseph, undated). BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT3 The origin of biochar management and research While both research and development of biochar for environmental management at a global scale is a somewhat recent develop- ment, it is by no means new in certain regions and has even been the subject of scientific research for quite some time. For example, Trimble (1851) shared observations of ‘evidence upon almost every farm in the county in which I live, of the effect of char- coal dust in increasing and quickening vegetation’. Early research on the effects of biochar on seedling growth (Retan, 1915)and soil chemistry (Tryon, 1948) yielded detailed scientific information. In Japan, biochar research significantly intensified during the early 1980s (Kishimoto and Sugiura, 1980, 1985). The use of biochar has, for some time, been recommended in various horticultural contexts – for example, as a substrate for potting mix (Santiago and Santiago, 1989). In 1927, Morley (1927) writes in the first issue of The National Greenkeeper that ‘char- coal acts as a sponge in the soil, absorbing ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 3 and retaining water, gases and solutions’. He even remarks that ‘as a purifier of the soil and an absorber of moisture, charcoal has no equal’ (Morley, 1929), and charcoal products are being marketed for turf applications in a 1933 issue of the same magazine (see Figure 1.2). Young (1804) discusses a practice of ‘paring and burning’ where soil is heaped onto organic matter (often peat) after setting it on fire with reportedly significant increases in farm revenue. Also, Justus Liebig describes a practice in China where waste biomass was mixed and covered with soil, and set on fire to burn over several days until a black earth is produced, which reportedly improved plant vigour (Liebig, 1878, p452). According to Ogawa (undated), biochar is described by Miyazaki as ‘fire manure’ in an ancient Japanese text on agriculture dating from 1697 (pp91–104). Despite these early descriptions and research, global interest in biochar only began in the past few years. The basis for the strong recent interest in biochar is twofold. First,the discovery that biochar-type substances are the explanation for high amounts of organic C (Glaser et al, 2001) and sustained fertility in Amazonian Dark Earths locally known as Terra Preta de Indio (Lehmann et al, 2003a).Justifiably ornot, biochar has, as a consequence, been frequently connected to soil management practised by ancient Amerindian populations before the arrival of Europeans, and to the development of complex civilizations in the Amazon region (Petersen et al, 2001). This proposed association has found widespread support through the appealing notion of indigenous wisdom rediscovered. Irrespective of such assumptions, fundamental scientific research of Terra Preta has also yielded important basic information on the function- ing of soils, in general, and on the effects of biochar, in particular (Lehmann, 2009). Second, over the past five years, unequiv- ocal proof has become available showing that biochar is not only more stable than any other amendment to soil (see Chapter 11), and that it increases nutrient availability beyond a fertilizer effect (see Chapter 5; Lehmann, 2009), but that these basic properties of stability and capacity to hold nutrients are fundamentally more effective than those of other organic matter in soil. This means that biochar is not merely another type of compost or manure that improves soil prop- erties, but is much more efficient at enhancing soil quality than any other organic soil amendment. And this ability is rooted in 4 BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Figure 1.2 Advertisement for biochar to be used as a soil amendment in turf greens Source: The National Greenkeeper (1933) ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 4 specific chemical and physical properties, such as the high charge density (Liang et al, 2006), that result in much greater nutrient retention (Lehmann et al, 2003b), and its particulate nature (Skjemstad et al, 1996; Lehmann et al, 2005) in combination with a specific chemical structure (Baldock and Smernik, 2002) that provides much greater resistance to microbial decay than other soil organic matter (Shindo, 1991; Cheng et al,2008). These and similar investigations have helped to make a convincing case for biochar as a significant tool for environmental management. They have provided the break- through that has brought already existing – yet either specialized or regionally limited – biochar applications and isolated research efforts to a new level. This book is a testament to these expanding activities and their results to date. BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT5 The big picture Four complementary and often synergistic objectives may motivate biochar applications for environmental management: soil im- provement (for improved productivity as well as reduced pollution); waste management; climate change mitigation; and energy production (see Figure 1.3), which individu- ally or in combination must have either a social or a financial benefit or both. As a result, very different biochar systems emerge on different scales (see Chapter 9). These systems may require different productionsystems that do or do not produce energy in addition to biochar, and range from small household units to large bioenergy power plants (see Chapter 8). The following sections provide a brief introduction into the broad areas that motivate implementation of biochar, leading to more detailed information presented in the individual chapters through- out this book. Biochar as a soil amendment Soil improvement is not a luxury but a neces- sity in many regions of the world. Lack of food security is especially common in sub- Saharan Africa and South Asia, with malnutrition in 32 and 22 per cent of the total population, respectively (FAO, 2006). While malnutrition decreased in many countries worldwide from 1990–1992 to 2001–2003, many nations in Asia, Africa or Latin America have seen increases (FAO, 2006). The ‘Green Revolution’ initiated by Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug at the International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) in Mexico during the 1940s had great success in increasing agricultural productivity in Latin America and Asia. These successes were mainly based on better agricultural technology, such as improved crop varieties, irrigation, and input of fertilizers and pesticides. Sustainable soil Figure 1.3 Motivation for applying biochar technology Source:Johannes Lehmann Mitigation of climate change Energy production Waste management Soil improvement Social, financial benefits ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 5 management has only recently been demanded to create a ‘Doubly Green Revolution’ that includes conservation tech- nologies (Tilman, 1998; Conway, 1999). Biochar provides great opportunities to turn the Green Revolution into sustainable agro- ecosystem practice. Good returns on ever more expensive inputs such as fertilizers rely on appropriate levels of soil organic matter, which can be secured by biochar soil management for the long term (Kimetu et al, 2008; Steiner et al, 2007). Specifically in Africa, the Green Revolution has not had sufficient success (Evenson and Gollin, 2003), to a significant extent due to high costs of agrochemicals (Sanchez, 2002), among other reasons (Evenson and Gollin, 2003). Biochar provides a unique opportunity to improve soil fertility and nutrient-use efficiency using locally available and renewable materials in a sustainable way. Adoption of biochar management does not require new resources, but makes more efficient and more environ- mentally conscious use of existing resources. Farmers in resource-constrained agro- ecosystems are able to convert organic residues and biomass fuels into biochar with- out compromising energy yield while delivering rapid return on investment (see Chapter 9). In both industrialized and developing countries, soil loss and degradation is occur- ring at unprecedented rates (Stocking, 2003; IAASTD, 2008), with profound conse- quences for soil ecosystem properties (Matson et al, 1997). In many regions, loss in soil productivity occurs despite intensive use of agrochemicals, concurrent with adverse environmental impact on soil and water resources (Foley et al, 2005; Robertson and Swinton, 2005). Biochar is able to play a major role in expanding options for sustain- able soil management by improving upon existing best management practices, not only to improve soil productivity (see Chapters 5and 12), but also to decrease environmental impact on soil and water resources (see Chapters 15 and 16). Biochar should there- fore not be seen as an alternative to existing soil management, but as a valuable addition that facilitates the development of sustainable land use: creating a truly green ‘Biochar Revolution’. Biochar to manage wastes Managing animal and crop wastes from agri- culture poses a significant environmental burden that leads to pollution of ground and surface waters (Carpenter et al, 1998; Matteson and Jenkins, 2007). These wastes as well as other by-products are usable resources for pyrolysis bioenergy (Bridgwater et al, 1999; Bridgwater, 2003). Not only can energy be obtained in the process of charring, but the volume and especially weight of the waste material is significantly reduced (see Chapter 8), which is an important aspect, for example, in managing livestock wastes (Cantrell et al, 2007). Similar opportunities exist for green urban wastes or certain clean industrial wastes such as those from paper mills (see Chapter 9; Demirbas, 2002). At times, many of these waste or organic by-products offer economic opportunities, with a significant reliable source of feedstock generated at a single point location (Matteson and Jenkins, 2007). Costs and revenues associated with accepting wastes and by-products are, however, subject to market development and are difficult to predict. In addition, appropri- ate management of organic wastes can help in the mitigation of climate change indirectly by: • decreasing methane emissions from land- fill; • reducing industrial energy use and emis- sions due to recycling and waste reduction; • recovering energy from waste; 6 BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 6 • enhancing C sequestration in forests due to decreased demand for virgin paper; and • decreasing energy used in long-distance transport of waste (Ackerman, 2000). Strict quality controls have to be applied for biochar, particularly for those produced from waste, but also from other feedstocks. Pathogens that may pose challenges to direct soil application of animal manures (Bicudo and Goyal, 2003) or sewage sludge (Westrell et al, 2004) are removed by pyrolysis, which typically operates above 350°C and is thus a valuable alternative to direct soil application. Contents of heavy metals can be a concern in sewage sludge and some specific industrial wastes, and should be avoided. However, biochar applications are, in contrast to manure or compost applications, not prima- rily a fertilizer, which has to be applied annually. Due to the longevity of biochar in soil, accumulation of heavy metals by repeated and regular applications over long periods of time that can occur for other soil additions may not occur with biochar. Biochar to produce energy Capturing energy during biochar production and, conversely, using the biochar generated during pyrolysis bioenergy production as a soil amendment is mutually beneficial for securing the production base for generating the biomass (Lehmann, 2007a), as well as for reducing overall emissions (see Chapter 18; Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008). Adding biochar to soil instead of using it as a fuel does, indeed, reduce the energy efficiency of pyr- olysis bioenergy production; however, the emission reductions associated with biochar additions to soil appear to be greater than the fossil fuel offset in its use as fuel (Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008). A biochar vision is there- fore especially effective in offeringenvironmental solutions, rather than solely producing energy. This appears to be an appropriate approach for bioenergy as a whole. In fact, bioenergy, in general, and pyrolysis, in partic- ular, may contribute significantly to securing a future supply of green energy. However, it will, most likely, not be able to solve the energy crises and satisfy rising global demand for energy on its own. For example, Kim and Dale (2004) estimated the global potential to produce ethanol from crop waste to offset 32 per cent of gasoline consumption at the time of the study. This potential will most likely never be achieved. An assessment of the global potential of bioenergy from forestry yielded a theoretical surplus supply of 71EJ in addition to other wood needs for 2050 (Smeets and Faaij, 2006), in compari- son to a worldwide energy consumption of 489EJ in 2005 (EIA, 2007). If economical and ecological constraints were applied, the projection for available wood significantly decreases (Smeets and Faaij, 2006). However, even a fraction of the global poten- tial will be an important contribution to an overall energy solution. On its own, however, it will probably not satisfy future global energy demand. In regions that rely on biomass energy, as is the case for most of rural Africa as well as large areas in Asia and Latin America, pyroly- sis bioenergy provides opportunities for more efficient energy production than wood burn- ing (Demirbas, 2004b). It also widens the options for the types of biomass that can be used for generating energy, going beyond wood to include, for example, crop residues. A main benefit may be that pyrolysis offers clean heat, which is needed to develop cook- ing technology with lower indoor pollution by smoke (Bhattacharya and Abdul Salam, 2002) than is typically generated during the burning of biomass (Bailis et al, 2005) (see Chapter 20). BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT7 ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 7 Biochar to mitigate climate change Adding biochar to soils has been described as a means of sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2) (Lehmann et al, 2006). For this to represent true sequestration, two requirements have to be met. First, plants have to be grown at the same rate as they are being charred because the actual step from atmospheric CO 2to an organic C form is delivered by photosynthesis in plants. Yet, plant biomass that is formed on an annual basis typically decomposes rapidly. This decomposition releases the CO 2that was fixed by the plants back to the atmosphere. In contrast, transforming this biomass into biochar that decomposes much more slowly diverts C from the rapid biological cycle into a much slower biochar cycle (Lehmann, 2007b). Second, the biochar needs to be truly more stable than the biomass from which it was formed. This seems to be the case and is supported by scientific evidence (see Chapter 11).Several approaches have been taken to provide first estimates of the large-scale potential of biochar sequestration to reduce atmospheric CO 2(Lehmann et al, 2006; Lehmann, 2007b; Laird, 2008), which will need to be vetted against economic (see Chapters 19 and 20) and ecological constraints and extended to include a full emission balance (see Chapter 18). Such emission balances require a comparison to a baseline scenario, showing what emissions have been reduced by changing to a system that utilizes biochar sequestration. Until more detailed studies based on concrete locations reach the information density required to extrapolate to the global scale, a simple comparison between global C fluxes may need to suffice to demonstrate the potential of biochar sequestration (see Figure 1.4). Almost four times more organic C is stored in the Earth’s soils than in atmospheric CO 2. And every 14 years, the entire atmospheric CO 2has cycled once through the biosphere (see Figure 1.4). Furthermore, the annual 8 BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Figure 1.4 The global carbon cycle of net primary productivity (total net photosynthesis flux from atmosphere into plants) and release to the atmosphere from soil (by microorganisms decomposing organic matter) in comparison to total amounts of carbon in soil, plant and atmosphere, and anthropogenic carbon emissions (sum of fossil fuel emissions and land-use change) Source:data from Sabine et al (2004) ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 8 uptake of CO2by plants is eight times greater than today’s anthropogenic CO 2emissions. This means that large amounts of CO 2are cycling between atmosphere and plants on an annual basis and most of the world’s organic C is already stored in soil. Diverting only a small proportion of this large amount of cycling C into a biochar cycle would make alarge difference to atmospheric CO 2concen- trations, but very little difference to the global soil C storage. Diverting merely 1 per cent of annual net plant uptake into biochar would mitigate almost 10 per cent of current anthropogenic C emissions (see Chapter 18). These are important arguments to feed into a policy discussion (see Chapter 22). BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT9 Adoption of biochar for environmental management Adopting biochar-based strategies for energy production, soil management and C seques- tration relies primarily on individual companies, municipalities and farmers (see Chapter 21). But national governments and international organizations could play a criti- cal role by facilitating the process of technological development, especially in the initial phases of research and development. Although biochar has great potential to become a critical intervention in addressing key future challenges, it is best seen as an important ‘wedge’, contributing to an overall portfolio of strategies, as introduced by Pacala and Socolow (2004) for climate change. Such an approach does not apply only to global warming, but also to large-scale efforts to deliver food security to more people worldwide, to produce energy and to improve waste management. Adoption may occur in multiple sectors to varying extents because biochar systems serve to address different objectives (see Figure 1.3) and operate on different scales, and can therefore be very different from each other (see Chapter 9). Concerns over using biomass resources that would otherwise fulfil ecosystem services or human needs have to be taken into full consideration. Possible conflicts of producing energy and biochar versus food as a conse- quence of massive adoption of biochar technologies have to be considered, as discussed for bioenergy in general (Müller etal, 2008). But the minimum residue cover required to protect soil surfaces also needs to be established in conjunction with biochar management of soil organic matter. While biochar will undoubtedly improve soil quality and productivity, some soil cover is required to keep water and wind erosion at a mini- mum. Therefore, plant residues cannot be entirely removed for biochar production. Other tasks that lie ahead are technological issues, such as refining methods for produc- tion, transportation of biochar and its application to soil, while avoiding unaccept- able dust formation or health hazards (see Chapters 8 and 12). These are merely exam- ples of questions that need to be addressed in the near future and that are discussed in more detail in individual chapters. Much information certainly must still be gathered, and several such challenges have to be addressed (Lehmann, 2007a; Laird, 2008). But the tasks ahead are of such magni- tudes that they can be solved alongside implementation. In fact, biochar research requires working under conditions of economically feasible enterprises in order to investigate the processes at the scale at which they are to be implemented. Much has already been achieved, and the basic informa- tion on which biochar for environmental management rests is available. This book documents that information and serves as the starting point for scaling up biochar manage- ment to become a global strategy. ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 9 10BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Ackerman, F. (2000) ‘Waste management and climate change’,Local Environment, vol 5, pp223–229 Bailis, R., Ezzati, M. and Kammen, D. M. (2005) ‘Mortality and greenhouse gas impacts of biomass and petroleum energy futures in Africa’,Science, vol 308, pp98–103 Baldock, J. A. and Smernik, R. J. (2002) ‘Chemical composition and bioavailability of thermally altered Pinus resinosa(Red pine) wood’, Organic Geochemistry, vol 33, pp1093–1109 Bernal, J. D. (1924) ‘The structure of graphite’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, vol 106, pp749–773 Bhattacharya, S. C. and Abdul Salam, P. (2002) ‘Low greenhouse gas biomass options for cooking in the developing countries’,Biomass and Bioenergy, vol 22, pp305–317 Bicudo, J. R. and Goyal, S. M. (2003) ‘Pathogens and manure management systems: A review’, Environmental Technology, vol 24, pp115–130 Boehm, H. P. (1994) ‘Some aspects of the surface chemistry of carbon blacks and other carbons’, Carbon, vol 32, pp759–769 Bridgwater, A. V. (2003) ‘Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of biomass’, Chemical Engineering Journal, vol 91, pp87–102 Bridgwater, A. V., Meier, D. and Radlein, D. (1999) ‘An overview of fast pyrolysis of biomass’,Organic Geochemistry, vol 30, pp1479–1493 Cantrell, K., Ro, K., Mahajan, D., Anjom, M. and Hunt, P. G. (2007) ‘Role of thermochemical conversion in livestock waste-to-energy treat- ments: Obstacles and opportunities’,Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol 46, pp8918–8927 Carpenter, S. R., Caraco, N. F., Correll, D. L., Howarth, R. W., Sharpley, A. N. and Smith, V. H. (1998) ‘Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen’, Ecological Applications, vol 8, pp559–568 Cheng, C. H., Lehmann, J., Thies, J. E. and Burton, S. D. (2008) ‘Stability of black carbon in soils across a climatic gradient’,Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 113, G02027Conway, G. (1999) The Doubly Green Revolution, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, US Demirbas, A. (2002) ‘Utilization of urban and pulping wastes to produce synthetic fuel via pyrolysis’,Energy Sources A, vol 24, pp205–213 Demirbas, A. (2004a) ‘Determination of calorific values of bio-chars and pyro-oils from pyrolysis of beech trunkbarks’,Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, vol 72, pp215–219 Demirbas, A. (2004b) ‘Bioenergy, global warm- ing, and environmental impacts’,Energy Sources, vol 26, pp225–236 EIA (US Energy Information Administration) (2007) ‘International total primary energy consumption and energy intensity’, Energy Information Administration, US Government, www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1 .xls, accessed 10 August 2008 Evenson, R. R. and Gollin, D. (2003) ‘Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000’,Science, vol 300, pp758–762 FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) (2006) The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO, Rome, www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/ a0750e00.htm, accessed 7 August 2008 Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway, T., Howard, E. A., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J. A., Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N. and Snyder, P. K. (2005) ‘Global consequences of land use’, Science, vol 309, pp570–574 Franklin, R. E. (1950) ‘The interpretation of diffuse X–ray diagrams of carbon’,Acta Crystallography,vol 3, pp107–121 Franklin, R. E. (1951) ‘Crystallite growth in graphitizing and non-graphitizing carbons’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol 209, pp196–218 Gaunt, J. and Lehmann, J. (2008) ‘Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar seques- tration and pyrolysis bioenergy production’, Environmental Science and Technology, vol 42, pp4152–4158 References ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 10 Glaser, B., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G. and Zech, W. (2001) ‘The Terra Preta phenome- non: A model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics’,Naturwissenschaften,vol 88, pp37–41 Harris, P. (1999) ‘On charcoal’,Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol 24, pp301–306 IAASTD (2008) International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, www.agassessment.org, accessed 8 August 2008 Karaosmanoglu, F., Isigigur-Ergundenler, A. and Sever, A. (2000) ‘Biochar from the straw-stalk of rapeseed plant’,Energy and Fuels, vol 14, pp336–339 Kim, S. and Dale, B. E. (2004) ‘Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues’,Biomass and Bioenergy, vol 26, pp361–375 Kimetu, J., Lehmann, J., Ngoze, S., Mugendi, D., Kinyangi, J., Riha, S., Verchot, L., Recha, J. and Pell, A. (2008) ‘Reversibility of soil productiv- ity decline with organic matter of differing quality along a degradation gradient’, Ecosystems, vol 11, pp726–739 Kishimoto, S. and Sugiura, G. (1980) Introduction to Charcoal Making on Sunday, Sougou Kagaku Shuppan, Tokyo (in Japanese) Kishimoto, S. and Sugiura, G. (1985) ‘Charcoal as a soil conditioner’, inSymposium on Forest Products Research, International Achievements for the Future, vol 5, pp12–23 Kuhlbusch, T. A. J. and Crutzen, P. J. (1995) ‘Toward a global estimate of black carbon in residues of vegetation fires representing a sink of atmospheric CO 2and a source of O2’,Global Biogeochemical Cycles, vol 9, pp491–501 Laird, D. A. (2008) ‘The charcoal vision: A win–win–win scenario for simultaneously producing bioenergy, permanently sequester- ing carbon, while improving soil and water quality’,Agronomy Journal, vol 100, pp178–181 Lehmann, J. (2007a) ‘Bio-energy in the black’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol 5, pp381–387 Lehmann, J. (2007b) ‘A handful of carbon’, Nature, vol 447, pp143–144 Lehmann, J. (2009) ‘Terra preta Nova – where to from here?’, in W. I. Woods, W. G. Teixeira, J. Lehmann, C. Steiner and A. WinklerPrins (eds)Terra preta Nova: A Tribute to Wim Sombroek, Springer, Berlin, pp473–486 Lehmann, J., Kern, D. C., Glaser, B. and Woods, W. I. (2003a) Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands Lehmann, J., da Silva, Jr., J. P., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W. and Glaser, B. (2003b) ‘Nutrient avail- ability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amend- ments’,Plant and Soil,vol 249, pp343–357 Lehmann, J., Liang, B., Solomon, D., Lerotic, M., Luizão, F., Kinyangi, F., Schäfer, T., Wirick, S. and Jacobsen, C. (2005) ‘Near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) spec- troscopy for mapping nano-scale distribution of organic carbon forms in soil: Application to black carbon particles’,Global Biogeochemical Cycles, vol 19, pGB1013 Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J. and Rondon, M. (2006) ‘Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosys- tems – a review’,Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol 11, pp403–427 Leinweber, P. and Schulten, H.-R. (1999) ‘Advances in analytical pyrolysis of soil organic matter’,Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, vol 49, pp359–383 Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J., O’Neill, B., Skjemstad, J. O., Thies, J., Luizão, F. J., Petersen, J. and Neves, E. G. (2006) ‘Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils’,Soil Science Society of America Journal,vol 70, pp1719–1730 Liebig, J. von (1878) Chemische Briefe,C.F. Winter’sche Verlagshandlung, Leipzig and Heidelberg, Germany Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. and Swift, M. J. (1997) ‘Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties’,Science, vol 277, pp504–509 Matteson, G. C. and Jenkins, B. M. (2007) ‘Food and processing residues in California: Resource assessment and potential for power generation’, Bioresource Technology, vol 98, pp3098–3105 Miyazaki,Y. (1697) Nougyou-Zennsho [Encyclopedia of Agriculture], vol 1, pp91–104, in 12-volume Nihon Nousho Zenshu[Complete Works of Ancient Agricultural Books in Japan], Nousangyoson Bunka Kyokai, Tokyo (in Japanese) BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT11 ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 11 Morley, J. (1927) ‘Following through with grass seeds’,The National Greenkeeper, vol 1, no 1, p15 Morley, J. (1929) ‘Compost and charcoal’,The National Greenkeeper, vol 3, no 9, pp8–26 Müller, A., Schmidhuber, J., Hoogeveen, J. and Steduto, P. (2008) ‘Some insights in the effect of growing bio-energy demand on global food security and natural resources’,Water Policy, vol 10, pp83–94 The National Greenkeeper(1933) advertisement for Cleve-Brand Charcoal,The National Greenkeeper, vol 7, no 2, 8 February, p10 Ogawa, M. (undated) ‘Introduction to the pioneer works of charcoal uses in agriculture, forestry and others in Japan’, unpublished manuscript Pacala, S. and Socolow, R. (2004) ‘Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies’, Science, vol 305, pp968–972 Peacocke, C. and Joseph, S. (undated) ‘Notes on terminology and technology in thermal conver- sion prepared for the International Biochar web site’, www. Biochar-international.org/images/ Terminology_and_Technology_final_vCP_sj. doc, accessed 15 August 2008 Petersen, J. B., Neves, E. and Heckenberger, M. J. (2001) ‘Gift from the past: Terra Preta and prehistoric Amerindian occupation in Amazonia’, in C. McEwan, C. Barreto and E. Neves (eds) Unknown Amazonia, British Museum Press, London, UK, pp86–105 Retan, G. A. (1915) ‘Charcoal as a means of solv- ing some nursery problems’,Forestry Quarterly, vol 13, pp25–30 Robertson, G. P. and Swinton, S. M. (2005) ‘Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: A grand challenge for agriculture’,Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol 3, pp38–46 Sabine, C. L., Heimann, M., Artaxo, P., Bakker, D. C. E., Chen, C. T. A., Field, C. B., Gruber, N., Quéré, C. le, Prinn, R. G., Richey, J. E., Lankao, P. R., Sathaye, J. A. and Valentini, R. (2004) ‘Current status and past trends of the global carbon cycle’, in C. B. Field and M. R. Raupach (eds) SCOPE 62,The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate, and the Natural World, Island Press, Washington, DC, US, pp17–44 Sanchez, P. A. (2002) ‘Soil fertility and hunger in Africa’,Science, vol 295, pp2019–2020Santiago, A. and Santiago, L. (1989) ‘Charcoal chips as a practical substrate for container horticulture in the humid tropics’,Acta Horticulturae, vol 238, pp141–147 Schmidt, M. W. I. and Noack, A. G. (2000) ‘Black carbon in soils and sediments: Analysis, distri- bution, implications, and current challenges’, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, vol 14, pp777–794 Shindo, H. (1991) ‘Elementary composition, humus composition, and decomposition in soil of charred grassland plants’,Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, vol 37, pp651–657 Skjemstad, J. O., Clarke, P., Taylor, J. A., Oades, J. M. and McClure, S. G. (1996) ‘The chem- istry and nature of protected carbon in soil’, Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol 34, pp251–271 Smeets, E. M. W. and Faaij, A. P. C (2006) ‘Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050’, Climatic Change, vol 81, pp353–390 Steiner, C., Teixeira, W. G., Lehmann, J., Nehls, T., Macedo, J. L. V., Blum, W. E. H. and Zech, W. (2007) ‘Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil’,Plant and Soil,vol 291, pp275–290 Stocking, M. A. (2003) ‘Tropical soils and food security: The next 50 years’,Science, vol 302, pp1356–1359 Tilman, D. (1998) ‘The greening of the green revolution’,Nature, vol 396, pp211–212 Trimble, W. H. (1851) ‘On charring wood’, Plough, the Loom and the Anvil, vol 3, pp513–516 Tryon, E. H. (1948) ‘Effect of charcoal on certain physical, chemical, and biological properties of forest soils’,Ecological Monographs, vol 18, pp81–115 Westrell, T., Schönning, C., Stenström, T. A. and Ashbolt, N. J. (2004) ‘QMRA (quantitative microbial risk assessment) and HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control points) for management of pathogens in wastewater and sewage sludge treatment and reuse’,Water Science and Technology, vol 2, pp23–30 Young, A. (1804) The Farmer’s Calendar, Richard Philips, London, UK 12BIOCHAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ES_BEM_16-2 23/2/09 17:23 Page 12


Biochar Application to Soils

16 June, 2017
 

Or login with

Don’t have an account? Register

1-8 Characters

By clicking the Register button below, you agree to our terms of service.

Already have an account? Log in

EMBED

SHARE

DOWNLOAD

REPORT

You can download, share and embed this document

Biochar Application to Soils A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions F. Verheijen, S. Jeffery, A.C. Ba stos, M. van der Velde, I. Diafas EUR 24099 EN – 2010 The mission of the JRC-IES is to provide scientific-technical support to the European Union’s policies for the protection and sustainable development of the European and global environment. European Commission, Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Contact information Address: Dr. Frank Verheijen, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit, TP 280, via E. Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA) Italy E-mail: frank.verheijen@jrc.ec.europa.eu Tel.: +39-0332-785535 Fax: +39-0332-786394 http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ Legal Notice Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/ JRC 55799 EUR 24099 – EN ISBN 978-92-79-14293-2 ISSN 1018-5593 DOI 10.2788/472 Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities © European Communities, 2010 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged Title page artwork: Charcoal drawing by Marshall Short Printed in Italy Biochar Application to Soils A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions F. Verheijen 1, S. Jeffery1, A.C. Bastos2, M. van der Velde1, I. Diafas1 1 Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre (Ispra) 2 Cranfield University (UK) * Corresponding author: frank.verheijen@jrc.ec.europa.eu ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this report was an institutional initiative. We have received good support from Luca Montanarella, our soil co lleagues in DG ENV provided helpful reviews and comments along the way, and two external experts reviewed the document in detail, thereby improving the quality of the final version. This volume should be referenced as: Verheijen, F.G.A., Jeffery, S., Bastos, A.C., van der Velde, M., and Diafas, I. (2009). Biochar Application to Soils – A Critical Scientific Review of Effe cts on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions. EUR 24099 EN, Office for the Of ficial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 149pp. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Biochar application to soils is being considered as a means to sequester carbon (C) while concurrently improving soil functions. The main focus of this report is providing a critical scientific re view of the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of biochar application to soils on soil properties, processes and functions. Wider issues , including atmospheric emissions and occupational health and safety associat ed to biochar production and handling, are put into context. The aim of this re view is to provide a sound scientific basis for policy development, to identif y gaps in current knowledge, and to recommend further research relating to biochar application to soils. See Table 1 for an overview of the key findings from this report. Biochar research is in its relative infancy and as such substant ially more data are required before robust predictions can be m ade regarding the effects of biochar application to soils, across a range of soil, climatic and land management factors. Definition In this report, biochar is defined as: “charcoal (biomass that has b een pyrolysed in a zero or low oxygen environment) for which, owing to its inherent properties, scientific consensus ex ists that application to soil at a specific site is expected to sustai nably sequester carbon and concurrently improve soil functions ( under current and future management), while avoiding short- and long-term detrimental effects to the wider environment as well as human and animal health.” Biochar as a material is defined as: “charcoal for application to soils”. It should be noted that the term ‘biochar’ is generally associated with other co-pr oduced end products of pyrolysis such as ‘syngas’. However, these are not usually applied to soil and as such are only discussed in brief in the report. Biochar properties Biochar is an organic material produc ed via the pyrolysis of C-based feedstocks (biomass) and is best described as a ‘soil conditioner’. Despite many different materials having been proposed as biomass feedstock for biochar (including wood, crop residues and manures), the suitability of each feedstock for such an application is dependent on a number of chemical, physical, environmental, as well as ec onomic and logistical factors. Evidence suggests that components of the carbon in biochar are highly recalcitrant in soils, with reported residence times fo r wood biochar being in the range of 100s to 1,000s of years, i.e. approx imately 10-1,000 times longer than residence times of most soil organic matter (SOM). Therefore, biochar addition to soil can provi de a potential sink for C. It is important to note, however, that there is a paucity of data concerning bi ochar produced from feedstocks other than wood. Owing to th e current interest in climate change mitigation, and the irreversibility of bi ochar application to soil, an effective evaluation of biochar stability in t he environment and its effects on soil processes and functioning is paramoun t. The current state of knowledge concerning these factors is discussed throughout this report. Pyrolysis conditions and feedstock characte ristics largely control the physico- chemical properties (e.g. composition, par ticle and pore size distribution) of the resulting biochar, which in turn, determine the suitability for a given application, as well as define its behaviour, transport and fate in the environment. Reported biochar properties are highly heterogeneous, both within individual biochar particles but ma inly between biochar originating from different feedstocks and/or produced under different pyrolysis conditions. For example, biochar properties have been reported with cation exchange capacities (CECs) from negligible to approximately 40 cmolc g -1, C:N ratios from 7 to 500 (or more). The pH is typically neutral to basic and as such relatively constant. While such heterogenei ty leads to difficulties in identifying the underlying mechanisms behind reported e ffects in the scientific literature, it also provides a possible opportunity to engineer biochar with properties that are best suited to a particular site (dependi ng on soil type, hydrology, climate, land use, soil contaminants, etc.). Effects on soils Biochar characteristics (e.g. chemical co mposition, surface chemistry, particle and pore size distribution), as well as physical and chemical stabilisation mechanisms of biochar in soils, determine the effects of biochar on soil functions. However, the relative contribut ion of each of these factors has been assessed poorly, particularly under the infl uence of different climatic and soil conditions, as well as soil management and land use. Reported biochar loss from soils may be explained to a cert ain degree by abiotic and biological degradation and translocation within the so il profile and into water systems. Nevertheless, such mechanisms have been quantified scarcely and remain poorly understood, partly due to the lim ited amount of long-term studies, and partly due to the lack of standardised methods for simulating biochar aging and long-term environmental monitoring. A sound understanding of the contribution that biochar can make as a tool to improve soil properties, processes and functioning, or at least av oiding negative effects, largely relies on knowing the extent and fu ll implications of the biochar interactions and changes over time within the soil system. Extrapolation of reported results must be done with caution, especially when considering the relatively small number of studies reported in the primary literature, combined with the small range of climatic, crop and soil types investigated when compared to possible instigation of biochar application to soils on a national or Eu ropean scale. To try and bridge the gap between small scale, controlled experiments and la rge scale implementation of biochar application to a range of soil types across a range of different climates (although chiefly tropical), a statistica l meta-analysis was undertaken. A full search of the scientific lit erature led to a compilation of studies used for a meta-analysis of the effects of biochar application to soils and plant productivity. Results showed a small overall, but statistically significant, positive effect of biochar application to soils on plant productivity in the majority of cases. The greatest posit ive effects were seen on acidic free- draining soils with other soil types , specifically calcarosols showing no significant effect (either positive or negative). There was also a general trend for concurrent increases in crop produc tivity with increases in pH up on biochar addition to soils. This sugges ts that one of the main mechanisms behind the reported positive effects of biochar application to soils on plant productivity may be a liming effect. However, further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. There is cu rrently a lack of data concerning the effects of biochar application to soils on other soil functions. This means that although these are qu alitatively and comprehensively discussed in this report, a robust meta-analysis on such effects is as of yet not possible. Table 0.1 provides an overview of the key findi ngs – positive, negative, and unknown – regarding the (potential) effects on soil, including relevant conditions. Preliminary, but inconclusive, evidenc e has also been reported concerning a possible priming effect whereby acce lerated decomposition of SOM occurs upon biochar addition to soil. This has the potential to both harm crop productivity in the long term due to loss of SOM, as well as releasing more CO 2 into the atmosphere as increased quant ities of SOM is respired from the soil. This is an area which requi res urgent further research. Biochar incorporation into soil is expected to enhance overall sorption capacity of soils towards anthropogenic organic contaminants (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons – PAHs, pesticides and herbicides), in a mechanistically different (and stronge r) way than amorphous organic matter. Whereas this behaviour may greatly mitigate toxicity and transport of common pollutants in soils through reducing their bi oavailability, it might also result in their localised accumulation, although the extent and implications of this have not been fully assessed experimentally. The potential of biochar to be a source of soil contamination needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not only with concern to the biochar produ ct itself, but also to soil type and environmental conditions. Implications As highlighted above, before policy can be developed in det ail, there is an urgent need for further experimental resear ch with regard to long-term effects of biochar application on so il functions, as well as on the behaviour and fate in different soil types (e.g. disintegrati on, mobility, recalcitrance), and under different management practices. The use of representative pilot areas, in different soil ecoregions, involving biochars produced from a representative range of feedstocks is vital. Potential research methodologies are discussed in the report. Future research should also include biochars from non-lignin- based feedstocks (such as crop residues , manures, sewage and green waste) and focus on their properties and environ mental behaviour and fate as influenced by soil conditions. It must be stressed that published research is almost exclusively focused on (sub)tr opical regions, and that the available data often only relate to t he first or second year follo wing biochar application. Preliminary evidence suggests that a tight control on the feedstock materials and pyrolysis conditions might substant ially reduce the emission levels of atmospheric pollutants (e.g. PAHs, dioxins) and particulate matter associated to biochar production. While implications to human health remain mostly an occupational hazard, robust qualitativ e and quantitative assessment of such emissions from pyrolysis of traditional biomass feedstock is lacking. Biochar potentially affects many different soil functions and ecosystem services, and interacts with most of t he ‘threats to soil’ outlined by the Soil Thematic Strategy (COM(2006) 231) . It is because of the wide range of implications from biochar application to soils, combined with the irreversibility of its application that more interdisci plinary research needs to be undertaken before policy is implemented. Policy shou ld first be designed with the aim to invest in fundamental scientif ic research in biochar application to soil. Once positive effects on soil have been establis hed robustly for certain biochars at a specific site (set of environmental conditions), a tiered approach can be imagined where these combi nations of biochar and specific site conditions are considered for implementation first. A se cond tier would then consist of other biochars (from different feedstock and/or pyrolysis conditions) for which more research is required before site-s pecific application is considered. From a climate change mitigation per spective, biochar needs to be considered in parallel wit h other mitigation strategi es and cannot be seen as an alternative to reducing emissi ons of greenhouse gases. From a soil conservation perspective, biochar may be part of a wider practical package of established strategies and, if so, needs to be considered in combination with other techniques. Table 0.1 Overview of key fi ndings (numbers in parentheses refer to relevant sections) Description Conditions Empirical evidence of charcoal in soils exists (long term) Biochar analogues (pyrogenic BC and charcoal) are found in substantial quanities in soils of mo st parts of the world (1.2-1.4) The principle of improving soils has been tried successfully in the past Anthrosols can be found in many parts of the world, although normally of very small spatial extent. Contemplation of Anthrosol generation at a vast scale requires more comprehensive, detailed and careful analysis of effects on soils as well as interactions with other environmental components before implementation (1.2-1.3 and throughout) Plant production has been found to increase significantly after biochar addition to soils Studies have been reported almost exclusively from tropical regions with specific environmental conditi ons, and generally for very limited time periods, i.e. 1-2 yr. Some cases of negative effects on crop production have also been reported (3.3). Liming effect Most biochars have neutral to basic pH and many field experiments show an increase in soil pH after biochar application when the initial pH was low. On alkaline soils this may be an undesirable effect. Sustained liming effects may require regular applications (3.1.4) High sorption affinity for HOC may enhance the overall sorption capacity of soils towards these trace contaminants Biochar application is likely to improve the overall sorption capacity of soils towards common anthropogenic organic compounds (e.g. PAHs, pesticides and herbicides), and therefore influence toxicity, transport and fate of such contaminants. Enhanced sorption capacity of a silt loam for diuron and other anionic and cationic herbicides has been observed follo wing incorporation of biochar from crop residues (3.2.2) Positives Microbial habitat and provision of refugia for microbes whereby they are protected from grazing Biochar addition to soil has been shown to increase microbial biomass and microbial activity, as well as microbial efficieny as a measure of CO2 released per unit microbial biomass C. The degree of the response appears to be dependent on nutrient avaialbility insoils 9 Increases in mycorrhizal abundace which is linked to observed increases in plant productivity Possibly due to: a) alteration of soil physico-chemical properties; b) indirect effects on mycorrhizae through effects on other soil microbes; c) plant–fungus signalling interference and detoxification of allelochemicals on biochar; or d) provision of refugia from fungal grazers (3.2.6) Increases in earthworm abundance and activity Earthworms have been shown to prefer some soils amended with biochar than those soils alone. However, this is not true of all biochars, particularly at high application rates (3.2.6) The use of biochar analogues for assessing effects of modern biochars is very limited Charcoal in Terra Preta soils is limited to Amazonia and have received many diverse additions other than charcoal. Pyrogenic BCis found in soils in many parts of the world but are of limited feedstock types and pyrolysis conditions (Chapter 1) Soil loss by erosion Top-dressing biochar to soil is likely to increase erosion of the biochar particles both by wind (dust) and water. Many other effects of biochar in soil on erosion can be theorised, but remain untested at present (4.1) Soil compaction during application Any application carries a risk of soil compaction when performed under inappropriate conditions. Careful planning and management could prevent this effect (4.6) Risk of contamination Contaminants (e.g. PAHs, heavy metals, dioxins) that may bepresent in biochar may have detri mental effects on soil properties and functions. The ocurrence of such compounds in biochar is likely to derive from either contaminated feedstocks or the use ofprocessing conditions that may favour their production. Evidence suggests that a tight control over the type of feedstock used and lower pyrolysis temperatures (67 t ha-1 (produced from poultry litter) were shown to have a negative effect on earthworm survival rates, possibly due to increases in pH or salt levels (3.2.6) Empirical evidence is extremely scarce for many modern biochars in soils under modern arable management Biochar analogues do not exist for many feedstocks, or for some modern pyrolysis conditions. Biochar can be produced with a wide variety of properties and applied to soils with a wide variety of properties. Some short term (1-2 yr) evidence exists, but only for a small set of biochar, environmental and soil management factors and almost no data is available on long term effect (1.2-1.4) C Negativity The carbon storage capacity of biochar is widely hypothesised, although it is still largely unquantified and depends on many factors (environmental, economic, social) in all parts of the life cycle of biochar and at the several scales of operation (1.5.2 and Chapter 5) Effects on N cycle N2O emissions depend on effects of biochar addition on soil hydrology (water-filled pore volume) and associated microbial processes. Mechanisms are poorly understood and thresholds largely unknown (1.5.2) Biochar Loading Capacity (BLC) BLC is likely to be crop as well as soil dependent leading to potential incompatibilities between the irreversibility of biochar once applied to soil and changing crop demands (1.5.1) Unknown Environmental behaviour The extent and implications of the changes that biochar undergoes in soil remain largely unknown. Although biochar physical-chemical mobility and fate properties and stabilization mechanisms may explain biochar long mean residence times in soil, the relative contribution of each factor for its short- and long-term loss has been sparsely assessed, particularly when influenced by soil environmental conditions. Also, biochar loss and mobility through the soil profile and into the water resources has been scarcely quant ified and transport mechanisms remain poorly understood (3.2.1) Distribution and availability of contaminants (e.g. heavy metals, PAHs) within biochar Very little experimental evidence is available on the short- and long-term occurrence and bioavailability of such contaminants in biochar and biochar-enriched soil. Full and careful risk assessment in this context is urgently required, in order to relate the bioavailability and toxicity of the contaminant to biochar type and ‘safe’ application rates, biomass feedstock and pyrolysi s conditions, as well as soil type and environmental conditions (3.2.4) Effect on soil organic matter dynamics Various relevant processes are acknowledged but the way these are influenced by combinations of soil-climate-management factors remains largely unknown (Section 3.2.5) Pore size and connectivity Although pore size distribution in bi ochar may significantly alter key soil physical properties and processes (e.g. water retention, aeration, habitat), experimental evidence on this is scarce and the underlying mechanisms can only be hypothesised at this stage (2.3 and 3.1.3) Soil water retention/availability Adding biochar to soil can have dire ct and indirect effects on soil water retention, which can be short or long lived, and which can be negative or positive depending on soil type. Positive effects are dependent on high applications of bioc har. No conclusive evidence was found to allow the establishment of an unequivocal relation between soil water retention and biochar application (3.1.2) Soil compaction Various processes associated with soil compaction are relevant to biochar application, some reducing others increasing soil compaction. Experimental research is lacking. The main risk to soil compaction could probably be reduced by establishing a guide of good practice regarding biochar application (3.1.1 and 4.6) Priming effect Some inconclusive evidence of a po ssible priming effect exists in the literature, but the evidence is relatively inconclusive and covers only the short term and a very restricted sample of biochar and soil types (3.2.5.4) Effects on soil megafauna Neither the effects of direct contac t with biochar containing soils on the skin and respiratory systems of soil megafanua are known, nor the effects or ingestion due to eating other soil organisms, such as earthworms, which are likely to contain biochar in their guts (3.2.6.3) Hydrophobicity The mechnanisms of soil water repellency are understood poorly in general. How biochar might influence hydrophobicity remains largely untested (3.1.2.1) Enhanced decomposition of biochar due to agricultural management It is unknow how much subsequent agricultural management practices (planting, ploughing, etc.) in an agricultural soil with biochar may influence (accelerate) t he disintegration of biochar in the soil, thereby potentially reducing its carbon storage potential (3.2.3) Soil CEC There is good potential that biochar can improve the CEC of soil. However, the effectiveness and duration of this effect after addition to soils remain understood poorly (2.5 and 3.1.4) Soil Albedo That biochar will lower the albedo of the soil surface is fairly well established, but if and where this will lead to a substantial soil warming effect is untested (3.1.3) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 LIST OF FIGURES 15 LIST OF TABLES 19 LIST OF ACRONYMS 21 LIST OF UNITS 23 LIST OF CHEMICAL EL EMENTS AND FORMULAS 25 LIST OF KEY TERMS 27 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 31 1.1 Biochar in the attention 33 1.2 Historical perspective on soil improvement 35 1.3 Different solutions to similar problems 37 1.4 Biochar and pyrogenic black carbon 37 1.5 Carbon sequestration potential 38 1.5.1 Biochar loading capacity 40 1.5.2 Other greenhouse gasses 41 1.6 Pyrolysis 42 1.6.1 The History of Pyrolysis 43 1.6.2 Methods of Pyrolysis 43 1.7 Feedstocks 45 1.8 Application Strategies 49 1.9 Summary 50 2. PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF BIOCHAR 51 2.1 Structural and Chemical Composition 51 2.1.1 Structural composition 51 2.1.2 Chemical composition and surface chemistry 52 2.2 Particle size distribution 54 2.2.1 Biochar dust 56 2.3 Pore size distribution and connectivity 56 2.4 Thermodynamic stability 58 2.5 CEC and pH 58 2.6 Summary 58 3. EFFECTS ON SOIL PROP ERTIES, PROCESSES AND FUNCTIONS 61 3.1 Properties 61 3.1.1 Soil Structure 61 3.1.1.1 Soil Density 61 3.1.1.2 Soil pore size distribution 63 3.1.2 Water and Nutrient Retention 64 3.1.2.1 Soil water repellency 66 3.1.3 Soil colour, albedo and warming 67 3.1.4 CEC and pH 68 3.2 Soil Processes 69 3.2.1 Environmental behav iour, mobility and fate 69 3.2.2 Sorption of Hydrophob ic Organic Compounds (HOCs) 72 3.2.3 Nutrient retention/availability/leaching 76 3.2.4 Contamination 78 3.2.5 Soil Organic Matter (SOM) Dynamics 81 3.2.5.1 Recalcitrance of biochar in soils 81 3.2.5.2 Organomineral interactions 82 3.2.5.3 Accessibility 83 3.2.5.4 Priming effect 83 3.2.5.5 Residue Removal 85 3.2.6 Soil Biology 85 3.2.6.1 Soil microbiota 87 3.2.6.2 Soil meso and macrofauna 89 3.2.6.3 Soil megafauna 90 3.3 Production Function 91 3.3.1 Meta-analysis methods 91 3.3.2 Meta-analysis results 93 3.3.3 Meta-analysis recommendations 98 3.3.4 Other components of crop production function 98 3.4 Summary 98 4. BIOCHAR AND ‘THREATS TO SOIL’ 101 4.1 Soil loss by erosion 101 4.2 Decline in soil organic matter 103 4.3 Soil contamination 103 4.4 Decline in soil biodiversity 105 4.6 Soil compaction 106 4.7 Soil salinisation 106 4.8 Summary 107 5. WIDER ISSUES 109 5.1 Emissions and atmospheric pollution 109 5.2 Occupational health and safety 111 5.3 Monitoring biochar in soil 113 5.4 Economic Considerations 113 5.4.1 Private costs and benefits 113 5.4.2 Social costs and benefits 116 5.5 Is biochar soft geo-engineering? 117 5.6 Summary 118 6. KEY FINDINGS 121 6.1 Summary of Key Findings 121 6.1.1 Background and Introduction 124 6.1.2 Physicochemical properties of Biochar 124 6.1.3 Effects on soil properties, processes and functions 125 6.1.4 Biochar and soil threats 127 6.1.5 Wider issues 127 6.2 Synthesis 128 6.2.1 Irreversibility 128 6.2.2 Quality assessment 128 6.2.3 Scale and life cycle 129 6.2.4 Mitigation/adaptation 129 6.3 Knowledge gaps 131 6.3.1 Safety 131 6.3.2 Soil organic matter dynamics 131 6.3.3 Soil biology 132 6.3.4 Behaviour, mobility and fate 132 6.3.5 Agronomic effects 133 References 135 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Google Trends TM result of “biochar”, “Terra Preta” and “black earth”. The scale is based on t he average worldwide traffic of “biochar” from January 2004 until June 2009 (search performed on 04/12/2009) 33 Figure 1.2 Google Trends TM geographical distribut ion of the search volume index of “biochar” of the last 12 months from June 2008 to June 2009 (search performed on 16/09/2009). Data is normalised against the overall search volume by country 34 Figure 1.3 Scientific publications r egistred in Thompson’s ISI Web of Science indexed for either biochar or bio-char including those articles that mention charcoal (search performed on 4/12/2009) 35 Figure 1.4 Distribution of Anthrosols in Amazonia (left; Glaser et al., 2001) and Europe (middle and right; Toth et al., 2008; Blume and Leinweber, 2004) 35 Figure 1.5 Comparing tropical with te mperate Anthrosols. The left half shows a profile of a fertile Terra Preta (Anthrosol with charcoal) created by adding charc oal to the naturally-occurring nutrient poor Oxisol (far left; photo courtesy of Bruno Glaser). The right half (far right) is a profile picture of a fertile European Plaggen Soil (Plaggic Anthroso l; photo courtesy of Erica Micheli) created by adding peat and manure to the naturally- occurring nutrient poor sandy soils (Arenosols) of The Netherlands 36 Figure 1.6 Terms and proper ties of pyrogenic BC (adopted from Preston and Schmidt, 2006) 38 Figure 1.7 Diagram of the carbon cycl e. The black numbers indicate how much carbon is stored in various re servoirs, in billions of tons (GtC = Gigatons of Carbon and figures are circa 2004). The purple numbers indicate how much carbon moves between reservoirs each year, i.e. the fluxes. The sediments, as defined in this diagram, do not include the ~70 million GtC of carbonate rock and kerogen (NASA, 2008) 39 Figure 1.9 A graph sh owing the relative proporti ons of end products after fast pyrolysis of aspen poplar at a range of temperatures (adapted from IEA, 2007) 44 Figure 2.1 Putative structure of charcoal (adopt ed from Bourke et al., 2007). A model of a microcrist alline graphitic structure is shown on on the left and an arom atic structure containing oxygen and carbon free radicals on the right 51 Figure 3.1 Typical representation of the soil water retention curve as provided by van Genuchten (1980) and the hypothesized effect of the addition of biochar to this soil 66 Figure 3.2 The percentage change in cr op productivity upon application of biochar at different rates, from a range of feedstocks along with varying fertiliserco-amendm ents. Points represent mean and bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Numbers next to bars denote biochar application rates (t ha -1). Numbers in the two columns on the right show number of total ‘replicates’ upon which the statistical analysi s is based (bold) and the number of ‘experimental treatm ents’ which have been grouped for each analysis (italics) 93 Figure 3.3 Percentage change in crop productivity upon application of biochar at different rates along with varying fertiliserco- amendments grouped by change in pH caused by biochar addition to soil. Points repr esent mean and bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Values next to bars denote change in pH value. Numbers in the two columns on the right show number of total ‘replic ates’ upon which the statistical analysis is based (bold) and the number of ‘experimental treatments’ which have been grouped for each analysis (italics) 94 Figure 3.4 The percentage change in crop productivity o upon application of biochar at different rates along with varying fertiliserco- amendments to a range of differ ent soils. Points shows mean and bars so 95% confidence inte rvals. Numbers in the two columns on the right show num ber of total ‘replicates’ upon which the statistical analysis is based (bold) and the number of ‘experimental treatme nts’ which have been grouped for each analysis (italics) 95 Figure 3.5 The percentage change in cr op productivity of either the biomass or the grain upon applicat ion of biochar at different rates along with varying fertiliserco-amendments. Points shows mean and bars so 95% c onfidence intervals. Numbers in the two columns on the right show number of total ‘replicates’ upon which the statisti cal analysis is based (bold) and the number of ‘experimental treatments’ which have been grouped for each analysis (italics) 96 Figure 3.6 The percentage change in cr op productivity upon application of biochar along with a co-amendment of organic fertiliser(o), inorganic fertiliser(I) or no fertiliser(none). Points shows mean and bars so 95% confidence inte rvals. Numbers in the two columns on the right show num ber of total ‘replicates’ upon which the statistical analysis is based (bold) and the number of ‘experimental treatme nts’ which have been grouped for each analysis (italics) 97 Figure 5.1 Effect of transportation di stance in biochar systems with bioenergy production using the example of late stover feedstock (high 17 revenue scenario) on net GHG, net energy and net revenue (adopted from Roberts et al., 2009) 19 LIST OF TABLES Table 0.1 Overview of key findings Table 1.1 The mean post-pyrolysis feedstock residues resulting from different temperatures and reside nce times (adapted from IEA, 2007) 45 Table 1.2 Summary of key component s (by weight) in biochar feedstocks (adapted from Brown et al., 2009) 46 Table 1.3 Examples of the proportions of nutrients (g kg -1) in feedstocks (adapted from Chan and Xu, 2009) 47 Table 2.1 Relative proportion range of the four main components of biochar (weight percentage) as commonly found for a variety of source materials and pyroly sis conditions (adapted from Brown, 2009; Antal and Gronli, 2003) 52 Table 2.2 Summary of total elemental composition (C, N, C:N, P, K, available P and mineral N) and pH ranges and means of biochars from a variety of feedstocks (wood, green wastes, crop residues, sewage sludge, li tter, nut shells) and pyrolysis conditions (350-500ºC) used in va rious studies (adapted from Chan and Xu, 2009) 53 Table 3.1 Pore size cl asses in material science vs. soil science 63 Table 6.1 Overview of key findings 121 LIST OF ACRONYMS BC Black carbon CEC Cation Exchange Capacity DOM Dissolved Organic Matter HOCs Hydrophobic Organic Compounds NOM Natural (or Native) Organic Matter NPs Nanoparticles OM Organic Matter PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCDD/PCDFs Dioxins and furans (S)OC (Soil) Organic Carbon SOM Soil Organic Matter SWR Soil Water Repellency VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds 23 LIST OF UNITS µm Micrometer (= 10-6 m) Bar 1 bar = 100 kPa = 0.987 atm Cmol c g-1 Centimol of charge (1 cmol kg-1 = 1 meq 100g-1) per gram Gt y -1 Gigatonnes per year J g-1 K-1 Joule (1J = 1 kg m2 sec-2) per gram per Kelvin J g-1 K-1 Joule per gram per Kelvin K Kelvin (1 K = oC + 273,15) kJ mol-1 Kilojoule (= 103 J) per mole (1 mol ≈ 6.022×1023 atoms or molecules of the pure substance measured) Mg ha -1 Megagram (= 106 g) per hectare nm Nanometer (= 10-9 m) oC sec-1 Degrees Celsius per second (rate of temperature increase) t ha -1 Tonnes per hectare v v-1 Volume per volume (e.g. 1 ml per 100 ml) w w-1 Weight per weight (e.g. 1 g per 100 g) 25 LIST OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS AND FORMULAS Al Aluminium Ar Arsenic C Carbon CaCO 3 Calcium carbonate CaO Calcium oxide CH 4 Methane Cl Chlorine CO 2 Carbon dioxide Cr Chromium Cu Copper H Hydrogen H 2 Hydrogen gas Hg Mercury K Potassium K 2O Potassium oxide Mg Magnesium N Nitrogen N 2O Nitrous oxide Na 2O Sodium oxide NH 4 + Ammonium (ion) Ni Nickel NO 3 – Nitrate (ion) O Oxygen P Phosphorus Pb Lead S Sulphur Si Silicon SiO 2 Silica (silicon dioxide) Zn Zinc LIST OF KEY TERMS Accelerated soil erosion Soil erosion, as a result of anthropogenic activity, in excess of natural soil formation rates causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions Activated carbon (noun) Charcoal produced to optimise its reactive surface area (e.g. by using steam during pyrolysis) Anthrosol (count noun) A soil that has been modified profoundly through human activities, such as addition of organic materials or household wastes, irrigation and cultivation (WRB, 2006) Biochar i) (Material) charcoal for application to soil ii) (Concept) “charcoal (biomass that has been pyrolysed in a zero or low oxygen environment) for which, owing to its inherent properties, scientific consensus exists that application to soil at a specific site is expected to sustainably sequester carbon and concurrently improve soil functions (under current and future management), while avoiding short- and long-term detrimental effects to the wider environment as well as human and animal health.” Black carbon (noun) All C-rich residues from fire or heat (including from coal, gas or petrol) Black Earth (mass noun) Term synonymous with Chernozem used (e.g. in Australia) to describe self-mulching black clays (SSSA, 2003) Char (mass noun) 1. Synonym of ‘charcoal’; 2. charred organic matter as a result of wildfire (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009) (verb) synonym of the term ‘pyrolyse’ Charcoal (mass noun) charred organic matter Chernozem (count noun) A black soil rich in organic matter; from the Russian ‘chernij’ meaning ‘black’ and ‘zemlja’ meaning ‘earth’ or ‘land’ (WRB, 2006) Coal (mass noun) Combustible black or dark brown rock consisting chiefly of carbonized plant matter, found mainly in underground seams and used as fuel (OED, 2003) Combustion (mass noun) chemistry Rapid chemical combination of a substance with oxygen, involving the production of heat and light (OED, 2003) Decline in soil biodiversity (soil threat) Reduction of forms of life living in the soil (both in terms of quantity and variety) and of related functions, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions Decline in soil organic matter (SOM) (soil threat) A negative imbalance between the build-up of SOM and rates of decomposition leading to an overall decline in SOM contents and/or quality, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions Desertification (soil threat) land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions Dust The finest fraction of biochar, ra ther than the particulate matter emitted during pyrolysis. This fr action comprises distinct particle sizes within the micro- and nano-size range. Ecosystem functions The capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly Feedstock (noun) Biomass that is pyrolysed in order to produce biochar Landslides The movement of a mass of rock, debri s, artificial fill or earth down a slope, under the force of gravity Nanoparticle (noun) Any particle with at least one dimension smaller than 100 nm (e.g. fullerenes or fullerene-like structures, crystalline forms of silica, cristobalite and tridymite) Organic carbon (noun) biology C that was originally part of an organism; (chemistry) C that is bound to at least one hydrogen (H) atom Pyrolysis (mass noun) The thermal degradation of biomass in the absence of oxygen leading to the produ ction of condensable vapours, gases and charcoal Soil ( mass noun ) The unconsolidated mineral or organic matter on the surface of the earth that has bee n subjected to and shows effects of genetic and environmental factors of: climate (including water and temperature effects), and macro- and microorganisms, conditioned by relief, acting on parent material over a period of time (ENVASSO, 2008). ( count noun ) a spatially explicit body of soil, usually differentiated vertically into layers formed nat urally over time, normally one of a specific soil class (in a specified soil classification system) surrounded by soils of other classes or other demarcations like hard rock, a water body or arti ficial barriers (ENVASSO, 2008) Soil compaction (soil threat) The densification and distortion of soil by which total and air-filled porosity are reduced, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions Soil contamination (soil threat) The accumulation of pollutants in soil above a certain level, causing a deterioration or lo ss of one or more soil functions. Soil erosion (soil threat) The wearing away of t he land surface by physical forces such as rainfall, flowing water, wind, ice, temperature change, gravity or other natura l or anthropogenic agents that abrade, detach and remove soil or geological material from one point on the earth’s surface to be deposited elsewhere. When the term ‘soil erosion’ is used in the context of it representing a soil threat it refers to ‘accelerated soil erosion’. Soil functions A subset of ecosystem functions: those ecosystem functions that are maintained by soil Usage: Most soil function systems include the following: 1) Habitat function 2) Information function 3) Production function 4) Engineering function 5) Regulation function Soil organic matter (noun) The organic fraction of the soil exclusive of undecayed plant and animal residues (SSSA, 2001) Soil salinisation (soil threat) Accumulation of water soluble salts in the soil, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions. Soil sealing (soil threat and key issue) The destruction or covering of soil by buildings, constructions and layers, or other bodies of artificial material which may be very slowly permeable to water (e.g. asphalt, concrete, etc.), causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions Soil threats A phenomenon that causes a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions. Usage: Eight main threats to soil identified by the EC (2002) with the addition of desertification: 1. Soil erosion 2. Decline in soil organic matter 3. Soil contamination 4. Soil sealing 5. Soil compaction 6. Decline in soil biodiversity 7. Soil salinisation 8. Landslides 29 9. Desertification Soil water repellency the reduction of the affinity of soils to water such that they resist wetting for periods ranging from a few seconds to hours, days or weeks (King, 1981) Terra Preta (noun) Colloquial term for a kind of Anthrosol where charcoal (or biochar) has been applied to soil along with many other materials, including pottery shards, turtle shells, animal and fish bones, etc. Originally found in Brazil. From the Portuguese ‘terra’ meaning ‘earth’ and ‘preta’ meaning ‘black’. 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Biochar is commonly defined as charr ed organic matter, produced with the intent to deliberately apply to soils to sequester carbon and improve soil properties (based on: Lehmann and Jose ph, 2009). The only difference between biochar and charcoal is in it s utilitarian intention; charcoal is produced for other reasons (e.g. heating, barbeque, etc.) than biochar. In a physicochemical sense, biochar and charcoal are essentially the same material. It could be argued that biochar is a term that is used for other purposes than scientific, i.e. to re-b rand charcoal into something more attractive-sounding to serve a commercia l purpose. However, from a soil science perspective it is useful to be able to distinguish between any charcoal material and those charcoal materials where care has been taken to avoid deleterious effects on soils and to pr omote beneficial ones. As this report makes clear, the wide variety of so il groups and associated properties and processes will require specific charcoal properties for specific soils in order to meet the intention of biochar applicati on. Considering the need to make this distinction, a new term is required and si nce biochar is the most common term currently used, it was selected for this report. The definition of the concept of biochar used in this report is: “ charcoal (biomass that has been pyro lysed in a zero or low oxygen environment) for which, owing to its inherent properties, scientific consensus exists that application to soil at a specific site is expected to sustainably sequester carbon and concurrently impr ove soil functions (under current and future management), while avoiding shor t- and long-term detrimental effects to the wider environment as well as human and animal health.” As a material, biochar is defined as: “charcoal for application to soil”. The distinction between biochar as a c oncept and as a material is important. For example, a particular biochar (materi al) may comply with all the conditions in the concept of biochar when applied to field A, but not when applied to field B. This report investigates the evi dence for when, where and how actual biochar application to soil complies with the concept, or not. The terms ‘charcoal’ and ‘pyrogenic black carbon (BC)’ are also used in this report when appropriate according to their definitions above and in the List of Key Terms. Additionally, BC refers to C-rich residues from fire or heat (including from coal, gas or petrol). This report aims to review the stat e-of-the-art regarding the interactions between biochar application to soil and its effects on soil properties, processes and functioning. A number of recent publications have addressed parts of this objective as well (S ohi et al., 2009; Lehmann and Joseph, 2009; Collison et al., 2009). This report sets itself apart by i) addressing the issue from an EU perspective, ii) inclusion of quantitative meta-analyses of selected effects, and iii) a discussion of biochar for the threats to soil as identified by the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection h(COM(2006) 231). In addition, this report is independent, objective and critical. Biochar is a stable carbon (C) com pound created when biomass (feedstock) is heated to temperatures between 300 and 1000 ºC, under low (preferably zero) oxygen concentrations. The objective of the biochar concept is to abate the enhanced greenhouse effect by sequestering C in soils, while concurrently improving soil quality. The proposed concept through which biochar application to soils would lead to C sequestration is relatively straightforward. Carbondioxide from the atmosphere is fixed in vegetation through photosynthesis. Biochar is subsequently created through pyrolysis of the plant material thereby potentially increasing its recalcitrance with respect to the original plant material. The estimated residence time of biochar-carbon is in the range of hundreds to t housands of years while the residence time of carbon in plant material is in the range of decades. Consequently, this would reduce the CO 2 release back to the atmospher e if the carbon is indeed persistently stored in the soil. The ca rbon storage potential of biochar is widely hypothesised, although it is still largely unquantified, particularly when also considering the effects on other greenhouse gasses (see Section 1.3), and the secondary effects of large-scale biochar deployment. Concomitant with carbon sequestration, biochar is in tended to improve soil properties and soil functioning relevant to agr onomic and environmental performance. Hypothesised mechanisms that hav e been suggested for potential improvement are mainly improved water and nutrient retention (as well as improved soil struct ure, drainage). Considering the multi-dimensional and cross-cutting nature of biochar, an imminent need is anticipated for a robus t and balanced scientific review to effectively inform policy development on the current state of knowledge with reference to biochar application to soils. How to read this report? Chapter 1 introduces the concept of biochar and its origins, including a comparison with European conditions/history. Chapter 2 reviews the range of physica l and chemical properties of biochars that are most relevant to soils. Chapter 3 focuses on the interactions between biochar application to soil and soil properties, processes and functions. Chapter 4 outlines how biochar app lication can be expected to influence threats to soils. Chapter 5 discusses some key issues regarding biochar that are beyond the scope of this report. Chapter 6 summarises the main findi ngs of the previous chapters, synthesises between these and identifie s the key findings. Suggestions for further reading are inse rted where appropriate. 1.1 Biochar in the attention The concept of biochar is increasingly in the attention in both political and academic arenas, with several countri es (e.g. UK, New Zealand, U.S.A.) establishing ‘biochar research centres’ ; as well as in the popular media where it is often portrayed as a miracle cu re (or as a potential environmental disaster). The attention of the media and public given to biochar can be illustrated by contrasting a Google TM search for ‘biochar’ with a search for ‘biofuels’. A Google search for biochar yi elds 185,000 hits while biofuels yields 5,210,000 hits. Another illustration is gi ven by comparing the search volumes of ‘biochar’, ‘ Terra Preta’ and ‘black earth’ over the la st years, testifying the recent increase in attention in and ex posure of biochar (Figure 1.1, made with Google Trends TM). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Jan 4 2004 May 23 2004 Oct 10 2004 Feb 27 2005 Jul 17 2005 Dec 4 2005 Apr 23 2006 Sep 10 2006 Jan 28 2007Jun 17 2007 Nov 4 2007 Mar 23 2008 Aug 10 2008 Dec 28 2008 May 17 2009 Oct 4 2009 Google Trends TM Searc h Volum e Index [- ] BIOCHAR TERRA PRETA BLACK EARTH Figure 1.1 Google TrendsTM result of “biochar”, “ Terra Preta” and “black earth”. The scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of “biochar” from January 2004 until June 2009 (search performed on 04/12/2009) The geographical interest in biochar c an be explored further by using the search volume index of bi ochar; the total number of searches normalised by the overall search volume by country. Over the last 12 months the search volume index for biochar was highest in Australia and New Zealand (Figure 1.2). The actual attention for biochar in Australia may even be higher, since in Australia biochar is also referred to as ‘Agrichar’, one of its trade names. Figure 1.2 Google TrendsTM geographical distribution of the search volume index of “biochar” of the last 12 months from June 2008 to June 2009 (search performed on 16/09/2009). Data is normalised against the overall search volume by country An indication for the attention devoted to biochar by the scientific community is provided by performing a search in the scientific literature search engines Thompson’s ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar TM. A search in Google ScholarTM yielded 724 hits for biochar and 48,600 hits for biofuels (searches undertaken on 16/09/2009). If we consider ‘ Terra Preta’ – a Hortic Anthrosol found in Amazonia – in comparison to bi ochar, a search yielded 121,000 hits on Google and 1,490 on Google Scholar. A s earch in the ISI Web of Science for those articles indexed for either bi ochar or bio-char yielded a total of 81 articles (Figure 1.3). Three authors are independently involved in 22 articles (~25%) of these 81 articles (Lehmann (9); Derimbas (8); Davaajav (8)). Out of the 81 articles 27 articles include a refe rence to charcoal (Figure 1.3). This is an indication of the relative small number of scientists currently involved in biochar research, although the number of articles is rapidly increasing (Figure 1.3). Finally, the oldest paper appearing in either ISI Web of Science TM or ScopusTM dealing with ‘biochar’, ‘ Terra Preta’ or ‘black earth’ dates from 1998, 1984 and 1953, respectively. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Nr of artic les in ISI (n) total biochar OR bio-c har in ISI bioc har A ND c harc oal OR bio-c h ar A ND c harc oal in ISI Figure 1.3 Scientific publications registred in Thompson’s ISI Web of Science indexed for either biochar or bio-char including those articles that mention charcoal (search performed on 4/12/2009) 1.2 Historical perspective on soil improvement Man-made soils (Anthrosols) enriched with charcoal are found as small pockets (10s – 200 m in diameter) clos e to both current and historic human settlements throughout Amazonia (see Figu re 1.4) which are estimated to cover a total area of 6,000 – 18,000 km 2 (Sombroek and Carvalho de Souza, 2000). A rapidly expanding body of scientific literature has reached the consensus that these soils were created by indigenous people, as far back as 10,000 yr BP (Woods et al., 2009), with varying depth (down to 1 m). Figure 1.4 Distribution of Anthrosols in Amazonia (left; Glaser et al., 2001) and Europe (right; Blume and Leinweber, 2004) The first Anthrosols in Europe, wh ich are mostly enriched with organic material from peatlands and heathlands, have been dated to 3,000 yr BP o n the German island of Sylt (Blume and Leinweber, 2004). The largest expanse, from a 3,500 km2 total European area of man-made soils (Plaggic Anthrosols), was created during the Mi ddle Ages in the nutrient poor, dry sandy soils (Arenosols) of The Netherlands, northern Belgium and north- western Germany (Figure 1.4) to similar depths as their Amazonian counterparts (i.e. down to 1 m). Such a vast single area of Anthrosols is rare, if not unique, and may be explained by the relatively high population density (and subsequent food demand) combined with environmental factors, i.e. the presence of extensive peat deposits in close prox imity to the nutrient poor free-draining soil. Much more common are small scale Anthrosols, pockets of man-made soils close to settlements, as an inevitable consequence or planned soil conditioning, by a ‘permanent’ human settlement that cont inuously produces organic waste. Many Anthrosols do not appear on the EU soil distribution map because of their small size in relation to the 1:1,000,000 scale of the Soil Geographical Database of Eurasia, which is the bas is of the map (Toth et al., 2008). However, numerous small scale Anthrosols have been reported across the European continent, e.g. Scotland (Mehar g et al., 2006; Davidson et al., 2006), Ireland, Italy, Spain and northwest Russia (Giani et al., 2004). Based on their formation, it can be assumed that Anthrosols exist in other parts of Europe as well, but data are lacking. Figure 1.5 Comparing tropical with temperate Anthrosols. The left half shows a profile of a fertile Terra Preta (Anthrosol with charcoal) created by adding charco al to the naturally- occurring nutrient poor Oxisol (far left; photo courtesy of Bruno Glaser). The right half (far right) is a profile picture of a fertile European Plaggen Soil (Plaggic Anthrosol; photo courtesy of Erica Micheli) created by adding peat and ma nure to the naturally-occurring nutrient poor sandy soils (Arenosols) of The Netherlands Although both European and Amazonian Anthrosols were enriched to increase their agricultural performance, there is an important distinction between the Plaggic Anthrosols of Eu rope and the Hortic Anthrosols of Amazonia (Figure 1.5). Plaggic is from the Dutch ‘Plag’ meaning a cut out section of the organic topsoil layer, including vegetation (grass or heather) while Hortic Anthrosol translates freely into ‘kitchen soil’. These names are reflected in their composit ion, i.e. Plaggic Anthrosols were made by adding organic topsoil material and peat (ear ly Middle Ages) and mixed with manure (late Middle Ages) while Hortic Anthroso ls were created by a wide variety of organic and mineral materials, ranging from animal bones to charcoal and pottery fragments. What sets the Terra Preta apart from other Hortic Anthrosols is the high proportion of charcoal. It is assumed that the charcoal was made deliberately for application to soil , i.e. not just charred remains from clearing and burning the forest. 1.3 Different solutions to similar problems The challenges faced by the people of two very different environments (tropical rain forest vs. temperate climate on lar gely open or partially deforested land) appear similar in the sense of needi ng to grow crops on soils that naturally had low nutri ent and water retention. One can only speculate as to what exactly the reasons were for the people living at the time to either add or not add charcoal to their soils. In addi tion to the available supply of organic materials, possible explanat ions may be related to the relative value of the different organic materials and contra sting residence times of SOM. In a simplified scenario, the colder climat e in Europe means that microbial decomposition occurs much more slowly th an in the tropics, leading to much longer residence times of organic matter. The recalcitrance of the peat and plaggen that were added to the soil mean t that the benefits from increased water and (to a lesser degree) nutrient re tention lasted long enough to make it worth the investment. In tropical soils , however, the recalcitrance of the organic matter that was added to the soil needed to be greater to get a return that was worth the investment. C harring organic matter may have been a conscious policy to achieve this. Of c ourse, wood and charcoal were being produced in Europe at the time as we ll. However, other uses of these materials were likely to be more valuable , e.g. the burning of wood in fire places to heat living accommodations and the use of charcoal to achieve high enough temperatures for extracting metals from ores. Because of the relatively small areal extent of Anthrosols, many of their locations may not be known or recognise d presently. It is possible that small pockets of Anthrosols exist in Europe, created at different times in history, where greater amounts of charcoal are pr esent than in the Plaggic Anthrosols. Potentially, identificati on and study of these sites (including chronosequences) could provide valuable information regarding the interactions between charcoal and environmental fa ctors prevalent in Europe. 1.4 Biochar and pyrogenic black carbon A potential analogue for biochar may be found in the charcoal produced by wildfires (or pyrogenic black carbon – BC – as it is often referred to) found naturally in soils across the world, and in some places even makes up a larger proportion of total organic C in the soil than in some Terra Preta soils. Preston and Schmidt (2006) showed an overview of studies on non-forested sites in different parts of the world with BC making up between 1 and 80% of total SOC. For example, BC was found to constitute 10-35% of the total SOC content for five soils from long-term agricultural research sites across the U.S.A. (Skjemstad et al., 2002). Schmidt et al. (1999) studied pyrogenic BC contents of chernozemic soils (Cambi sol, Luvisol, Phaeozem, Chernozem and Greyzem) in Germany and found BC to make up 2-45% of total SOC (mean of 14%). Figure 1.6 Terms and properties of pyrogenic BC (adopted from Preston and Schmidt, 2006) However, it is important to bear in mind that, while the range of BC materials produced by wildfire overlaps with the range of biochar materials (i.e. the continuum from charred biomass to soot and graphite; Figure 1.6), the composition and properties of biochar can be very different to pyrogenic BC (see Chapter 2). The two main responsib le factors are feedstock and pyrolysis conditions. In a wildfire, the feeds tock is the aboveground biomass (and sometimes peat and roots) while fo r biochar any organic feedstock can theoretically be used from wood and stra w to chicken manure (Chapter 2). In a pyrolysis oven, the pyrolysis condi tions can be selected and controlled, including maximum temperature and duratio n but also the rate of temperature increase, and inclusion of steam, or e.g. KOH, activation and oxygen conditions. 1.5 Carbon sequestration potential Globally, soil is estimated to hold more organic carbon (1,100 Gt; 1 Gt=1,000,000,000 tonnes) than the atmo sphere (750 Gt) and the terrestrial biosphere (560 Gt) (Post et al., 1990; Sundquist, 1993). In the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change of 1997, which wa s adopted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 3.4 allows organic carbon stored in arable soils to be included in calculations of net carbon emissions. It speaks of the possibility of subtracting the amounts of CO 2 removed from the atmosphere into agricultural sinks, from the assigned target reductions for individual countries. SOC sequestration in arable agriculture has been researched (Schlesinger, 1999; Smith et al., 2000a, b; Freibauer et al., 2002; West & Post, 2002; Sleutel et al., 2003; Janzen, 2004; King et al., 2004; Lal, 2004) against the background of organic ca rbon (OC) credit trading schemes (Brown et al., 2001; Johnson & Heinen, 2004). However, fundamental knowledge on attainable SOC contents (rela tive to variation in environmental factors) is still in its in fancy, and it is mostly appr oached by modelling (Falloon et al., 1998; Pendall et al., 2004). The principle of using biochar for carbon (C) sequestration is related to the role of soils in the C-cycle (Figure 1.7). As Figure 1.7 shows, the global flux of CO 2 from soils to the atmos phere is in the region of 60 Gt of C per year. This CO 2 is mainly the result of microbial respiration within the soil system as the microbes decompose soil organic matter (SOM). Components of biochar are proposed to be considerably more recalcit rant than SOM and as such are only decomposed very slowly, over a time frame which can be measured in hundreds or thousands of years. This means that biochar allows carbon input into soil to be increased greatly com pared to the carbon output through soil microbial respiration, and it is this t hat is the basis behind biochar’s possible carbon negativity and hence its potential for climate change mitigation. Figure 1.7 Diagram of the carbon cycle. The black numbers indicate how much carbon is stored in various reservoirs, in billions of tons (GtC = Gigatons of Carbon and figures are circa 2004). The purple numbers indicate how much carbon mo ves between reservoirs each year, i.e. the fluxes. The sediments, as defi ned in this diagram, do not include the ~70 million GtC of carbonate rock and k erogen (NASA, 2008) Although Figure 1.7 is clearly a simplification of the C-cycle as it occurs in nature, the numbers are well establis hed (NASA, 2008) and relatively uncontroversial. A calculati on of the fluxes, while being more a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation, than precise mat hematics, is highly demonstrative of the anthropogenic influence on atmospheric CO 2 levels. When all of the sinks are added together (that is the fluxes of CO 2 leaving the atmosphere) the total amount of C going into sinks is found to be in the region of 213.35 Gt per year. Conversely, when all of the C flux es emitted into the atmosphere from non-anthropogenic (natural) s ources are added, they total 211.6 Gt per year. This equates to a net loss of carbon from the atmosphere of 1.75 Gt C. It is for this reason that the relatively small flux of CO 2 from anthropogenic sources (5.5 Gt C per year) is of such consequence as it turns the overall C flux from the atmosphere from a loss of 1.75 Gt per year, to a net gain of 3.75 Gt C per year. This is in relatively cl ose agreement with the predicted rate of CO 2 increase of about 3 Gt of C per year (IPCC, 2001). It is mitigation of this net gain of CO 2 to the atmosphere that biochar’s addition to soil is posited for. Lehmann et al. (2006) estimate a potent ial global C-sequestration of 0.16 Gt yr -1 using current forestry and agricultural wastes, such as forest residues, mill residues, field crop residues, and urban wastes for biochar production. Using projections of renewable fuels by 2100, the same authors estimate sequestration to reach a potent ial range of 5.5-9.5 Gt yr-1, thereby exceeding current fossil fuel emissions. However, the use of biochar for climate change mitigation is beyond the scope of this report that focuses on the effects of biochar addition to soils with regard to physical, chemical and biological effects, as well as related effe cts on soil and ecosystem functioning. 1.5.1 Biochar loading capacity Terra Preta soils have been shown to contain about 50 t C ha -1 in the form of BC, down to a depth of approximately 1 meter (approximately double the amount relative to pre-existing soil), and these soils are highly fertile when compared to the surrounding soils. This has lead to the idea of biochar being applied to soil to sequester carbon and maintain or improve the soil production function (e.g. crop yields), as well as the regulation function and habitat function of soils. Controlled ex periments have been undertaken to look at the effects of different applicat ion rates of biochar to soils. At present, however, it is not clear whether there is a maximum amount of C, in the form of biochar, which can be safely added to soils without compromising other soil functions or t he wider environment; that is, what is the ‘biochar loading capacity’ (BLC) of a given soil? It will be important to determine if the BLC varies between soil ty pes and whether it is influenced by the crop type grown on the soil. In order to maximise the amount of biochar which can be stored in soils without impacting negatively on other soil functions, the biochar loading capacity of different soils exposed to different environmental and climatic conditions specific to the site will have to be quantified for different types of biochar. The organic matter fractions of some soils in Europe have been reported to consist of approximately 14% (up to 45% ) BC or charcoal (see Section 1.4), which are both analogues of biochar as previously discussed. Lehmann and Rondon (2005) reported that at loadings up to 140 t C ha -1 (in a weathered tropical soil) positive yield effects still occurred. However, it should be noted that some experiments report that some crops experience a loss of the positive effects of biochar addition to soil at a much lower application rate. For example, Rondon et al. (2007) reported that the beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) showed positive yield effects on bioc har application rates up to 50 t C ha -1 that disappeared at an applicat ion rate of 60 t C ha-1 with a negative effect on yield being reported at applicat ion rates of 150 t C ha-1. This shows that the BLC is likely to be crop dependent as well as probably both soil and climate dependent. Combined with the irreversibility of biochar application to soil, this highlights the complex natur e of calculating a soil’s BLC as future croppings should be taken into account to ensure that future crop productivity is not compromised if the crop type for a given field is changed. Apart from effects on plant productivity, it can be imagined that other effects, on for example soil biology or transport of fine particles to ground and surface water, should be taken into account when ‘calculating’ or deriving the BLC for a specific site. Also, the BLC concept would need to be developed for both total (final) amount and the rate of applic ation, i.e. the increase in the total amount over time. The rate of application would need to consist of a long term rate (i.e. t ha -1 yr-1 over 10 or 100 years) as well as a ‘per application’ rate, both determined by evidence of direct and indirect effects on soil and the wider environment. Another consideration regardi ng the biochar loading capacity of a soil is the risk of smouldering combus tion. Organic soils that dry out sufficiently are capable of supporting below ground smouldering combustion that can continue for long time periods (years in so me cases). It is feasible that soils which experience very high to extrem e loading rates of biochar and are subject to sufficiently dry conditions co uld support smouldering fires. Ignition of such fires could occur both natur ally, e.g. by lightening strike, or anthropogenically. What the biochar c ontent threshold would be, how the threshold would change according to environmental conditions, and how much a risk this would be in non-arid soils remains unclear, but is certainly worthy of thought and future investigation. 1.5.2 Other greenhouse gasses Carbon dioxide is not the only gas em itted from soil with the potential to influence the climate. Methane (CH 4) production also occurs as a part of the carbon cycle. It is produced by the soil microbiota under anaerobic conditions through a process known as methanogene sis and is approximately 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO 2 over a time horizon of 100 years. Nitrous oxide (N 2O) is produced as a part of the nitrogen (N) cycle through process known as nitrificat ion and denitrification which are carried out by the soil microbiota. Nitrous oxide is 310 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO 2over a time horizon of 100 years (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). Whilst these gases are more potent greenhouse gases than CO 2, only approximately 8% of emi tted greenhouse gases are CH 4 and only 5% are N 2O, with CO2 making up approximately 83% of the total greenhouse gases emitted. Eighty percent of N 20 and 50% of CH4 emitted are produced by soil processes in managed ecosystems (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). It should be noted that these figures detail total proportions of each greenhouse gas and are not weighted to account for climatic forcing. In one study, biochar addition to soils has been shown to reduce the emission of both CH 4 and N2O. Rondon et al. (2005) report ed that a near complete suppression of methane upon biochar addition at an application rate of 2% w w -1 to soil. It was hypothesised that the mechanism leading to reduced emission of CH 4 is increased soil aeration le ading to a reduction in frequency and extent of anaerobic conditions u nder which methanogenesis occurs. Pandolfo et al. (19 94) investigated CH 4 adsorption capacity of several activated carbons (from coconut feedstock) in a series of laboratory experiments. Their results showed increased CH 4 ‘adsoprtion’ with increase surface area of the activa ted carbon, particularly for micropores (<2µm). These charcoal materials were activat ed using steam or KOH, however, and it remains to be tested how different biochar materials added to soils in the field will interact with methane dynamics. The influence of biochar on SOM dynamics are discussed later in this report (Section 3.2.5). A reduction in N 2O emissions of 50% in so ybean plantations and 80% in grass stands was also reported (Rondon et al. 2005). The authors hypothesised that the mechanism leading to this reduction in N2O emissions was due to slower N cycling, possibly as a result of an increase in the C:N ratio. It is also possible that the N that exists within the biochar is not bioavailable when introduced to the soil as it is bound up in heterocyclic form (Camps, 2009; Personal communication) . Yanai et al. (2007) measured N 2O emissions from soils after rewetting in the laboratory and found variable results, i.e. an 89% suppression of N 2O emissions at 73-78% water-filled pore space contrasting to a 51% increase at 83% water-filled pore space. These results indicate that the effect of biochar additions to soils on the N cycle depend greatly on the associated chan ges in soil hydrology and that thresholds of water content effects on N 20 production may be very important and would have to be studied for a variet y of soil-biochar-climate conditions. Furthermore, if biochar addition to soil does slow the N-cycle, this could have possible consequences on soil fertility in t he long term. This is because nitrate production in the soil may be slowed beyond the point of plant uptake, meaning that nitrogen availability, often the limiting factor for plant growth in soils, may be reduced leading to concurrent reduction in crop productivity. Yanai et al. (2007) reported that this effect did change over time, but their experiment only ran for 5 days and so extrapolation of the results to the time scales at which biochar is likely to per sist in soil is not possible. Further research is therefore needed to bette r elucidate the effects and allow extrapolation to the necessary time scales. 1.6 Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of an organic substance by heating in the absence of oxygen. The word is deri ved from Greek word ‘pyro’ meaning fire and “lysis” meaning decomposition or breaking down into constituent parts. In practice it is not possible to create a completely oxygen free environment and as such a small amount of oxidation will always occur. However, the degree of ox idation of the organic matte r is relatively small when compared to combustion where almo st complete oxidation of organic matter occurs, and as such a substantia lly larger proportion of the carbon in the feedstock remains and is not given off as CO 2. However, with pyrolysis much of the C from the feedstock is st ill not recovered in charcoal form, but converted to either gas or oil. Pyrolysis occurs spontaneously at hi gh temperatures (generally above approximately 300°C for wood, with the s pecific temperature varying with material). It occurs in nature when v egetation is exposed to wildfires or comes into contact with lava from volcanic erupt ions. At its most extreme, pyrolysis leaves only carbon as the residue and is called carbonization. The high temperatures used in pyrolysis can in duce polymerisation of the molecules within the feedstocks, whereby larger mo lecules are also produced (including both aromatic and ali phatic compounds), as well as the thermal decomposition of some components of t he feedstocks into smaller molecules. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.5.1. The process of pyrolysis transforms or ganic materials into three different components, being gas, liquid or solid in different proportions depending upon both the feedstock and the pyrolysis conditions used. Gases which are produced are flammable, including methane and other hydrocarbons which can be cooled whereby they condense and form an oil/tar residue which generally contains small amounts of water. The gasses (either condenses or in gaseous form) and liquids can be upgraded and used as a fuel for combustion. The remaining solid component after pyrolysis is charcoal, referred to as biochar when it is produced with the intention of adding it to soil to improve it (see List of Key terms). The physical and chemical properties of biochar are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. The process of pyrolysis has been adopted by the c hemical industry for the production of a range of compounds including charcoal, activated carbon, methanol and syngas, to turn coal into coke as well as producing other chemicals from wood. It is also used fo r the breaking down, or ‘cracking’ of medium-weight hydrocarbons from oil to produce lighter hydrocarbons such as petrol. A range of compounds in the natural environment are produced by both anthropogenic and non-ant hropogenic pyrolysis. These include compounds released from the incomplete burning of petrol and diesel in internal combustion engines, through to particles produced from wood burned in forest fires, for example. These substances are generally referred to as black carbon (see List of Key terms) in the scientif ic literature and exist in various forms ranging form small particulate matter found in the atmosphere, through to a range of sizes found in soils and sedim ents where it makes up a significant part of the organic matter (Schmidt et al., 1999; Skjemstad et al., 2002; Preston et al., 2006; Hussain et al. 2008). 1.6.1 The History of Pyrolysis While it is possible that pyrolysis was first used to make charcoal over 7,000 years ago for the smelting of copper , or even 30,000 years ago for the charcoal drawings of the Chauvet cave (Antal, 2003), the first definitive evidence of pyrolysis for charcoal production comes from over 5,500 years ago in Southern Europe and t he Middle East. By 4,000 years ago, the start of the Bronze Age, pyrolysis use for the production of charcoal must have been widespread. This is because only burni ng charcoal allowed the necessary temperatures to be reached to smelt ti n with copper and so produce bronze (Earl, 1995). A range of compounds can be found in the natural environment that is produced by both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic pyrolysis. These include compounds released from the inco mplete burning of petrol and diesel in internal combustion engines, through to being produced from wood in forest fires for example. 1.6.2 Methods of Pyrolysis Although the basic process of pyrolysi s, that of heating a C-containing feedstock in an limited oxygen environm ent, is always the same, different methodologies exist, each with different outputs. Apart from the feedstocks used, which ar e discussed further is Section 1.7, the main variables that are often manipulated are pyrolysis temperature, and the residence time of the feedstock in the pyrolysis unit. Temperature itself can have a large effect on the relati ve proportions of end product from a feedstock (Fig. 1.9). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 400 450500 550600650 Temperature (°C) Yield (%wt) Biochar Biooil Gas Water Figure 1.8 A graph showing the relative proportions of end products after fast pyrolysis of aspen poplar at a range of temperatu res (adapted from IEA, 2007) Residence times of both the solid co nstituents and the hot vapor produced under pyrolysis conditions can also ha ve a large effect on the relative proportions of each end product of pyrol ysis (Table 1.1). In the nomenclature, four different types of pyrolysis are generally referred to, with the difference between each being dependent on temperature and residence time of solid or vapour in the pyrolysis unit, or a combinat ion of both. The four different types of pyrolysis are fast, intermediate and slow pyrolysis (with slow pyrolysis often referred to as “carbonisation” due to the relatively high proportion of carbonaceous material it produces: bi ochar) along with gasification (due to the high proportion of syngas produced). Table 1.1 shows that different pyrolysis conditions lead to different proportions of each end product (liquid, char or gas). This means that specific pyrolysis conditions can be tailored to each desir ed outcome. For example, the IEA report (2007) stated that fast pyrolysis was of particular interest as liquids can be stored and transported more easily and at lower cost than solid or gaseous biomass forms. However, with regard to the use of biochar as a soil amendment and for climate change mitigation it is clear that slow pyrolysis, would be preferable, as this maximises the yield of char, the most stable of the pyrolysis end products. Table 1.1 The mean post-pyrolysis feedstock residues resulting from different temperatures and residence times (adapted from IEA, 2007) Mode Conditions Liquid Biochar Syngas Fast pyrolysis Moderate temperature, ~500°C, short hot vapour residence time of ~ 1 s 75% 12% 13% Intermediate Pyrolysis Moderate temperature ~500°C, moderate hot vapour residence time of 10 – 20 s 50% 20% 30% Slow Pyrolysis (Carbonisation) Low temperature ~400°C, very long solids residence time 30% 35% 35% Gasification High temperature ~800°C, long vapour residence time 5% 10% 85% Owing to the fact that end products su ch as flammable gas can be recycled into the pyrolysis unit and so provide energy for subsequent pyrolysis cycles, costs, both in terms of fuel costs, and of carbon emission costs, can be minimised. Furthermore, the pyrolysi s reaction itself becomes exothermic after a threshold is passed, thereby reducing the required energy input to maintain the reaction. However, it is im portant to note that other external costs are associated with pyrolysis, most of which will be discussed in Section 2.4. For example, fast pyrolysis requires that the feedstock is dried to less than 10% water (w w -1). This is done so that the bio-oil is not contaminated with water. The feedstock then needs to be ground to a particle size of ca. 2 mm to ensure that there is suffi cient surface area to ens ure rapid reaction under pyrolysis conditions (IEA, 2007). The gr inding of the feedstock, and in some cases also the drying requi re energy input and will increase costs, as well as of the carbon footprint of biochar pr oduction if the required energy is not produced by carbon neutral sources. As well as different pyrolysis conditi ons, the scale at which pyrolysis is undertaken can also vary greatly. The two different scales discussed throughout this report are that of ‘Closed’ vs ‘Open’ scenarios. Closed refers to the scenario in which relatively sma ll, possibly even mobile, pyrolysis units are used on each farm site, with crop residues and other bio-wastes bein g pyrolysed on site and added back to the same farm’s soils. Open refers to biowastes being accumulated and pyrol ysed off-site at industrial scale pyrolysis plants, before the biochar is redistributed back to farms for application to soil. The scales at whic h these scenarios function are very different, and each brings it s own advantages and disadvantages. 1.7 Feedstocks Feedstock is the term conventionally us ed for the type of biomass that is pyrolysed and turned into biochar. In principle, any organic feedstock can be pyrolysed, although the yiel d of solid residue (char) respective to liquid and gas yield varies greatly (see Secti on 1.6.2) along with physico-chemical properties of the resulting biochar (see Chapter 2). Feedstock is, along with pyrolysis condi tions, the most important factor controlling the properties of the resulting biochar. Firstly, the chemical and structural composition of the biomass feedstock relates to the chemical and structural composition of the resulting bi ochar and, therefore, is reflected in its behaviour, function and fate in soils. Seco ndly, the extent of the physical and chemical alterations undergone by the biom ass during pyrolysis (e.g. attrition, cracking, microstructural rearrangements) are dependent on the processing conditions (mainly temperature and resi dence times). Table 1.2 provides a summary of some of the key components in representative biochar feedstocks. Table 1.2 Summary of key components (by weight) in biochar feedstocks (adapted from Brown et al., 2009) Ash Lignin (w w -1) Cellulose Wheat straw 11.2 14 38 Maize residue 2.8-6.8 15 39 Switchgrass 6 18 32 Wood (poplar, willow, oak) 0.27 – 1 26 – 30 38 – 45 Cellulose and ligning undergo thermal degr adation at temperatures ranging between 240-350ºC and 280-500ºC, respectively (Sjöström, 1993; Demirbas, 2004). The relative proportion of each co mponent will, therefore, determine the extent to which the bi omass structure is retained during pyrolysis, at any given temperature. For example, pyrolysis of wood-based feedstocks generates coarser and more resistant biochars with carbon contents of up to 80%, as the rigid ligninolytic nature of the source material is retained in the biochar residue (Winsley, 2007). Biomass with high lignin contents (e.g. olive husks) have shown to produce some of the highest biochar yields, given the stability of lignin to thermal degradation, as dem onstrated by Demirbas (2004). Therefore, for comparable tem peratures and residence times, lignin loss is tipically less than half of cellulose loss (Demirbas, 2004). Whereas woody feedstock generally co ntains low proportions (7. Table 2.2 summarizes total elemental composition (C, N, C:N, P, K, available P – Pa – and mineral N) and pH ranges of biochars from a variety of feedstocks (wood, green wastes, crop residues, sewage sludge, litter, nut shells) and pyrolysis conditions (350-500 oC) used in various studies (adapted from Brown, 2009). Table 2.2 Summary of total elementa l composition (C, N, C:N, P, K, available P and mineral N) and pH ranges and means of biochars from a variety of feedstocks (wood, green wastes, crop residues, sewage sludge, litter, nut shells) and pyrolysis conditions (350- 500ºC) used in various studies (adapted from Chan and Xu, 2009) pH C (g kg -1) N (g kg-1) N (NO3 – +NH4+) (mg kg-1) C:N P (g kg -1) Pa (g kg-1) K (g kg-1) Range From 6.2 172 1.7 0.0 7 0.2 0.015 1.0 To 9.6 905 78.2 2.0 500 73.0 11.6 58 Mean 8.1 543 22.3 – 61 23.7 – 24.3 Total carbon content in biochar wa s found to range between 172 to 905 g kg- 1 , although OC often accounts for < 500 g kg-1, as reviewed by Chan and Xu (2009) for a variety of source materials. Total N varied between 1.8 and 56.4 g kg -1, depending on the feedstock (Chan and Xu, 2009). Despite seemingly high, biochar total N content may not be necessarily beneficial to crops, since N is mostly present in an unavailabl e form (mineral N contents < 2 mg k -1; Chan and Xu, 2009). Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy has shown that aromatic and het erocyclic N-containing structures in biochar occur as a result of biomass heating, conv erting labile structures into more recalcitrant forms (Almendros et al., 2003). C:N (carbon to nitrogen) ratio in biochar has been found to vary wid ely between 7 and 500 Chan and Xu, 2009), with implications for nutrient retenti on in soils (see Sections 3.2.3). C:N ratio has been commonly used as an indi cator of the capacity of organic substrates to release inorganic N when incorporated into soils. Total P and total K in biochar were found to range broadly according to feedstock, with values betw een 2.7 – 480 and 1.0 – 58.0 g kg -1, respectively (Chan and Xu, 2009). Interestingly, total ranges of N, P and K in biochar are wider than those reported in the literatu re for typical organic fertilizers. Most minerals within the ash fraction of bi ochar are thought to occur as discrete associations independent of the carbon matrix, with the exception of K and Ca (Amonette and Joseph, 2009). Typically, each mineral association comprises more than one type of mineral. Jos eph et al. (2009) emphasize that our current understanding of the role of hi gh-mineral ash biochars is yet limited, as we face the lack of available da ta on their long-term effect on soil properties. The complex and heterogeneo us chemical composition of biochars is extended to its surface c hemistry, which in turn explains the way biochar interacts with a wide range of organic and inorganic compounds in the environment. Breaking and rearrangement of the chemical bounds in the biomass during processing results in th e formation of numerous functional groups (e.g. hydroxyl -OH, amino-NH 2, ketone -OR, ester -(C=O)OR, nitro – NO2, aldehyde -(C=O)H, carboxyl -(C=O)OH) occurring predominantly on the outer surface of the gr aphene sheets (e.g. Harris, 1997; Harris and Tsang, 1997) and surfaces of pores (van Zwieten et al., 2009). Some of these groups act as electron donors, while others as electron acceptors, resulting on coexisting areas which properties can range from acidic to basic and from hydrophilic to hydrophobic (Amonette and Joseph 2009). Some functional groups also contain other elements, such as N and S, particularly in biochars from manures, sewage sl udge and rendering wastes. There is experimental evidence that demonstrates that the composition, distribution, relative proportion and r eactivity of functional groups within biochar are dependent on a variety factors, including the source material and the pyrolysis methodology used (Antal and Gronli, 2003). Different processing conditions (temperature of 700 oC or 450oC) explained differences in N contents between three biochars from poul try litter (Lima and Marshall, 2005; Chan et al., 2007). As the pyrolysis temperature rises, so does the proportion of aromatic carbon in the biochar , while N contents peak at around 300 oC (Baldock and Smernik, 2002). In contra st, low processing temperatures (<500 oC) favour the relative accumulation of a large proportion of available K, Cl (Yu et al., 2005), Si, Mg, P and S (Bourke et al., 2007; Schnitzer et al., 2007). Therefore, proce ssing temperatures < 500 oC favour nutrient retention in biochar (Chan and Xu, 2009) , while being equally advantageous in respect to yield (Gaskin et al., 2008). Neverthele ss, it is important to stress that different permutations of those processi ng conditions, including temperature, may affect differently each source material. This emphasises the need for a case-b y-case assessment of the chemical and physical properties of biochar prior to its application into soil. Relating the adverse effect of a particular constituent (or its concentration) of biochar to a desirable biochar application rate (bioc har loading capacity concept; Section 1.5.1) is difficult, as the exact biochar composition is often not provided in the literature. The review of relevant lit erature has indicated that the full knowledge on the compositio n of biochar as a soil amendment, and the way it is influenced by those parameters, as well as the implications for soil functioning, is still scarce. Partially, this can be explained by the fact that most characterisation work has involved char coals with high carbon and low ash content, as required by the increasi ngly demanding market for activated carbon. Another factor is the wide variety of processing conditions and feedstocks available. The Black Ca rbon Steering Committee has developed reference charcoal materials (from chestnut wood and rice grass) under standardised pyrolysis conditions, repres entative of natural samples created by forest fires, for comparison of quantification methods for BCs in soils and sediments. Nevertherless, the current s parsity of biochar standards is largely reflected on the poor underst anding of the link between biochar composition and its behaviour and function in soil. 2.2 Particle size distribution Initially, particle size dist ribution in biochar is influenced mainly by the nature of the biomass feedstock and the pyrol ysis conditions (Cetin et al., 2004). Shrinkage and attrition of the organic material occur during processing, thereby generating a range of particle sizes of t he final product. The intensity of such processes is dependent on the pyrolysis technology (Cetin et al., 2004). The implications of biochar parti cle size distribution on soils will be discussed further throughout Chapter 3. Particle size distribution in biochar also has implications for determining the suitability of each biochar product for a specific application (Downie et al., 2009), as well as for the choice of the most adequate applicat ion method (see Section 1.8). In addition, health and safety issues relating to handling, storage and transport of biochar are also lar gely determined by its particle size distribution, as discussed in this repor t in regard to its dust fraction (see Sections 2.2.1 and 5.2). The influence of the type of feedsto ck on particle size distribution was discussed by Sohi et al. (2009), among others. Wood-based feedstocks generate biochars that are coarser and predominantly xylemic in nature, whereas biochars from crop residues (e.g . rye, or maize) and manures offer a finer and more brittle structure (Sohi et al., 2009). Downie et al. (2009) have further provided evidence of the infl uence of feedstock and processing conditions on particle size distribution in biochar. Sawdust and woodchips under different pre-treatments were pyrolised using continuous slow pyrolysis (heating rate of 5-10ºC min -1), after which particle size distribution in the resulting biochar was assessed through dr y sieving. Generally, particle size was found to decrease as the pyrolysis heat treatment temperature increased (450ºC-700ºC range) for both feedstocks, due to a reduction of the biomass material resistance to attrition duri ng processing (Downie et al., 2009). The operating conditions during pyrolysi s (e.g. heating rate, high treatment temperature -HTT, residence time, pressure , flow rate of the inert gas, reactor type and shape) and pre- (e.g. drying, chemical activation) and post- (e.g. sieving, activation) treatments can great ly affect biochar physical structure (Gonzalez et al., 1997; Antal and Grønli, 2003; Cetin et al., 2004; Lua et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2004; Br own et al., 2006). Such observations were derived mainly from studies involving activa ted carbon produced from a variety of feedstocks, including maize hulls (Zhang et al., 2004), nut shells (Lua et al., 2004; Gonzaléz et al., 2009) and oliv e stones (Gonzaléz et al., 2009). Similarly, heating rate, residence time and pressure during processing were shown to be determinant factors for t he generation of finer biochar particles, independently of the original material (Cetin et al., 2004). For instance, for higher heating rates (e.g. up to 105-500ºC sec -1) and shorter residence times, finer feedstock particles (50-2000 µm) are required in order to facilitate heat and mass transfer reactions, resulting in fi ner biochar material (Cetin et al., 2004). In contrast, slow pyrolysi s (heating rates of 5-30ºC min -1) can use larger feedstock particles, thereby produc ing coarser biochars (Downie et al., 2009). Increasing the proporti on of larger biochar particles can also be obtained by increasing the pressure (fro m atmospheric to 5, 10 and 20 bars) during processing, which was explai ned by both particle swelling and clustering, as a result of melting (i.e . plastic deformation) followed by fusion (Cetin et al., 2004). 2.2.1 Biochar dust The term ‘dust’ is described in this report as referring to the fine and ultrafine fraction of biochar, comprising various organic and inorganic compounds of distinct particle sizes within the micro- and nano-size range (Harris and Tsang, 1997; Cornelissen et al., 2005). Harris and Tsang (1997) researched the micro- and nano-sized fraction of chars, although so far, this issue remains poorly understood. Biomass prec ursor (feedstock) and the pyrolysis conditions (Donaldson et al., 2005; Hays and van der Wal, 2007) are likely to be primary factors influenci ng the properties of biochar dust (Downie et al., 2009), including the type and size of its particles, as well as the proportion of micro- and nanoparticles, as discussed previously Harris and Tsang (1997) used high resolu tion electron microscopy (HREM) for studying the smaller fraction of charcoal resulting from the pyrolysis (700ºC) of sucrose and concluded that charcoal dust consists of round fullerene-like nanoparticles (Harris and Tsang, 1997). Br odowski et al. (2005) corroborates the finding of porous spherical-shaped particles (with surface texture ranging from smooth to rough) within the 50 nm), mesopores (2 nm< ID <50 nm) and micropo res (id 800 oC), a reduction of the overall surface area of the char was observed and was attributed to partial melting of the char structure (Lua et al., 2004). Similarly, heating rate and pressure during processing have also been found to influence the mass transfer of volatiles produced at any given tem perature range, and are therefore regarded as key contributing parameters influencing pore size distribution (Antal and Grønli, 2003). For instance, Lua et al. (2004) observed a peak in surface area of pistachio-nut she ll char at low heating rates (10 oC), whereas higher heating rates resulted in a decrease in surface area. It is important to stress, however, t hat the relative influence of each processing parameter on the final micr oporosity in biochar is determined by the type of feedstock, as noted from the above studies (e.g. Cetin et al., 2004; Lua et al., 2004; Pastor-Villegas et al., 2006; Gonzaléz et al., 2009). In particular, the lignocellulosic composit ion of the parent material largely determines the rate of its therma l decomposition, and therefore, the development of porosity (Gonzaléz et al., 2009). In the case of charcoals from almond tree pruning, a greater volume of meso and macropores was obtained, which was accounted for by th e slow decomposition rate of such precursor during the initia l stages of pyrolysis (Gonzaléz et al., 2009). The opposite was found for almond shell, probably due to its inherently high initial thermal decomposition rate (Gonzaléz et al., 2009). 2.4 Thermodynamic stability The thermodynamic equilibrium concerni ng carbonised residues, such as biochar, favours the production of CO 2. ()() ()1 2 2.51.393−−=Δ → + molkJ H COgO graphiteCf o Equation 1 The standard enthalpy of formation is represented as ΔH°f.and the degree sign denotes the standard conditions (P = 1 bar and T = 25°C) Equation 1 shows that the oxidation of graphite, being the most thermodynamically stable form of car bon, will occur spontaneously as shown by the negative energy value (meaning t hat 393.51 kJ of energy is emitted for every mole of CO 2 ‘produced’). Since the oxi dation of graphite to carbon dioxide will occur, allbei t very slowly under normal conditions (Shneour, 1966), all other forms of carbon which ar e less thermodynamically stable than graphite, will also undergo oxidation to CO 2 in the presence of oxygen. The speed at which this oxidation occurs depend s on a number of factors, such as the precise chemical composition, as well as the temperature and moisture regime to which the compound is exposed. Furthermore, residence time of biochar in soils will also be affected by microbial processes. The recalcitrance of biochar in soil is discussed in mo re depth in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.5.1. 2.5 CEC and pH CEC variation in biochars ranges from negligible to around 40 cmolc g-1 and has been reported to c hange following incorporation into soils (Lehmann, 2007). This may occur by a process of leaching of hydrophobic compounds from the biochar (Briggs et al., 2005) or by increasing carboxylation of C via abiotic oxidation (Cheng et al. 2006; Liang et al. 2006). Glaser et al. (2001) discussed the importance of ageing to obt ain the increases in CEC of black BC found in the Terra Pret a soils of the Amazon. Considering the very lar ge heterogeneity of its properties, biochar pH values are relatively homogeneous, that is to sa y they are largely neutral to basic. Chan and Xu (2009) reviewed biochar pH values from a wide variety of feedstocks and found a mean of pH 8.1 in a total range of pH 6.2 – 9.6. The lower end of this range seems to be from green waste and tree bark feedstocks, with the higher end fr om poultry litter feedstocks. 2.6 Summary Biochar is comprised of stable car bon compounds created when biomass is heated to temperatures between 300 to 1000°C under low (preferably zero) oxygen concentrations. The structural and chemical composition of biochar is highly heterogeneous, with the ex ception of pH, which is tipically > 7. Some properties are pervasive th roughout all biochars, including the high C content 59 and degree of aromaticity, partially explining the high levels of biochar’s inherent recalcitrance. Neverthless, the exact structural and chemical composition, including su rface chemistry, is depende nt on a combination of the feedstock type and the pyrolysis cond itions (mainly temperature) used. These same parameters are key in dete rmining particle size and pore size (macro, meso and micropore; distribution in biochar. Biochar’s physical and chemical characteristics may signific antly alter key soil physical properties and processes and are, therefor e, important to consider prior to its application to soil. Furthermore, these will determine the suitability of each biochar for a given application, as well as define its behaviour, transport and fate in the environment. Dissimilarities in properti es between different biochar products emphasises the need for a case-by-case evaluation of each biochar product prior to its incorporation in to soil at a specific site. Further research aiming to fully evaluate the extent and implicati ons of biochar particle and pore size distribution on soil processes and functi oning is essential, as well as its influence on biochar mobility an d fate (see Section 3.2.1). 3. EFFECTS ON SOIL PROPERTIES, PROCESSES AND FUNCTIONS This chapter discusses the effects of biochars with different characteristics (Chapter 2) on soil properti es and processes. First, effects on the soil properties are discussed, followed by e ffects on soil physical, chemical and biological processes. The agricultural as pect of the production function of soil is reviewed in detail (including meta-analyses) 3.1 Properties 3.1.1 Soil Structure The incorporation of biochar into soil c an alter soil physical properties such as texture, structure, pore si ze distribution and density with implications for soil aeration, water holding capacity, plant growth and soil workability (Downie et al., 2009). Particularly in relation to so il water retention, Sohi et al. (2009) propose an analogy between the impact of biochar addition and the observed increase in soil water repellency as a result of fire. Rearrangement of amphiphilic molecules by heat from a fire , as proposed by Doerr et al. (2000), would not affect the soil, but could affect the biochar itself during pyrolysis. In addition, the soil hydrology may be affected by partial or total blockage of soil pores by the smallest particle size fr action of biochar, thereby decreasing water infiltration rates (see Sections 3. 1.1 and 3.2.3). In that sense, further research aiming to fully evaluate the extent and implications of biochar particle size distribution on soil processes and functioni ng is essential, as well as its influence on biochar mobilit y and fate (see Section 3.2.1). 3.1.1.1 Soil Density Biochar has a bulk density much lower than that of mineral soils and, therefore, application of biochar can reduce the over all bulk density of the soil, although increases in bulk density are also possible. If 100 t ha -1 of biochar with a bulk density of 0.4 g cm-3 is applied to the top 20 cm of a soil with a bulk density of 1.3 g cm-3, and the biochar particles do not fill up existing soil pore space, then the soil surface in that field will be raised by ca. 2.5 cm with an overall bulk density reduction (assu ming homogeneous mixing) of 0.1 g cm -3 to 1.2 g cm-3. However, if the biochar that is applied has a low mechanical strength and disintegrates rela tively quickly into small particles that fill up existing pore spaces in the soil, then the dry bulk density of the soil will increase. In agronomy, relatively small differences in soil bulk density can be associated with agronomic benefits. C onventionally, i.e. without biochar additions, lower bulk density is associated with higher SOM content lead ing to nutrient release and retention (fertiliser savi ng) and/or lower soil compaction due to better soil management (potentially leading to improved seed germination and cost savings for tillage and cultivation). Bioc har application to soil by itself may improve nutrient retention directly (see Section 3.2.2), but nutrient release is mostly very small (except for some biochars in the first years, especially in ash-rich biochars) and the application of biochar with heavy machinery may compact the subsoil, depending on the application method and timing Soil compactibility is closely related to soil bulk density. Soane (1990) reviewed the effect of SOM, i.e. not including biochar, on compactibility and proposed several mechanisms by which SOM may influence the ability of the soil to resist compactive loads: 1) Binding forces between particles and within aggregates. Many of the long-chain molecules present in SOM are very effective in binding mineral particles. This is of great importance within aggregates which “…are bound by a matrix of humic ma terial and mucilages” (Oades in Soane, 1990). 2) Elasticity. Organic materials show a higher degree of elasticity under compression than do mineral particles. The relaxation ratio – R – is defined as the ratio of the bulk dens ity of the test material under specified stress to the bulk density after the stress has been removed. Relaxation effects of materials su ch as straw are therefore much greater than material like slurry or biochar. 3) Dilution effect. The bulk density of SOM is usually appreciably lower than mineral soil. It can however differ greatly, from 0.02 t m -3 for some types of peat to 1.4 t m-3 for peat moss, compared to 2.65 t m-3 for mineral particles (Ohu et al. in Soane, 1990). 4) Filament effect. Roots, fungal hyphae and other biological filaments have the capacity to bind the soil matrix. 5) Effect on electrical charge. Solutions/suspensions of organic compounds may increase the hydraul ic conductivity of clays by changing the electrical c harge on the clay particles causing them to move closer together, flocculate and shrink, resulting in cracks and increased secondary – macro – poros ity (Soane, 1990). Biochar’s ash fraction could cause similar effects. 6) Effect on friction. An organic coating on particles and organic material between particles is likely to incr ease the friction between particles (Beekman in: Soane, 1990). The direct effect of biochar on soil friction has not been studied. The effect of biochar application on so il compactibility has not been tested experimentally yet. From the above mechanisms, however, direct effects of biochar are probably mostly related to bullet points 3, 5 and 6 above. The very low elasticity of biochar suggests that resilience to compaction, i.e. how quickly the soil ‘bounces back’, is unlikel y to be increased directly by biochar. The resistance to compaction of so il with biochar could potentially be enhanced via direct or indirect effect s (interaction with SOM dynamics and soil hydrology). For example, some studies have shown an increase in mycchorizal growth after additons of bioc har to soil (see Section 3.2.6) while under specific conditions plant productivity has also been shown to increase (see Section 3.3). The enhanced developm ent of hyphae and roots will have an effect on soil compaction However, experimental research into the mechanisms and subsequent modeling wo rk is required before any conclusions can be drawn regarding the overall effect of biochar on soil compaction. 3.1.1.2 Soil pore size distribution The incorporation of biochar into soil can alter soil physical properties such as texture, structure, pore si ze distribution and density with implications for soil aeration, water holding capacity, plant growth and soil workability. The soil pore network can be affected by biochar ’s inherent porosity as well as its other characteristics, in several ways. Biochar particle size and pore size distribution and connectivit y, the mechanical strength of the biochar particles, and the translocation and interaction of biochar particles in the soil are all determining factors that will lead to diffe rent outcomes in different soil-climate- management combinations. As described in the above section, these factors can cause the overall porosity of the soil to increase or decrease following biochar incorporation into soils. There is evidence that suggests that biochar application into soil may increase the overall net soil surface area (Chan et al., 2007) and consequently, may improve soil water retention (Downie et al., 2009; see Section 3.1.2) and soil aeration (particularly in fine-textured soils; Kolb, 2007). An increased soil- specific surface area may also benefit native microbial communities (Section 3.2.6) and the overall sorpti on capacity of soils (Section 3.2.2). In addition, soil hydrology may be affected by partial or total blockage of soil pores by the smallest particle size fraction of biochar , thereby decreasing water infiltration rates (see Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.2.3). Nevertheless, experimental evidence of such mechanisms is scarce and , therefore, any effects of the pore size distribution of biochar on soil proper ties and functions is still uncertain at this stage. Further research aiming to fully evaluate the extent and implications of biochar particle si ze distribution on soil processes and functioning is essential, as well as its influence on biochar mobility and fate in the environment (see Section 3.2.1). Table 3.1 shows the classifications of pore sizes in material science and soil science. Fundamental differences, i.e. orders of magnitude difference for classes with the same names, are obstacles in communicating to any audience outside of biochar research and also hinder the communication efficiency within interdisciplinary research groups that work on biochar in soils. Therefore, it is recommended that existing classifi cations are modified to resolve this confusion. However, in this review we will use the existing terminology and the relevant classificati on will need to be retrieved from the context. Table 3.1 Pore size classes in material science vs. soil science Material science Soil science Pore size (µm) Cryptospores na <0.1 Ultramicropores na 0.1-5 Micropores 0.05 >75 3.1.2 Water and Nutrient Retention The addition of biochar to soil will alter both the soil’s chemical and physical properties. The net effect on the soil physical properties will depend on the interaction of the biochar with the physicochemical char acteristics of the soil, and other determinant factors such as the climatic conditions prevalent at the site, and the management of biochar application. Adding biochar affects the regulat ion and production function of the agricultural soil. To what extent bioc har is beneficial to agriculture, and the dominant mechanisms that determine this, is still under scientific scrutiny. Agronomic benefits of biochar are oft en attributed to improved water and/or nutrient retention. However, many of the scientific studies are limited to site- specific soil conditions, and performed with biochar derived from specific feedstocks. Of more concern, and as of yet underexposed, is the stability of the structural integrity of the biochar. Especially when biochar is used in today’s intensive agriculture with the use of heavy machinery, opposed to the smallholder system that led to the forma tion of Terra Preta. Another concern relates to the potential externalities of bringing large quantifies of biochar in the environment (s ee Chapter 5). The mechanisms that lead to biocha r-provided potential improvements in water retention are relatively straigh tforward. Adding biochar to soil can have direct and indirect effects on soil water retention, which can be short or long lived. Water retention of soil is determi ned by the distribution and connectivity of pores in the soil-medium , which is largely regulated by soil particle size (texture), combined with structural characteristics (aggregation) and SOM content. The direct effect of bioc har application is related to the large inner surface area of biochar. Biochars with a range in porous structures will result from feedstocks as variable as straw, wood an d manure (see Sections 1.7, 2.1 and 2.3). Kishimoto and Sugiura (1985) es timated the inner surface area of charcoal formed between 400 and 1000°C to range from 200 to 400 m 2 g-1. Van Zwieten et al. (2009) measured the surface area of biochar derived from papermill waste with slow pyrolysis at 115 m 2 g-1. The hypothesised indirect effects of bi ochar application on water retention of soil relate to improved ag gregation or structure. Biochar can affect soil aggregation due to interactions with SO M, minerals and microorganisms. The surface charge characteristics, and their development over time, will determine the long term effect on soil aggregation. Aged biochar generally has a high CEC, increasing its potential to act as a binding agent of organic matter and minerals. Macro-aggregate stabi lity was reported to increase with 20 to 130% with application rates of c oal derived humic acids between 1.5 Mg ha -1 and 200 t ha-1 (Mbagwu and Piccolo, 1997). Br odowski et al (2006) found indications that BC acted as a binding agent in microaggregates in soils under forest, grassland and arable land use in Germany. In-situ enhancement of soil aggregation by biochar r equires further analysis. The mechanical stability and recalcitrance of biochar once incorporated in the soil will determine long term effects on wa ter retention and soil structure. This is determined by feedstock type and operating conditions as well as the prevalent physical-chemical conditions that determine its weathering and the compaction and compression of the biochar material in time. The effect of the use of heavy agricultural machinery on co mpaction of the soil-biochar matrix has yet to be studied in deta il. Another factor contributing to the uncertainty in long-term beneficial effects of biochar application to soil is the potential clogging or cementation of soil pores with disintegrated biochar material. Glaser et al. (2002b) report ed that Anthrosols rich in charcoal with surface areas three times higher than those of surrounding soils had an increased field capacity of 18%. Tryon (1948) studied the effect of charcoal on the percentage of available moisture in soils of different textures. In sandy soil the addition of charcoal increased the ava ilable moisture by 18% after adding 45% of biochar by volume, while no c hanges were observed in loamy soil, and in clayey soil the available soil moisture decreased with increasing coal additions. This was attributed to hydr ophobicity of the charcoal, although another factor could simply be that t he biochar was replacing clay with a higher water retention capacity. Biochar ’s high surface area can thus lead to increased water retention, although the effect seems to depend on the initial texture of the soil. Therefor e, improvements of soil water retention by charcoal additions may only be expected in coarse-textured soils or soils with large amounts of macropores. A draw-back is the large volume of biochar that needs to be added to the soil before it leads to increased water retention. The capacity of the agricultural soil to store water regulates the time and amount water is kept available for crop transpiration. Tseng and Tseng (2006) found that activated biochar contai ned over 95% of micropores with a diameter 2 h for the former and 50 µm in a Kenyan Oxisol (Nguyen et al., 2008 in Lehmann et al., 2009). Therefore, processes which favour biochar fragmentation into smaller particles (e.g. freeze-thaw cycles, rain and wind erosion, bioturbation) may not only enhance its degradation rate, but also render it more susceptible to transpor t (reviewed by Hammes and Schmidt, 2009). Processes which may influence biochar fate in soil might be the same as those for other natural organic matter (NOM), although little experimental evidence on this is still available. If that is the case, a lower clay content and an increase in soil temper ature and water availability will probably enhance biochar degradation and loss, as previously suggested by Sohi et al. (2009). For example, mean annual temperature of the site t hat biochar is applied to has shown to be a contributing factor in accelerating biochar oxidation in soil (Cheng et al., 2008). One could hypothesiz e that the same might apply to tillage (Sohi et al., 2009) through altering soil aggregate distribution. Interestingly, Brodowski et al. (2006) did not find evidence that different management practices have an effect on BC contents in Haplic Luvisol topsoil (0-30 cm; 13.4±0.2 g kg -1 organic C) from continuous wheat and maize plots. Adjacent grassland (0-10 cm; 10.3 g Kg-1 organic C; since 1961) and spruce forest (0-7 cm; 41.0 g kg-1 OC; since ca. 1920) topsoil were also sampled (Brodowski et al., 2006). Sohi et al. (2009) and Collision et al. (2009) proposed that feedstock material (including its degree of arom aticity) and cropping patterns (which influences nutrient composition in the rhizosphere) are contributing factors in determining biochar degradation rates in soil. These authors provided the following example: Pyrolysis of wood-based feedstocks generate coarser and more resistant biochars explained by the ri gid xylemic structure of the parent material, whereas biochars produced from crop residues (e.g. rye, maize) and manures are generally finer and nutri ent-rich, therefore more readily degradable by microbial communities (Collison et al., 2009). Cheng et al. (2008) have recently assess ed the effects of climatic factors (mainly temperature) on biochar oxi dation in natural systems. The cation exchange capacity of biochar was correlated to the mean temperature and the extent of biochar oxidation was relat ed to its external surface area, being seven times higher on the external surf aces than in its interior (Cheng et al., 2008). In addition, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (Cheng et al., 20 06) and later, near-edge X-ray absorption fine stru cture spectroscopy (Lehmann et al., 2005) have shown that abiotic oxidation occu rs mainly in the porous interior of biochar, while biotic oxidation is the predominant process on external surfaces. This probably means that biotic oxidation may become more relevant as particle size decrease as a consequence of biochar weathering, although there are doubts on the relative importance of such a process (Cheng et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the influence of increasingly warmer climates on biochar degradation rates in natural systems has not been resolved yet. Translocation of biochar within the soil profile and into water systems may also be a relevant process contribut ing to explain biochar loss in soil (Hockaday et al., 2006). Such a transloca tion via aeolian (e.g. Penner et al., 1993) and mostly fluvial (e.g. Mannino and Harvey, 2004) long-range transport has been previously proposed for other forms of BC, in order to explain its occurrence in deep-sea sedi ments (Masiello and Druffel, 1998), as well as in natural riverine (Kim et al., 2004) and estuarine (Mannino and Harvey, 2004) water. Soil erosion (in a global context) might result in greater amounts of BC being redistributed onto neighbourin g hill slopes and valley beds (Chaplot et al., 2005), or enriching marine and river sediments through long-range transport, as recently suggested by Rumpel et al. (2006a;b) for tropical sloping land under slash and burn agriculture. Partially, this can be explained by the light nature (low mass) of biochar (Rumpel et al., 2006a;b), and may be particularly relevant for finer biochars or those with higher dust contents. Similarly, this might apply predominantly to soils and sites which are more prone to erosion (Hammes and Schmidt, 2009). Up to now, biochar loss and mobility through the soil profile and into the water resources, has been scarcely quantifi ed and translocation mechanisms are poorly understood. This is further co mplicated by the limited amount of long- term studies and the lack of standardiz ed methods for simulating biochar aging and for long-term env ironmental monitoring (Sohi et al., 2009). Sound knowledge at this level will not only en able for a more robust estimate of global BC budget to be put forward (through an improved understanding of the role of BC as a global environm ental carbon sink) but also attenuate uncertainties in relation to current estimates of BC environmental fluxes. The finest biochar dust fraction, comprising condensed aromatic carbon in the form of fullerene-like structures (Harri s, 1997), is thought to be the most recalcitrant portion of the BC conti nuum in natural systems (Buzea et al., 2006). Interactions between this ultraf ine fraction and soil organic and mineral surfaces has been suggested to contribute to biochar’s inherent recalcitrance (Lehmann et al., 2009), although quantifying its relative importance by experimental evidence, may render difficult. Free sub-micron BC particles are primarily transported to the oceans, wher e the majority is deposited on coastal shelves, while smaller amounts continue on to deep-ocean sediments (Masiello and Druffel, 1998; Mannino and Harvey, 2004) with expected residence times of thousands of year s (Masiello and Druffel, 1998). The remaining fraction remains suspended in the atmosphere in the form of aerosols (Preston and Schmidt, 2006) and can be transported over long distances, eventually reachi ng the water courses and sediments (Buzea et al., 2006). 3.2.2 Sorption of Hydrophobic Organic Compounds (HOCs) The sorption of anthropogenic hydr ophobic organic compounds (HOC) (e.g. PAHs, polychlorinated biphenyl – PCBs , pesticides and herbicides) in soils and sediments, is generally described based on two coexisting and simultaneous processes: absorption into natural (amorphous) organic matter (NOM) and adsorption onto occurring charcoal materials (Cornelissen et al., 2005; Koelmans et al., 2006) . Comparatively to that of NOM, charcoals (including soot) generally hold up to 10-1000 times higher sorption affinities towards such compounds (Chiou and K ile, 1998; Bucheli and Gustafsson, 2000, 2003). It has been estimated that BC can account for as much as 8 0- 90% of total uptake of trace HOC in soils and sediments (Cornelissen et al., 2005), and that it applies to a much broader range of chemical species than previously thought (Bucheli and Gustaf sson, 2003; Cornelissen et al., 2004). Biochar application is, therefore, expected to improve the overall sorption capacity of soils (Chiou 1998), and cons equently, influence toxicity, transport and fate of trace contaminants, which may be already present or are to be added to soils. Enhanced sorption capacity of a silt loam for diuron (Yang and Sheng, 2003) and other anionic (Hiller et al., 2007) and cationic (Sheng et al., 2005) herbicides has previously been reported following the incorporation of biochar ash from crop (wheat and rice) residues. The relative importance of these latter studies is justified by the fact that charring of crop residues is a widespread agricultural prac tice (Hiller et al., 2007). Nevertheless, while the feasibility for reducing mobility of trace contaminants in soil might be beneficial (see Section 4.3), it might also result in their localised accumulation, with potentially detrimental effects on loca l flora and fauna if at some point in time the sorbed compounds become available to organisms. Experimental evidence is required to verify this. Despite that little is still known on the micro-scale processes controlling sorption to biochar (Sander and Pignatello , 2005) in soils and sediments, it has been suggested that it is mechanistic ally different from the traditional sorption models for NOM, and that it is also a less reversible process (Gustafsson et al., 1997; Chiou and Kile , 1998; Jonker et al., 2005). While absorption to NOM has little or no c oncentration dependence, adsorption to biochars has been shown to be strongly concentration dependent (e.g. Gustafsson et al., 1997; Sander and Pign atello, 2005; Pastor-Villegas et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2007), with affinity decreasing for increasing solute concentrations (Cornel issen et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2006). Several equations have been employ ed to describe such a behaviour, including that of Freundlich (e.g. Cornelissen et al., 2004) and Langmuir (e.g. van Noort et al., 2004), although more recent equations based on pore-filling models have shown better fits (e.g . Kleineidam et al., 2002). Previous studies have convincingly dem onstrated that adsorption to charcoals is mainly influenced by the structur al and chemical properties of the contaminant (i.e. molecular weight, hy drophobicity, planarity) (Cornelissen et al., 2004, 2005; Zhu and Pignatello, 20 05; Zhu et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2006), as well as pore size distribution, surface area and functionality of the charcoal (e.g. Wang et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2007). For example, sorption of tri- and tetra-substituted-benzenes (suc h as trichlorobenzene, trinitrotoluene and tetramethilbenzene) to maple wood charcoal (400°C) was sterically restricted, when comparing to that of the lower size benzene and toluene (Zhu and Pignatello, 2005). Among most cl asses of common organic compounds, biochar has been shown to adsorb PAHs pa rticularly strongly, with desorption having been regarded as ‘very slow’ (rate constants for desorption in water of 10-7-10-1 h-1, and even lower in sediments) (Jonker et al., 2005). This can be explained both by the plan arity of the PAH molecule, allowing unrestricted access to small pores (Bucheli and Gu stafsson, 2003; van Noort et al., 2004), and the strong π-π interactions between biochar’s surface and the aromatic molecule (e.g. Sander and Pignatello, 2005). ). In fact, experimental evidence has recently demonstrated that organic stru ctures in the form of BC (including biochar) or NOM, which are eq uipped with strong aromatic π-donor and – acceptor components, are capable of st rongly adsorbing to other aromatic moieties through specific sorptive forces other than hydrophobic interactions (Keiluweit and Kleber, 2009). Although a large body of evidence is av ailable on the way the characteristics of HOC influence sorption to biochars, t he contribution of the char’s properties to that process has been far less evalua ted. It is generally accepted that mechanisms leading to an increase in surface area and/or hydrophobicity of the char, reflected in an enhanced sorp tion affinity and capacity towards trace contaminants, as demonstrated for other forms of BC (Jonker and Koelmans, 2002; Noort et al., 2004; Tsui and Ro y, 2008). The influence of pyrolysis temperatures mostly in the 340-400°C ra nge (James et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2005; Tsui and Roy, 2008) and feedsto ck type (Pastor-Villegas et al., 2006) on such a phenomena has been recently ev aluated for various wood chars by a number of authors. Interestingly, sorption to hi gh-temperature chars appear to be exclusively by surface adsorption, while that to low-temperature chars derive from both surface adsorption and (at a smaller scale) absorption to residual organic matter (Chun et al., 2004). The influence of micropore distributi on on sorption to biochars has been clearly demonstrated by Wang et al. (2006). Diminished O functionality on the edges of biochar’s graphene sheets due to heat treatment (e.g. further charring), resulted in enhanced hydrophobicity and affinity for both polar and apolar compounds, by reducing competit ive adsorption by water molecules (Zhu et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2006). The treated char also revealed a consistent increase in micropore volume and pore surface area, resulting in better accessibility of solute molecu les and an increase in sorption sites (Wang et al., 2006). Once released in the envir onment, the original adsorption properties of biochar may be affected by ‘aging’ due to environmental factors, such as the impact of coexisting substances. T he presence of organic compounds with higher hydrophobicity and/or molecular sizes have shown reduce adsorption of lower molecular weight compounds to biochars (e.g. Sander and Pignatello, 2005; Wang et al., 2006). In the same way, some metallic ions (e.g. Cu 2+, Ag+) present at environmental relevant concentrations (50 mg L-1) may significantly alter surface chemistry and/ or pore network structure of the char through complexation (Chen et al., 2007). Perhaps a more important mechanism to consider, is the influence of dissolved NOM, including the humic, fulv ic (Pignatello et al., 2006) and lipid (Salloum et al., 2002) fractions, on the physical-chemical properties and adsorption affinity and capacity of bi ochars (Kwon and Pignatello, 2005). Similar evidence has long been reported for activated carbon (Kilduff and Wigton, 1999). “Aging” of maple wood charcoal (400°C) particles in a suspension of Amherst peat soil (18.9% OC)-water has demonstrated that NOM reduced affinity of the char fo r benzene (Kwon and Pignatello, 2005), corroborating other research (Corneli ssen and Gustafsson, 2005; Pignatello et al., 2006). Similar observation over a period of 100 years has been reported for pyrene in fore st soil enriched with charco al (Hockaday, 2006). In both cases, such a behaviour was explai ned by mechanisms of pore blockage (Kwon and Pignatello, 2005; Pignatello et al., 2006), and by the capacity of NOM to compete with (e.g. Cornelissen and Gustafsson, 2005) and displace the organic compound from the sorption sites (Hockaday, 2006). A wider range of soil characteristics remain to be tested. Frequently, contaminated soils contain a mix of organic solvents, PAHs, heavy metals and pesticides, adding to the naturally occurring mineral and organic matter (Chen et al., 2007). Neve rtheless, most studies on organic sorption to charred materials have re lied on single-solute experiments, whereas those using multiple solutes hold more practical relevance (Sander and Pignatello, 2006). Competitive sorpti on can be a significant environmental process in enhancing the mobility as we ll as leaching potential of HOC in biochar-enriched soil. Most of the evidence of increased sorpti on to HOC by biochar incorporation into soil is indirect (i.e., bulk and bi ochar or soot sorption is determined separately and biochar’s contribution is then proved comparatively to a treatment without biochar) and earlier attempts for its direct assessment overestimated it (Cornelissen and Gu stafsson, 2004). Yet, the potential of biochar amendment of soils for enhan cing soil sorption capacity and, therefore mitigating the toxicity and transport of relevant environmental contaminants in soils and sediment s appears undeniable. One can suggest that such an enhancement of soil sorp tion capacity may result in long mean residence times and accumulation of organic contaminants with potentially hazardous health and environmental consequenc es. At this stage, very little is known about the short- and long-term distri bution, mobility and bioavailability of such contaminants in biochar-enriched soils. It is worth underlining that although such a strong adsorptive behaviour appears to imply a reduced environmental ri sk of some chemical species (e.g. PAHs), very little data is, in fact, current ly available which confirms this. The underlying sorption mechanism, including t he way it is influenced by a wide range of factors inherent to the contaminant, to the char material and to the environment, remains far from being fully understood (Fernandes and Brooks, 2003), and thus it is identifi ed in this report as a priority for research. In this context, it is vital to comprehens ively assess the environmental risk associated to these species in biocha r-enriched soils, while re-evaluating both the use of generic OC-water distribution coefficients (Jonker et al., 2005) and of remediation endpoints (Cornelissen et al., 2005). For instance, rem ediation endpoints (undetectable, non-toxic or environmentally acceptable concentrations, as set by regulatory agencies) for common environmental contaminants in biochar-enriched soils would need to be assessed based on dissolved (bioavailable) concentrations rather than on total concentrations (Pointing, 2001; Cornelissen et al., 2005) . In order to achieve that, prior careful experimental evaluation of the contaminant distribution, mobility and availability in the presenc e of biochar is paramount. 3.2.3 Nutrient retention/availability/leaching Reduction of nutrient leaching from agriculture is an objective in line with the Water Framework Direct (WFD). T he WFD promotes an integrated management approach to improve the water quality of European water bodies. Application of fertilis ers has led to increased conc entrations of nitrates and phosphates in European surface and ground waters. Specific water quality targets have been se t by the Water Framework Directive with respect to nitrates, which are very susceptible to leaching (European Parliament and the Council of the Eur opean Union, 2000). Improved agricultural management practices are increasingly stimulated by the Common Agricultural Policy (cf. CAP Health Check). Evidence from several laboratory and field studies suggests that the application of biochar may lead to decreased nutrient leaching (studies particularly focussed on nitrates) and c ontaminant transport below the root zone. Several mechanisms contribute to the decrease in nutrient leaching which are related to incr eased nutrient use efficien cy by increased water and nutrient retention (residence time in the r oot zone) and availability, related to an increased internal reactive surfac e area of the soil-biochar matrix, decreased water percolation below the root zone related to increased plant water use (increased evaporative surfac e), and increased plant nutrient use through enhanced crop growth. Higher ret ention times also permit a better decomposition of organic material and promote the breakdown of agrichemicals. Nevertheless, mechanisms su ch as colloid-facilitated transport of contaminants by biochar particles, or preferential flow induced by biochar applications, and long term stability of biochar in soil, are potential factors that my increase the leaching of nutrients and/or contaminants. The magnitude and dynamics resulting fr om biochar application are time, space and process specific. The myriad of interactions within the soil-plant- atmosphere, and the range of potential feedstock specific effects of biochar on these interactions, makes it inherently difficult to formulate generic qualities of “biochar”. It also has to be kept in mi nd that other factors, such as rainfall patterns and agricultural management practices, will be more strongly determining the loss of nutri ents from the root zone. The mobility of the water percolating beyond the root zone depends on the infiltration capacity, hydraulic conductivity and water retention of the root zone, the amount of crop transpi ration dependent on the density and capability of the root net work to extract water, and the prevalent meteorological conditions at the site. These factors are largely dependent on the proportion and connections between micro, meso and macro pores. The partitioning of groundwater recharge, surface-water runoff and evapotranspiration is affected by chan ges in the soil’s water retention capacity. In those situati ons where biochar application improves retention (of plant available water) and increases plant transpiration (Lehmann et al., 2003), percolation below the root zone can be reduced, leading to the retention of mobile nutrients susceptible to leaching such as nitrates, or base cations at low pH. Biochar directly contributes to nutrient adsorption through charge or covalent interactions on a high surface area. Majo r et al. (2002) showed that biochar must be produced at temperatures above 500°C or be activated to results in increased surface area of the biochar and thus increased direct sorption of nutrients. Glaser et al. ( 2002) conclude that ‘charc oal may contribute to an increase in ion retention of soil and to a decrease in leaching of dissolved OM and organic nutrients’ as they found hi gher nutrient retention and nutrient availability after charcoal additions to tropical soil. A possible contributing mechanism to increased N retention in soils amended with biochar is the stimulation of microbial immobilisati on of N and increased nitrates recycling due to higher availability of carbon (see Se ction 3.2.3). Biological N fixation by common beans was reported to increase with biochar additions of 50 g kg -1 soil (Rondon et al., 2007), although soil N uptake decreased by 50%, whereas the C:N ratios increased with a factor of two. Lehmann et al. (2003) reported on lysimete r experiments which indicated that the ratio of uptake to leaching for all nutrients increases with charcoal application to the soil. Howe ver they also concluded that it could not clearly be demonstrated which role char coal played in the increased retention, although, in these experiments, water percola tion was not decreased. Therefore, nutrients must have been retained on elec trostatic adsorption complexes created by the charcoal. Similarly, Steiner et al. (2004) attributed decreased leaching rates of applied mineral fertiliser N in soils amended with charcoal to increased nutrient use efficiency. Neve rtheless, the interaction between mineral fertiliser and biochar seems cr itical. Lehmann et al. (2003) found that while cumulative leaching of mineral N, K, Ca and Mg in an Amazonian Dark Earth was lower compared to a Ferralsol in unfertilised experiments, leaching from the ADE exceed that from the Ferralsol in fertiliser experiments. If biochar applications lead to improved soil aggregation, this may lead to an increase in the soil’s water infiltrati on capacity. Using measured properties such as saturated hydraulic conductivi ty and total porosity in a modelling assessment of the impact of charc oal production, Ayodele et al. (2009) showed that infiltration was enhanced and runoff volume reduced. The increase in infiltration ma y be accompanied by improved water retention in the root zone in coarse soils. On the other hand, however, since a large percentage of the pores in bi ochar are very small (250 t ha -1) (McHenry, 2009). A wider range of biochars and soil types remains to be tested, which would undoubtedly shed more light onto the potential for soil and water contamination by metals. Secondary chemical reactions during t hermal degradation of organic material at temperatures exceeding 700°C, is gener ally associated to the generation of heavily condensed and highly carcinogenic and mutagenic PAHs (Ledesma et al., 2002; Garcia-Perez, 2008). Nevertheless, little evidence exists that PAHs can also be formed within the temper ature range of pyrolysis (350-600°C), although these appear to carry lowe r toxicological and environmental implications (Garcia-Perez, 2008). Neve rtheless, their potential occurrence in the soil and water environments via bioc har may constitute a serious public health issue. Evidence seems to show that biomass feedstock and operation conditions are influencing factors det ermining the amount and type of PAHs generated (Pakdel and Roy, 1991), and ther efore, there is great need to assess the mechanisms, as well as ident ify specific operational and feedstock conditions, which lead to their forma tion and retention in the final biochar product. Very little data is available on the occurrence of PAHs in pyrolysis pro ducts, compared to that from combustion or incineration. Among such studies, Fernandes and Brooks (2003), Brown et al. (2006) and Jones (2008) do stand out. Pea straw and eucalyptus wood char coal produced at 450°C for 1 h, exhibited low PAHs conc entrations (<0.2 µg g -1), although their levels in straw (0. 12 µg g-1) were slightly higher than that from the denser feedstock material (0.07 µg g-1) (Fernandes et al., 2003). Similarly, Brown et al. (2006) reported that PAHs concentrations in several chars produced at temperatures exceeding 500°C, ran ged between 3-16 µg g -1 (depending on peak treatment temperature), compar ed to that (28 µg g-1) in char from prescribed burn in pine forest. The range of producing conditions and feedstock materials employed in the latter studies was narro w. In contrast, Jones (2008) studied twelve biochar products from a variet y of biomass sources and producers, with evidence that PAHs levels in bioc har were often comparable or even lower than those found in some rura l urban and urban soils. This finding corroborates previous studies (review ed by Wilcke, 2000), in which topsoil concentration ranges of several PAHs were found to increase in the order of arable < grassland < forest < urban. For example, at the lower end (arable soil), concentration ranges for naphthalene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene and pyrene were up to 0.02, 0.05, 0.067, 0.134 µg g -1 (respectively). At the top end of the c oncentration range (urban soil), levels of those compounds (respectively) were up to 0.269, 0.55, 2.809, 1.40 and 11.90 µg g -1 (reviewed by Wilcke, 2000). It is im portant to note, however, that the latter data refers to initial concent rations in soil, not taking into account interactions with organic and mineral fractions, and most importantly, not providing information on t he bio-available fraction. Recently, however, the mild (supercritic al fluid) extraction of pyrogenic PAHs from charcoal, coal and different types of soot, including coal soot, showed promising results (Jonker et al., 2005). To the best of our knowledge, this study was pioneer in reporting desorption kinetics of pyrogenic PAHs from their ‘natural’ carrier under conditi ons which mimic those in natural environments. Such “soot and charcoal-associated PAHs” were found to be strongly sorbed to their carrier matrix (e.g. charcoal, soot) by means of physical entrapment within the matrix nanopores (so called “occlusion sites”) in charcoal and sequestration within the particulate matter. Consequently, it is anticipated “very slow desorption” (rate constants of up to 10 -7 to 10-6 h-1) of these compounds from the carrier in natural environments, which can range from several decades to several millennia (Jonker et al., 2005). PAHs sorption to charcoals has been reviewed extensiv ely in Section 3.2.2 of this report, including the mechanisms leading to incr eases in their accessibility, such as interactions with NOM and coex isting chemical species. To the best of our knowledge, there ar e no toxicological reports involving PAHs incorporated in soil due to bioc har application, nor have biochar application rates have been defined in terms of PAHs accumulation and bioavailability, both in soil and water syst ems. Further research is paramount on the behaviour of such contaminants in biochar-enriched natural systems. In this context, a re-evaluation of risk assessment procedures for these compounds needs to be put in place, which takes into account the influence of NOM on their desorption from biochar, transport and bioavailability. Dioxins and furans are planar chlori nated aromatic compounds, which are predominantly formed at temperatures exceeding 1000°C (Garcia-Perez, 2008). Although data exists confirming t heir presence in products from combustion reactions, such as incine ration of landfill and municipal solid wastes (as cited by Garcia-Perez, 2008), no reports were found on thei r content in biochar deriv ed from traditional biomass feedstocks. In contrast, char from automobile shredder residues was shown to contain up to 0.542 mg kg -1 of dioxins, while their generati on and accumulation in the char was dependent on the operational conditions (Joung et al., 2007). Scarce experimental evidence on dioxin levels in pyrolysis products (biochar in particular) in the range of temperatures between 350-600°C, is largely limiting towards our knowledge on potential dioxin contamination of soil via biochar. More research on this matter is urgently needed. It appears that pyrolysis of strongly oxygenated feedsto cks under low temperatures (400 and 600°C) do not favour the generation of dioxin s and dioxin-related compounds. Based on the current knowledge, it is likely that such a risk is low for the aforementioned biochar production factors, particularly when using low-chlorine and low-metal containing feedstocks (Garcia-Perez, 2008). At this stage, extrapolat ing a link between the presence of contaminants on biochar and a detrimental effect on hu man and animal health, particularly in regard to bioaccumulation and bioamplification in the food ch ain, can only be hypothesised. One can sugges t that potential uptake and toxicity of such contaminants is perhaps more prom inent in the case of microbial communities, sediment-dwelling organisms and filter feeders. In note of the application of biochar into soil being an irreversible process, Blackwell et al. (2009) emphasised the need for full case-by-case characterisation and risk assessment of each biochar product previous to its application to soil, accounting not only for heterogeneity amo ng biochars, but also for soil type and environmental conditions. There are no current standards for biochar or processing conditions which can provide sound basis for biochar quality regulations with regard to the presence of contaminants, thus ensuring soil and water protection. Also lacking is a clearly defined set of conditions under which biochar and related materials can be applied to soil without licensing (Sohi et al., 2009). As Collison et al. (2009) noted, the nat ural occurrence of BC in soils is widespread and detrimental effects on envir onmental quality are generally not apparent. However, it is the perspecti ve of an extensive and indiscriminate incorporation of biochars into soils, derived from some feedstock materials under specific operation conditions, wit hout previous full risk assessment, which constitutes the main issue of conc ern. This is particularly the case for small-scale and on-farm pyrolysis units using local biomass resources (e.g. forestry and agricultural wastes), which may not hold the necessary technological and economic infrastructure s to tackle this matter. Also, it is likely that these small la ndholders in rural areas might prefer using low- temperature pyrolysis, thereby reducin g operation costs. Farmers should be made aware that sub-optimal pyrol ysis operating conditions and certain feedstocks may not only reduce the benefit s associated to biochar application, but also enhance the risk of land and water contamination. 3.2.5 Soil Organic Matter (SOM) Dynamics SOM stabilisation mechanisms for tem perate soils have been researched comprehensively and reviewed recently (Von Lützow et al, 2006; 2008 2008; Kögel-Knabner et al., 2008; Marschner et al., 2008). Primary recalcitrance refers to the recalcitrance of the orig inal plant matter, while secondary recalcitrance refers to that of its charred product, i.e. pyrogenic BC. For biochars from feeds tocks that have already undergone selective preservation, i.e. any process leading to the relative accumulation of recalcitrant molecules, it may be appropriate to consider tertiary recalcitrance. Stability of SOM is the result of reca lcitrance, organo-mineral interactions, and accessibility. Because biochar is OM but also has many properties functionally similar to mineral matter, it is necessary to consider the stability of biochar in soils as well as the stability of native SO M, or OM that is added with, or after, the biochar. 3.2.5.1 Recalcitrance of biochar in soils Studies of charcoal produc ed by wildfires have shown that abiotic processes generally have more impact on the decom position of charcoal than biotic processes, in the short term (Cheng et al 2006; Bruun and Luxhøi. 2008). However, abiotic oxidation can only occur on the surface and as such once the surface of biochar has been oxidis ed biotic process are thought to become more important. The fact that the soil microbiota is capable of oxidising graphitic carbon, which is the rmodynamically stable and recalcitrant carbon, was first demonstrated by Shne our (1966). This author found that a ‘substantially higher’ oxidat ion rate, being at least a 3-fold increase, was found in non-sterile soils than in sterilised soils. More work regarding recalcitrance has been conducted on BC, specifically pyrogenic BC, rather than on biochar per se. Nevertheless, owing to its relatively similar physical and chemic al composition BC is an acceptable analogue and it is likely that the recalcitrance of biochars will function according to similar mechanisms. As graphite has been shown to be oxidis ed by microbial activity, albeit very slowly (Shneour 1966), a degree of decomposition of biochars can be expected. Contradictory expe rimental results exist, with both rapid (Bird et al. 1999) and slow (Shindo 199 1) decomposition of biomass-derived BC being reported. This difference is likely to be an artefact of the different microbial communities to which the BC was exposed. Although precise details regarding the turnover of BC in soils remain unknown, and due to the complexity of its interact ion within the soil system and its biot a exact details are unlikely to be found, BC has been foun d to be the oldest fraction of C in soil, being older than the most prot ected C in soil aggregates and organo- mineral complexes (Pessenda et al ., 2001), which are commonly the most stable forms of C in soil. This demons trates that even without knowing the precise details of turnover of BC in soil, it at least has highly stable components with “decomposit ion leading to subtle, and possibly important, changes in the bio-chemical form of the material rather than to significant mass loss” (Lehmann et al 2006). It has been noted that the reca lcitrance of BC in soils cannot be characterised by a single number (Hedges et al., 2000; Von Lützow et al., 2006). This is because pyrogenic BC is an amal gamation of heterogeneous compounds and, as such, different fractions of it will decompose at different rates under different conditions (Hedges et al., 2000) . According to Preston & Schmidt (2006) the more recalcitrant compounds in pyrogenic BC, created by wildfire and therefore of a woody feedstock, can be expected to have a half life in the region of thousands of y ears (possibly between 5 an d 7 thousand years) in cold and wet environments. However, some fractions of pyrogenic BC which may have undergone less thermal alteration (being more analogous to biochars which have also undergone less thermal alteration due to low heat pyrolysis, a half life in the region of hundreds of years as opposed to thousands may be expected (Bird et al., 1999). This agrees with work reported by Brunn et al. (2008) who found that the rate of microbial mineralisation of charcoal decreas es with increasing mineralisation temperature (see also Section 1.6). Besides physical and chemical stabiliz ation mechanisms, another important factor that may affect the residence time of biochar in soils is the phenomenon of co-metabolism. This is where biochar decomposition is increased due to microbial metabolism of ot her substrates, which is often increased when SOM is ‘unlocked’ from the soil structure due to disturbance (e.g. incorporating biochar into the soil via tillage). 3.2.5.2 Organomineral interactions The interactions between SOM and soil minerals have received considerable attention in the literatur e. Von Lützow et al. (2006) concluded that some evidence exists for interactions between biochar and soil minerals, leading to accumulation in soil, but that the me chanisms responsible are still unknown. One potential mechanism is the oxidat ion of the functional groups at the surface of the charcoal, which favour s interactions with soil organic and mineral fractions (Lehmann et al., 2005; Glaser et al., 2002). Section 3.2.1 explores further the interaction between biochar and other soil components. 3.2.5.3 Accessibility Biochar can both increase and decreas e the accessibility of SOM to microorganisms and enzymes. Brodowski et al. (2006) provided evidence that a significant portion of BC occurs in the aggregate-occluded OM in soil. Interestingly, the largest BC concentrations occurred in microaggregates (1,000 yr) will reside in the soil matrix during their ‘life span’, is unknown at present. The interaction between biochar particles, mineral soil particles and native organic matter (NOM), or OM that is applied with (or after) the biochar, is likely to play a major role (see Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.5). Wind erosion is caused by the simultaneo us occurrence of three conditions: high wind velocity; susceptible surface of loose particles; and insufficient surface protection. Theoretically, if bi ochar particles are produced with water retention properties greater than the water retention capacity of the soil surface at a site, and if the biochar particles become a structural component of that surface soil (e.g. not residing on top of the soil surface), and possibly interacting with OM and miner al particles, then wind erosion rates at that site may be reduced, all other fa ctors remaining equal. The application of biochar dust to the soil surface (i.e. not incor porated) can pose risks via wind erosion of the dust particles and subsequent inhala tion by people. Strict guidelines on biochar application stra tegies under specific environmental and land use conditions could prove sufficient to prevent this risk. Water erosion takes place through rill and/or inter-rill (sheet) erosion, and gullies, as a result of excess surfac e runoff, notably when flow shear stresses exceed the shear strength of the soil (K irkby et al., 2000, 2004; Jones et al., 2004). This form of erosion is generally estimated to be the most extensive form of erosion occurring in Europe. If biochar reduces surface runoff, then, logically, it will reduce soil loss by wa ter erosion, all other factors remaining equal. Surface runoff can be reduced by increased water holding capacity (decreasing saturation overland flow ) or increased infiltration capacity (decreasing infiltration excess – or Hort onian – overland flow) of the topsoil. Under specific environmental condition s, it seems that biochar with large water retention properties could dimi nish the occurrence of saturation overland flow. This effect could be enhanced when biochar addition leads to stabilisation of NOM, or OM that is added wi th, or after, the biochar. Infiltration excess overland flow depends more on so il structure and related drainage properties. In particular the soil surfac e properties are important for this mechanism. It is not inconceivable that specific biochar particles can play a role in increasing infiltration rates, how ever, other biochar particles could also lead to reduced infiltration rates when fi ne biochar particles fill in small pore spaces in topsoils, or increased hydrophob icity (Section 3.1). In addition, and this could be an overriding factors at least in the short term, the biochar application strategy and timing is a potent ial source of topsoil and/or subsoil compaction (Section 1.8) and, thereby, reduced infiltration rates. It stands to reason that under those conditions where surface runoff is reduced by biochar application, possibly as part of a wider package of soil conservation measures, a concomitant reduction in flooding occurrence and severity may be expected, all other fa ctors remaining equal. However, as stated at the beginning of this section, experimental evidence of biochar application on erosion was not encountered in the scientific literature, nor was it for flooding. On the other hand, under conditions where biochar application leads to soil compaction (see Section 1.8) runoff may be increased leading to more erosion. Research is needed into all aspects of effects from biochar addition to soil loss by erosion descri bed here, and in particular into the mechanisms behind the effects. Even a small effect may be worthwhile considering estimates of the cost to so ciety from erosion. For example annual costs have been estimated to be £205 million in England and Wales alo ne and $44 billion in the U.S.A. (Pimentel et al., 1995). In addition, active and targeted modification of the water retent ion function of specific soils could be considered in the context of scenarios of adapting to changing rainfall patterns (seasonal distribution, int ensity) with climate change. In the future, climate change looks likely to increase rainfall intensity over large areas of Europe, if not annual totals, thereby increasing soil erosion by water, although there is much uncertainty about the spatio-temporal structure of this change as well as the socio-economic and agronomic chang es that may accompany them (e.g. Boardman and Favismortlock, 1993; Phillip s et al.,1993; Nearing et al., 2004). 4.2 Decline in soil organic matter Decline in SOM is defined as a negative imbalance bet ween the build-up of SOM and rates of decomposition leading to an overall decline in SOM contents and/or quality, causing a deterio ration or loss of one or more soil functions (Jones et al., 2008). The interaction between biochar and NO M, or OM that is added with the biochar, or afterwards, is complex. Many mechanisms have been identified and are discussed in this r eport, i.e. priming effect, residue removal, liming effect, organomineral interacti ons, aggregation and accessibility. Biochar replacing peat extraction If biochar is engineered to have good plant-available water properties as well as nutrient retention, it could come to replace peat as a growing medium in horticulture (also agriculture), and as a gardening amendment sold in garden centres. Peatlands currently used (‘mined’) for peat extraction could then be restored with substantial benefits to their functioning and the ecosystem services which they provide, e.g. maintenance of biodiversity, C sequestration, w ater storage, etc. Janssens et al. (2005) reported that undisturbed European peatlands sequester C at a rate of 6 g m -2 total land area, while peat extraction caused a C loss of 0-36 g m-2 total land area. Janssens et al. (2003) estimated a net loss of 50 (±10) Mt yr-1 for the European continent, which is equivalent to around 1/6 of the total yearly C loss from European croplands. However, this value is likely to be greater when also considering C emissions associated with continued decomposition at abandoned peat mines (Turetsky et al., 2002), transport to processing plant, transport to market, and decomposition of the applied peat (e.g. in a life cycle assessment; Cleary et al., 2005). 4.3 Soil contamination Recently, increasing knowledge on the sorption capacity of biochar has had two environmentally important outcomes. Firstly, the realisation that biochar addition to a soil can be ex pected to improve its overall sorption capacity, and consequently influence the toxicity , transport and fate of any organic compounds, which may be already present or are to be added to that soil (see Section 3.2.2). Secondly, enhanced awareness that biochar from widely available biomass resources can be appli ed to soils and sediments as a low- cost and low-environmental-impact mitigation/remediation strategy for common environmental pollutants. The latter outcome appears to be even more attractive when considering the time and cost benefits associated to biochar production, relatively to that of activated carbon in various applicatio ns. Activated carbon results from activating (involving partial oxidation) a charcoal precursor by means of exposing it to CO 2, steam or acid at high temperatures, in order to further increase its surface area (per gram; McHenry, 2009) . Overall, evidence suggests that biochar and activated carbon have comparable sorption affinities, as demonstrated by Tsui and Roy (2008), using compost biochar (pyrolysis temperatures ranging between 120-420°C) and corn stillage activated carbon for removal of the herbicide atrazine in solution (1.7 mg L -1). In fact, the effectiveness of activated carbon over that of wood biochar has been questioned in some instances (Pulid o et al., 1998; Wingate et al., 2009), but this aspect remains far from fully evaluated. Wingate et al. (2009) have very re cently patented the development and application of charcoal from various pl ant and crop tissues (leaves, bark and stems) of ammonium (NH 4 +) and heavy metal-contaminated environments (soil, brown-field site, mine tailings, slurry, and aqueous solution). Heavy metal ions are strongly ads orbed onto specific active sites containing acidic carboxyl groups at the surface of the charcoal (e.g. Machida et al., 2005). Surprisingly, the mechanism of metal uptake by charcoals appears to involve replacing pre-existing i ons contained in the charcoal (e.g. K, Ca, Mg, Mn, excluding Si), with the metal ion, suggesting a relationship between the mineral content of the char coal and its remediation pot ential for heavy metals (Wingate et al., 2009). In the soil environment, biochar has already been shown to be effective in mitigating mobility and toxicity of hea vy metals (Wingate et al., 2009) and endocrine disruptors (Smernik, 2007; Wins ley, 2007). However, very little work of this kind has been accomplishe d and data is still scarce. It is likely that soil heterogeneity and the lack of moni toring techniques for biochar in this environment may partly explain such a gap. The previous discussion on contaminant leaching over time as a consequence of biochar aging in the environment (see Section 3.2.1) does not necessary mean that its high remediating potential should be disr egarded. For example, it could be employed as a ‘first-inst ance’ pollutant immobilisat ion from point sources. Also, biochar’s higly porous matrix might be ideal as carrier for microrganisms as part of bioaugmentation programs for specific sites, where indigenous microbial populations are scarce or have been suppressed by the contaminant (Wingate et al., 2009). In this context, for instance, Wingate et al. (2009) have reported the successful application of charcoal carrying 10 10 hydrocarbon degraders (per gram of charcoal) in diesel-polluted sites, resulting in 10 fold enhancement of hydrocarbon degradation in this environment. Clearly, it is likely that appropriate regulatory requirements for cleanup and closure would be needed before any remediation plan involving biochar could be impl emented. Experimental evidence is required in order to verify this. There is also evidence that it is possible to use biochar’s sorptive capacity in water and wastewater treatments (Wingate et al., 2009), whereas the use of activated carbon for removal of ch lorine and halogenated hydrocarbons, organic compounds (e.g. phenols, PCBs , pesticides) and heavy metals (Boateng, 2007) has long been established. Crop residue (mainly wheat) biochar produced at temperatures between 300°C and 700°C has already shown potential for removal of sulphate (Beaton, 1960), benzene and nitrobenzene from solution (Chun et al., 2004), while bamboo charcoal powder has been effective in uptake of ni trate from drinking water (Mizuta et al., 2004). Other studies in aqueous m edia have reported biochar’s capacity to adsorb phosphate and ammo nium (Lehmann et al., 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003, 2003b), with further applications having been reviewed by Radovic et al. (2001). In the context of water treat ment, Sohi et al. (2009) have pointed out that a higher control over the remediation proc ess would be achievable, comparatively to that in soil. The possibility of using ‘e ngineered’ (or ‘tailor-made’ ) biochar (Pastor-Villegas et al., 2006) in order to meet the require ments for a specific remediation plan looks increasingly promising. As the mechanisms of biochar production, behaviour and fate, as well as its impac t on ecosystem health and functioning become increasingly well understood, biochar can be optimised to deliver specific benefits (Sohi et al., 2009). Nevertheless, data on competitive sorption in soils and sediments emphasize the need for a full characterisation of the contaminated site and the coex isting chemical species before any remediation plan involving bi ochar is put in place. 4.4 Decline in soil biodiversity Decline is soil biodiversity is defined as a ‘reduction of forms of life living in the soil (both in terms of quantit y and variety) and of related functions, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions‘ (Jones et al., 2008). There is evidence of decline in soil biodiversity in some specific cases. For example, the Swiss Federal Environment Office has published the first-ever “Red List” of mushrooms detailing 937 known specie s facing possible extinction in the country (Swissinfo 2007). In another in stance, the New Zealand flatworm is increasing in numbers and extent and pot entially poses a great threat to earthworm diversity in the UK with a 12% reduction in earthworm populations in some field sites in Scotland already reported (Boag et al. 1999). Changes in earthworm community structure have been also recorded (Jones et al., 2001). The exact impacts of a decline in soil bi odiversity are far from clear, due to complications by such phenomena as functional redundancy. However, it is clear that any decline in soil biodive rsity has the potential to compromise ecosystem services, or at least reduce the resistance of the soil biota to further pertubations. Although evidence exis ts for declines in soil biodiversity in some specific cases, it is a highl y depauperate area of research. However, no studies have been published to date lo oking at how biochar additions to soil can be used to restor e soil biodiversity to previous levels in any given area. Threats to soil biodiversity consist of those soil threats as described in the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (COM(2006) 231) and as such, in those situations where biochar either helps the mitigation of, or increases the problem of, it is likely that knock on effects for the soil biota will occur. 4.6 Soil compaction Soil compaction is defined as the densification and distor tion of soil by which total and air-filled porosity are reduced, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions (Jones et al., 2008). The effects of biochar on soil compac tion have been studied very little. Both potential positive and negative effects may occur, for topsoil as well as subsoil compaction. Whereas topsoil com paction is ‘instantaneous’, subsoil compaction is a cumulative process l eading to densification just below the topsoil over the years. A biochar application strategy, where application occurs every year, is, therefore, a gr eater risk of subsoil compaction than a ‘single application’ biochar strategy. An obvious risk of compaction is the actual application of biochar itsel f. When applied with heavy machinery and while the water-filled pore volume of soil is high, the risk of compaction increases. Biochar also has a low elastici ty, measured by the relaxation ratio (R), which is defined as the ratio of t he bulk density of the test material under specified stress to the bulk density after the stress has been removed. Straw has a very high elasticity ratio and, therefore, when straw is charred and applied as biochar instead of fresh straw, the resilience of the soil to compactive loads is reduced, all other factors remaining equal. The bulk density of biochar is low and, therefore, adding biochar to soil can lower the bulk density of the soil t hereby reducing compaction. However, when biochar is applied as very fine particles, or wh en larger biochar particles disintegrate in arable soils under infl uence of tillage and cultivat ion operations, these can fill up small pores in the soil leading to compaction. Compaction by machinery may be prev ented relatively easily by promoting sound soil management. However, compac tion by the behaviour of biochar particles in the soil has received very little attention in research so far and mechanisms are understood poorly. 4.7 Soil salinisation Soil salinisation is defined as the accumu lation of water soluble salts in the soil, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions. The accumulated salts include sodium-, potassium-, magnesium- and calcium- chlorides, sulphates, carbonates and bicarbonates (Jones et al., 2008). A distinction can be made between pr imary and secondary salinisation processes. Primary salinisation involves accumulation of salts through natural processes as physical or chemical w eathering and transport processes from salty geological deposits or groundwater . Secondary salinisation is caused by human interventions such as inappropriate irrigation practices, use of salt-rich irrigation water and/or poor drainage conditions (Huber et al., 2009). Salts associated with biochar should be c onsidered as a potential source for secondary salinisation. Various salts can be found in the ash frac tion of biochar, depending mostly on the mineral content of the feedstock. I ndications are that the ash content of biochar varies from 0.5% – 55%. In classic charcoal manufacturing, ‘good 107 quality’ charcoal is referred to as havin g 0.5% – 5.0% ash (Antal and Gronli, 2003). However, biochar produced from feedstocks such as switchgrass and maize residue have been reported to have an ash content 26% – 54% much of which as silica, while hardwood ash contai ns mainly alkali metals (Brewer et al., 2009). A wide range of trace elem ents have been measured in biochar ash, e.g. boron, cupper, zinc, etc ., however, the most common elements are potassium, calcium, silicon and in smaller amounts aluminium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, sodium and manganes e. These elements are all in oxidised form, e.g. Na 2O, CaO, K2O, but can be reactive or soluble in water to varying degrees. It is the ash fraction that provides the liming effects of biochar that is discussed as a pot ential mechanism of some reported increases in plant productivity (see Section 3.3). However, for soils that are salinised or are sensitive to become sali nised, that same ash fraction might pose an increased threat. Surprisingly little work has been found on biochar ash and under what conditions it may become soluble and contribute to salinisation. 4.8 Summary This chapter has described the interact ions between biochar and ‘threats to soil’. For most of these interactions, the body of scientific evidence is currently insufficient to arrive at a consensus. Ho wever, what is clear is that biochar application to soils will effect soil properties and processes and thereby interact with threats to soil. Aw areness of these interactions, and the mechanisms behind them, is required to lead to the research necessary for arriving at understanding mechanisms and effects on threats to soil, as well as the wider ecosystem. 5. WIDER ISSUES 5.1 Emissions and atmospheric pollution The high load of aerosol and pollutant emissions generated by wildfires and the combustion of fossil fuels explain much of the concern on biochar production being associated to high levels of particulate matter and atmospheric pollutants. Nevertheless, the type and composition of such emissions, including the way these are in fluenced by pyrolysis conditions and factors associated to biomass feeds tock, are considerably less well understood (Fernandes and Brooks, 2003). Particulate matter emitted during pyrolysis is a main focus of human and environmental health concern based on what is known regarding the inherent toxicity associated to some types of fine and ultrafine particles, due to their small size and large surface area (F ernandes and Sicre, 1999). Whereas until recently, some cases of disease (e.g. respiratory and cardiac) associated to atmospheric pollution were thought to be caused by some particle types with dimensions up to 10 µm, recent progr ess has demonstrated that those responsible are mainly within the nano- size range. The U.S.A. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has responde d by putting forward new ambient standards on Air Quality for particulate matter <2.5 µm (PM2.5). Current annual mean limits are 40 µg m -3 and 20 µg m-3 for PM10 (700°C), is genera lly associated to the generation and emission of heavily condensed and highly carcinogenic and mutagenic PAHs (Ledesma et al., 2002; Garcia-Perez, 2008). Nevertheless, some evidence also exists that PAHs can be formed wit hin the temperature range of pyrolysis (350-600°C). These low-temperature generated PAHs are highly branched in nature and appear to carry lower toxicolo gical and environmental implications (Garcia-Perez, 2008). Prelim inary results from a recent study have shown that the amount of biochar-related PAH emis sions from traditional feedstocks remain within environmental compliance (Jones, 2008). Dioxins (PCDD) and furans (PCDF) are planar chlorinated aromatic compounds, which are pr edominantly formed by combustion of organic material in the presence of chlorine and metals, at temperatures exceeding 1000°C (Lavric et al., 2005; Garcia-Per ez, 2008). Wood (accidental fires, wildfires and wood wastes) is an important air emission source for dioxins (Lavric et al., 2005). While combustion of firewood and pellets in residential stoves, as well as paper and plastic wa stes, are well know for emitting high loads of dioxins (Hedman et al., 200 6), actual emission factors and corresponding activity rates remain poor ly assessed (Lavric et al., 2005). No experimental evidence was found confi rming dioxin emissions from pyrolysis of traditional biomass feedstocks used in biochar production. The emission of atmospheric pollutant s during biochar production requires a full evaluation. This assessment is vital for establishing whether such emissions may cancel out benefits su ch as carbon sequestration potential. Such an evaluation should focus bey ond a qualitative and quantitative characterisation of those pollutants, and should include the pyrolysis operational conditions and tec hnologies required to reduce their emissions yto acceptable levels. Evidence in the liter ature suggests that a certain degree of control in respect to biochar-related emissions can be achieved through the use of traditional feedstock material s and lower (<500°C) temperature pyrolysis. Whereas this aspect looks promising in relation to Air Quality, current biochar-producing technologies remain largely inefficient. According to Brown (2009), there is still wide room for improvement in the context of both energy consumption and atmospheric emis sions, particularly when traditional gasifiers are concerned. At this level, the author identifies specific goals for optimal biochar production, among whic h are the use of continuous feed pyrolisers and an effective recovery of co-products (Brown, 2009). A detailed analysis on current and future biochar technologies aiming for a more ‘environmentally friendly’ biochar production is also provided. Collison et al. (2009) in a report to EEDA, reminded that generation and emission of environmental pollutants as well as the incidence of health and safety issues associated to biochar production, transport and storage, is probably of greater concern for small-sca le pyrolysis units, particularly in developing countries. It is often the ca se, that such smaller units lack the knowledge and/or financial support, to comply to the environmental standards (Brown, 2006). A joint effort is nece ssary to overcome this gap, which includes the use of clean pyrolysis technologies (Lehmann et al., 2006) and the establishment of tight policy and regulations in respect to biochar production and handling. Furthermore, adequate educating and training, and perhaps the granting of governmental financial support would allow putting in place equipment and measures, aiming to minimise environmental and human exposure to emissions linked to biochar production. 5.2 Occupational health and safety Biochar production facilities, as well as those associated to transportation and storage may pose an Occupational Health hazard for the workers involved, particularly when exposure to biochar dust is concerned (Blackwell et al., 2009). In addition, health and fire hazards are related directly to the key physical properties of biochar determining the suitability for a given application method (Blackwell et al., 2009). However, any discussions and recommendations in the context of health and safety can only be addressed generally, given the heterogeneity among biochars. Further research on acute and chronic exposure to biochar dust, in pa rticular to its nano-sized fraction, remains scarce and is thus identified as a priority. ‘Nanoparticle’ has been used broadly to refer to those particles within biochar dust (e.g. fullerenes or fullerene-like st ructures, crystalline forms of silica, cristobalite and tridymite) , with at least one dimension smaller than 100 nm. Two major aspects distinguish them from the remaining larger-sized microparticles: large surface area and high particle number per unit of mass, which may signify a 1000-fold enhanced r eactive surface (Buzea et al., 2007). Such reactivity and their small size widely explain their hazardous potential. Several reports have focused on their ability to enter, transit within a nd damage living cells and organisms. This capacity is partly consequence of their small size, enabling easy penetration through physical barriers, translocation trough the circulatory system of the host, and interaction with various cellular components (Buzea et al., 2007), including DNA (Zhao et al., 2005). Most toxicological and ep idemiological studies using fish, mice and mammalian cell lines (Andrade et al., 2006; Moore et al., 2006; Oberdorster et al., 2006; Nowack et al., 2007) demonstrat e an inflammatory response in the cell or animal host (Donaldson et al., 2005). In biological systems, nanoparticles are known to generate di sease mainly by mechanisms of oxidative stress, either by introducing oxidant species into the system or by acting as carriers for trace metals (Ober dorster, et al., 2004; Sayes et al., 2005). Those studies have also demonstrat ed that oxidative stress may result ultimately in irreversible disruption of basic cellular mechanisms such as proliferation, metabolism and death. However, extrapolating such effects to humans remains a challenge, and any outcomes are expected to be dependent on various factors relating to ex posure conditions, residence time and inherent variability of the host (Buzea et al., 2007). Exposure to nanoparticles within bioc har dust (e.g. carbon-based NP, crystalline silica) appears to have asso ciated health risks primarily for the respiratory system (e.g. Borm et al., 2004; Knaapen et al., 2004) and the gastrointestinal tract (e.g. Hussein et al ., 2001). If inhalation of biochar dust should occur, measures which rapi dly enhance airway clearance (e.g. mucociliary rinsing with saline solution), and reduce inflammatory and allergic reactions (e.g. sodium cromoglycate) should be promptly carried out (Buzea et al., 2007). On the other hand, de rmal uptake of combustion-derived nanoparticles was also found to occu r, although this issue remains a controversial one. It has been suggest ed that nanoparticle incursion through the skin may occur at hair follicles (T oll et al., 2004), as well as broken (Oberdörster et al., 2005) or flexed (Tinkle et al., 2003) skin, depending mainly on particle size. Besides unusually high levels (up to 220 g kg -1) of silica, highly toxic crystalline forms of cristobalite and tridymite have also been found in rice husk biochars produced at temperatures above 550°C. Blackwell et al. (2009) did not hesitate in recommending careful ha ndling, transport and storage of rice husk biochar as well as strict qualit y control measures for its production. Regarding those mineral forms, Stowel l and Tubb (2003) have recommended maximum exposure limits of 0.1, 0.05 and 0.05 mg m -3 for crystalline silica, cristobalite and tridymite respectively . In comparison, those authors have suggested that current maximum exposure limits for crystalline silica (given as an example) assigned by the UK (0.3 mg m -3) and the US (10 mg m-3 divided by the percentage of SiO 2) may be too high. In the context of Occupational Heal th, reducing biochar dust exposure requires tight health and safety measures to be put in place. For biochars containing a large proportion of dust, health risks associated to safe transport and storage, as well as application, may be reduced using dust control techniques (Blackwell et al., 2009). Fo r example, covering or wrapping biochar heaps or spraying the surface with stabilising solutions can minimise the risk of exposure during transport and storage. In regard to reducing dust formation during application, especially with concern to uniform topsoil mixing and top-dressing, water can be used to support on-site spreading (when spreading is appropriate) (Blackwell et al., 2009). It has been reported that generation of free-radicals during thermal (120°C<T<300 oC) degradation of lignocell ulosic materials, may be responsible for the propensity of fres h biochars to spontaneously combust (Amonette and Joseph, 2009), particularly at temperatures <100°C (Bourke et al., 2007). The free-radicals are primarily produced by thermal action on the O-functionalities and mineral impurities within the source material. Und er certain conditions, an excessive accumula tion of free-radicals at the biochar surface (Amonette and Joseph, 2009) and within its micropores (Bourke et al., 2007) might occur. The proportion of fr ee-radicals in biochar is primarily dependent on the temperature of pyro lysis, and generally decrease with increasing operation temperatur es (Bourke et al., 2007). There is also evidence that an excessive accumulation of biochar dust in enclosed spaces may enhance its pyrophori c potential, as recently reported with coal dust in mines (Giby et al., 2007). To tackle this issue, inc reasing biochar density through pelle ting may be advisable (Werther et al., 2000). In addition, the volatile (e.g. aldehydes, alcoho ls and carboxylic acids) content of biochar (as influenced by biomass feedstock and operation conditions; Brown 2009) may also constitute a fire haza rd during transport, handling and storage (Werther et al., 2000), and should be taken into account. Overall, increasing awareness of biochar flammability means that avoiding biochar storage with neighbouring re sidential buildings and goods is advisable. Nevertheless, successful attemp ts to reduce the risk of combustion of rice husk char by adding fire retar dants (e.g. boric acid, ferrous sulphate; Maiti et al., 2006) and inert gases for removal of atmospheric O 2 (Naujokas, 1985) have been reported. There is also sound proof of the effective use of water in assisting cooling of a wide range of carbonaceous materials, including charcoals (Naujokas, 1985). 5.3 Monitoring biochar in soil Research methodologies for comparing different biochars produced under laboratory conditions already have been put in place, based on work involving charcoal and other BCs. Currently, 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and mid-infrared spectroscopy appear to be reliable methods for providing compositional characterisation (at the f unctional group level) of biochar, as well as differentiation between biochar products. Nevertheless, using such methods for routine purposes is exp ensive and time consuming, particularly when a large number of samples is involved. An efficient, rapid and economically feasible method for long-te rm routine assessment of biochar in soil has not yet been described. Furthermo re, at the present, it is perhaps more important for research to fo cus on assessing and comparing between biochar produced under industrial and field conditions. 5.4 Economic Considerations There is no established business model in the sense of industry-wide accepted set of standards of production, distribution and use of biochar. In fact, even the term “biochar industry” would be misplaced. What exists currently is a multitude of start-up co mpanies and other entities experimenting with alternative pyrolysis technologies operating at various scales. Two important consid erations with respect to the operation of any biochar system are: the scale of the biochar operation, and how the feedstock is sourced (intentional or dedicated). Biochar can be produced in a centralised, industrial fashion, or can adopt a small-scale, local approach. Regarding feedstocks, one can distinguish betw een an open and a closed system. In a closed system, the pyrolised material ess entially consists of agricultural and forestry residues (byproduct), w hereas the open system envisages the growing of biomass dedicate d to pyrolysis as well as off-site waste products (e.g. sewage sludge). The distinction al ong these lines is important because of the different economic im plications associated with the respective biochar systems and it also gives rise to anot her distinction between private and social costs and benefits. 5.4.1 Private costs and benefits The private costs and benefits determine the commercial viability of any biochar operation and are a combination of biochar’s value as a soil additive, as a source of carbon credits and as an energy source. Crudely, the cost- revenue structure of a biochar system could be broken down as follows (McCarl et al., 2009; Collison et al., 2009).On the revenue side, the following sources of value shou ld be considered: • sale of pyrolysis-derived energy co-products; • value of biochar as a soil amendment; • value of biochar as a source of carbon credits. Potential value to farmers, if any, could arise from increases in crop yield, although current evidence indicates a rela tively small overall effect (see Section 3.3) and plant production is likely to vary considerably for combinations of environmental factor s and crop types (see Sections 3.3). Additional economic benefits, in the form of reduced production costs, may also come about from a reduction in fert ilizer application or liming (both very dependent on biochar qual ity and quantity as well as frequency of application, see Section 1.8). Irrigation costs could also potentially be reduced if biochar application leads to enhanced water retention capacity, which evidence suggests may be possible at least for sandy soils (see Section 3.1.2). However, although the intention of biochar is to improve the soil it can also be envisaged that unforeseen effects on the soil, due to improper management, would actually lead to an increase in production costs. For example, when (sub)soil compaction is caused during biochar application to the soil, subsequent subsoiling oper ations to alleviate the compaction would incur a cost. Due to the lack of a functioning biochar industry, it is not yet clear whether any payments for car bon credits will accrue to the land owners or the biochar producers. Either way, the ec onomic viability of the carbon offsetting potential could be limit ed owing to the potentially high monitoring and verification costs (Gaunt and Cowie, 2009). Regardless whom the proceeds from carbon credits accrue to, their value should reflect not only the carbon sequestration potential of bi ochar but also the reduced emissions due to lower fertiliser applications, as well as emissions from the transportation needs of bi omass and biochar. Accounting for these indirect emissions might add to the costliness of certifying any carbon credits and, thus, further undermine it s profitability. The cost elements of the equation are the following: • cost of growing the feedsto ck (in case of an open system); • cost of collecting, transpor ting and storing the feedstock; • cost of pyrolysis operation ( purchase of equipment, maintenance, depreciation, labour); • cost of transporting and applying the biochar Despite the large uncertainties on bi ochar costs and benefits, the following factors ought to be taken into account. Firs t, it is clear that the private costs and benefits of a biochar operation will vary dependin g on the scale of the operation. Biochar production at an industrial scale implies significantly higher costs of transporting the feedstock and the biochar produced from it than when produced at a small scale. System analysis studies will be of great help in understanding these issues. Higher trans portation needs also lead to higher GHG emissions, as more fuel is needed for hauling the biomass and the biochar. The increased emissions need to be accounted for and included in the carbon offsetting potent ial of biochar, which would reduce the biochar’s value as a source of carbon credits. On the other hand, industrial production of biochar means that bigger pyrol ysis plants could generate economies of scale, which would bring the average cost of producing biochar down. Another factor that may influence the commercial appeal and the reliability in the supply of biochar is the fact t hat biochar is only one co-product of pyrolysis, the other ones being syngas and bio-oil. Different types of pyrolysis (fast vs. slow) will yield different proporti ons of these products (see Section 1.6), and biochar with varying properties , for a given amount of feedstock. This means that decisions pertaining to the quantity and quality of produced biochar will depend on the economic attr activeness of the other two products and not just on the cost elements of biochar production and the demand for biochar. For instance, if demand for bio-oil and syngas increases, the opportunity cost of biochar production wi ll increase, thus shifting production away from it and rendering it relatively more expensive. Such flexibility in production is, of course, a welcome trai t for pyrolysis operators, but adds an extra layer of unpredictability that might dampen demand for biochar as a soil amendment and as a potential so urce of carbon credits. As biochar development and a doption are still at an early stage, there is currently very little quantitative information on these costs and benefi ts. McCarl et al. (2009) undertook a cost benefit analysis (CBA) of a pyrolysis operation in Iowa that uses maize cr op residues as feedstock. Assuming a 5 t ha -1 biochar application and a 5% increase in yields, they conclude that both fast and slow operations are not prof itable at current carbon and energy prices, with a net present value of about -$44 and -$70 (per tonne of feedstock) respectively. Figure 5.1 Effect of transportation distance in biochar systems with bioenergy production using the example of late stover feedstock on net GHG, net energy an d net revenue (adopted from Roberts et al., 2009) Roberts et al. (2009) calculate the economic flows associated with the pyrolysis of three different feedstocks (stover, switchgrass and yard waste). They find that the economic profitab ility depends very much on the assumed value of sequestered carbon. At $20 t-1 CO2e, only yard waste makes pyrolysis operation profit able, whereas at a higher assumed price of $80 t-1 CO 2e, stover is moderately profitable ($35 t-1 of stover), yard waste significantly so ($69 t-1 of waste), but switchgra ss is still unprofitable. The point that is made is t hat despite the revenues fr om the biochar and energy products for all feedstocks, the overall pr ofitability is reduced by the cost of feedstock collection and pyrolysis, even when CO 2 is valued at $80 t-1, while the costs of feedstock and biochar transport and application play a smaller role. Figure 5.1 illustrates the effect that increased trans portation distance has on net GHG, net energy and net revenue for a pyrolysis operation using stover as a feedstock. In a somewhat less sophisticated atte mpt to estimate costs and benefits, Collison et al. use a hypothetical case st udy of biochar application in the East of England, without, however, taking into account the costs of biochar production, distribution and applicati on. They estimate an increase in profitability of the order of £545 ha -1 for potatoes and £143 ha-1 for feed wheat. Similarly, Blackwell et al. (2007) estimated the wheat income benefits for farmers in Western Australia by carryi ng out a series of trials of applying varying rates of mallee biochar and fert iliser. The trials produced benefits of up to $96 ha -1 of additional gross income at wheat prices of $150 ha-1. Again, no account was taken of the costs of biochar production. The lesson to be taken from such studies is that at this early stage, any CBA is an assumption-laden exercise that is prone to significant errors and revisions as more information becomes available on pyrolysis technologies and the agronomic effects of biochar. 5.4.2 Social costs and benefits The social costs and benefits closely follow from the private ones but can be quite hard to monetize, or even model. Like the private ones, they also depend on the type of bioc har system that is adopted. If an open system is adopted, the biggest concern is that the drive for larger volumes of biochar may lead to unsustainable land practices, causing significant areas of land to be converted into biomass plantations . Such competition for land could encourage the destruction of tropical fore sts directly or indirectly, via the displacement of agricultural production. The latter possibility could also have negative consequences on the prices and the availability of food crops, much like in the case of the market for biofuels. However, these social costs are not i nevitable. Tropical deforestation could be avoided if, for instance, biomass is grown sustainably on land previously deforested. Moreover, any adverse effe cts of growing biochar feedstock on food security and availabilit y could be mitigated by the biochar-induced gains in crop yields (see Section 3.3). Fu rthermore, wide, health-related social benefits can be ascribed to biochar’s potential for land remediation and decontamination. Of course, the biggest source of social benefits would be biochar’s climate change mitigation potential. This section has briefly sketched the ec onomic considerations that ought to be taken into account when planning for the development of a biochar system. For biochar to be successful it must not only deliver on its environmental promise but it should also be commercially viable. The profitability of any bi ochar operation will depend ma inly on its potential to attract revenue as a soil additive and carb on sink and will be affected by the type of production (open vs. closed, local vs. centralised), which can in turn result in environmental and economic spillovers. Moreover, the demand for biochar will be influenced by, and will indeed influence the demand for biofuels, as a byproduct of pyrolysis, the demand for products such as manure and compost and the price of carbon in the carbon markets. Which shape and direction t he biochar industry is likely to take is very much unknown at this stage. However, any outc omes will be greatly influenced by policy measures on energy, agriculture and climate change. The interplay and interdependence of such policies call fo r a holistic, systemic assessment of the opportunities and pitfalls presented by biochar. 5.5 Is biochar soft geo-engineering? Geo-engineering is the artificial modification of Earth systems to counteract the consequences of anthropogenic effe cts, such as climate change. Large- scale (industrial) deployment of bioc har thus qualifies as a geo-engineering scheme. Geo-engineering is very contro versial and the primitive nature of geo-engineering schemes has been likened to a planetary version of 19 th century medicine (Lovelock, 2007). Furthermore, panaceas often fail (Ostrom et al., 2007). However, biochar may be considered a ‘softer’ form of geo- engineering compared to more intrus ive schemes. Especially if used with certain feedstocks under certain c onditions and compared to those geo- engineering proposals that focus on lowering temperature rather than reducing GHG emissions or sequesteri ng carbon. Indeed, biochar has been promoted as a lower-risk strategy co mpared to other sequestration methods (Lehmann, 2007). Nevertheless, deploy ing biochar on a scale with a mitigative effect entails a large construc tion of necessary infrastructure and a very intrusive impact on the way agriculture is performed. The scalability of biochar is bot h a potential strength and a potential weakness. As noted by Woods et al . (2006) ‘one is sometimes left the impression that the biochar initiative is solely directed towards agribusiness applications’. However, several trials exist in collaboration with smallholder farmers, the closest approximation to the original Terra Preta formation. Small scale biochar systems that lead to a reduction of net GHG emissions have been suggested to be part of C offset me chanisms and so possibly contribute to soil C storage in Africa (Whitman and Lehmann, 2009). However, given the extensive use of biomass burning for ene rgy in Africa, one of the potential problems will relate to the willingness of farmers to forego an energy source (biochar) once it has been created, whic h requires transparent certification and monitoring schemes if it is to be used in C credit trading schemes. To what extent are the motives, practi ces and input materials that led to the creation of the Terra Preta soils sim ilar or different compared to today’s application of biochar to soil? A first obvious difference relates to the variety of inputs used in the formation of Terra Pr eta, compared to the limited number of inputs (e.g. biochar, or mixtures of biochar and manure) currently proposed. This is an important cons ideration that determines how far the carbon storage properties (relative to ‘average’ agric ultural soil with organic matter) and agronomic benefits of Terra Preta can reasonably be extrapolated. The recalcitrance of biochar component s is estimated to be potentially hundreds or thousands of years (dependent on biochar properties, environmental conditions, and land use/soil management), or roughly one to two magnitudes higher than the breakdown of OM in the soil (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.5.1). Biochar has been identifie d as the oldest fraction of SOM, confirming it recalcitrance to decom position and mineralisation (Lehman and Sohi, 2007). The residence time and stab ility of biochar in Terra Preta soil are fairly robust, but are the result of ext ensive smallholder agriculture over tens to hundreds of years as opposed to in tensive agriculture. The direct translation of these residence times to today’s intensive agricultural systems with the use of heavy machinery, and t he possible accelerated disintegration and decomposition of biochar particles , with possible effects on biochar recalcitrance, remains questionable. Sequestering carbon with biochar seems to have potential in theory. Choi ces of feedstocks are critically related to t he larger scale impacts and benefits of biochar. Use of specific organic waste (e.g. papermill waste) may be a reasonable first approach that circumvents the food vs. fuel debate (cf. biofuels, van der Velde et al., 2009). H ansen et al. (2008), using illustrative climate change mitigation scenarios, assumed waste-derived biochar to provide only a small fracti on of the land use related CO 2 drawdown, with reforestation and curtailed defores tation providing a magnitude more (Kharecha and Hansen, 2009). In line with estimates by Lehman et al. (2006), Hansen et al. (2008) assu med waste-derived biochar to “be phased in linearly over the period 2010-2020, by which time it will reach a maximum uptake rate of 0.16 Gt C yr –1”. This illustrates that waste- derived biochar can be a part of the mitigation options, al though fundamental uncerta inties associated with biochar remain. 5.6 Summary Biochar can be produced from a wi de range of organic feedstocks under different pyrolysis conditions and at a range of scales. The original feedstock used, combined with the pyrolysis conditi ons will affect the exact physical and chemical properties of the final biochar, and ultimately, the way and the extent to which soil dependent ecosystem se rvices are affected. Preliminary evidence appears to suggest that a tight control on the feedstock materials and pyrolysis conditions (mainly tem perature) may be enough in attenuating much of the current concern relating to the high levels of atmospheric pollutants (e.g. PAHs, dioxins) and par ticulate matter that may be emitted during biochar production, wh ile implications to human health remain mostly an occupational health issue. Health (e.g. dust exposure) and fire hazards associated to production, transport, application and storage need to be considered when determining the suitab ility of the biochar for a given application, while tight health and safety measures need to be put in place to mitigate such risks for the worker, as well as neighbouring residential areas. 119 The profitability of any bi ochar operation will depend mainly on its potential to attract revenue as a soil additive and C sink and will be affected by the type of biomass feedstock and that of production (open vs closed, local vs centralised), which can, in turn, re sult in environmental and economic spillovers. Moreover, the demand for biochar, as a byproduct of pyrolysis, will be influenced by, and will indeed influenc e, the demand for biofuels, the demand for products such as manure and co mpost and the price of carbon in the carbon markets. Furthermore, the costs and benefits of a range of biochar operations and scenarios need to be quant ified. Cost-benefit analyses ought to cast the net wide by a ccounting not only for commercial factors but also for social costs and benefits. 6. KEY FINDINGS This chapter summarises the main findings of the previous chapters, synthesises between these and ident ifies the key research gaps. 6.1 Summary of Key Findings This report has highlighted that large gaps in knowledge still exist regarding the effects (including the mechanisms in volved) of biochar incorporation into soils. Considerable further research is required in order to maximise the possible advantages of such an applic ation, while minimizing any possible drawbacks. For some potential effects very few or no data are available. For other effects data exist but they do not cover sufficiently the variation in relevant soil-environment-climate-management factors. Table 6.1 provides an overview of the key findings. In view of this, the possibility of qualifying biochar for carbon offset credits withi n the UNFCC as part of a post-Kyoto treaty seems premature at the present stage. Although an inclusion in the carbon credit systems would certainly bo ost the nascent biochar industry, current scientific knowled ge of large-scale use of biochar in intensive agricultural systems has not reached a sufficient level for safe deployment. Best practices associated with producti on and application, quality standards, specifications that clar ify land use conflicts and opportunities, monitoring of utilisation, and details on minimal qualification requirem ents for certification of biochar products, require further understanding of the C-sequestration potential and behaviour of bi ochar in the environment. Table 6.1 Overview of key findings (numbers in parentheses refer to relevant sections) Description Conditions Empirical evidence of charcoal in soils exists (long term) Biochar analogues (pyrogenic BC and charcoal) are found in substantial quanities in soils of most parts of the world (1.2-1.4) The principle of improving soils has been tried successfully in the past Anthrosols can be found in many parts of the world, although normally of very small spatial extent. Contemplation of Anthrosol generation at a vast scale requires more comprehensive, detailed and careful analysis of effects on soils as well as interactions with other environmental components before implementation (1.2-1.3 and throughout) Plant production has been found to increase significantly after biochar addition to soils Studies have been reported almost exclusively from tropical regions with specific environmental conditi ons, and generally for very limited time periods, i.e. 1-2 yr. Some cases of negative effects on crop production have also been reported (3.3). Liming effect Most biochars have neutral to basic pH and many field experiments show an increase in soil pH after biochar application when the initial pH was low. On alkaline soils this may be an undesirable effect. Sustained liming effects may require regular applications (3.1.4) Positives High sorption affinity for HOC may enhance the overall sorption capacity of soils towards these trace contaminants Biochar application is likely to improve the overall sorption capacity of soils towards common anthropogenic organic compounds (e.g. PAHs, pesticides and herbicides), and therefore influence toxicity, transport and fate of such contaminants. Enhanced sorption capacity of a silt loam for diuron and other anionic and cationic herbicides has been observed follo wing incorporation of biochar from crop residues (3.2.2) Microbial habitat and provision of refugia for microbes whereby they are protected from grazing Biochar addition to soil has been shown to increase microbial biomass and microbial activity, as well as microbial efficieny as a measure of CO2released per unit microbial biomass C. The degree of the response appears to be dependent on nutrient avaialbility in soils Increases in mycorrhizal abundace which is linked to observed increases in plant productivity Possibly due to: a) alteration of soil physico-chemical properties; b) indirect effects on mycorrhizae through effects on other soil microbes; c) plant–fungus signalling interference and detoxification of allelochemicals on biochar; or d) provision of refugia from fungal grazers (3.2.6) Increases in earthworm abundance and activity Earthworms have been shown to prefer some soils amended with biochar than those soils alone. However, this is not true of all biochars, particularly at high application rates (3.2.6) The use of biochar analogues for assessing effects of modern biochars is very limited Charcoal in Terra Preta soils is limited mainly to Amazonia and have received many diverse additions other than charcoal. Pyrogenic BC is found in soils in many parts of the world but are of limited feedstock types and pyrolysis conditions (Chapter 1) Soil loss by erosion Top-dressing biochar to soil is likely to increase erosion of the biochar particles both by wind (dust) and water. Many other effects of biochar in soil on erosion can be theorised, but remain untested at present (4.1) Soil compaction during application Any application carries a risk of soil compaction when performed under inappropriate conditions. Careful planning and management could prevent this effect (4.6) Risk of contamination Contaminants (e.g. PAHs, heavy metals, dioxins) that may be present in biochar may have detri mental effects on soil properties and functions. The ocurrence of such compounds in biochar is likely to derive from either contaminated feedstocks or the use of processing conditions that may favour their production. Evidence suggests that a tight control over the type of feedstock used and lower pyrolysis temperatures (67 t ha-1 (produced from poultry litter) were shown to have a negative effect on earthworm survival rates, possibly due to increases in pH or salt levels (3.2.6) Empirical evidence is extremely scarce for many modern biochars in soils under modern arable management Biochar analogues do not exist for many feedstocks, or for some modern pyrolysis conditions. Biochar can be produced with a wide variety of properties and applied to soils with a wide variety ofproperties. Some short term (1-2 yr) evidence exists, but only for a small set of biochar, environmental and soil management factors and almost no data is available on long term effect (1.2-1.4) C Negativity The carbon storage capacity of biochar is widely hypothesised, although it is still largely unquantified and depends on many factors (environmental, economic, social) in all parts of the life cycle of biochar and at the several scales of operation (1.5.2 and Chapter 5) Unknown Effects on N cycle N2O emissions depend on effects of biochar addition on soil hydrology (water-filled pore volume) and associated microbial processes. Mechanisms are poorly understood and thresholds largely unknown (1.5.2) Biochar Loading Capacity (BLC) BLC is likely to be crop as well as soil dependent leading to potential incompatibilities between the irreversibility of biochar once applied to soil and changing crop demands (1.5.1) Environmental behaviour mobility and fate The extent and implications of the changes that biochar undergoes in soil remain largely unknown. Although biochar physical-chemical properties and stabilization mechanisms may explain biochar long mean residence times in soil, the relative contribution of each factor for its short- and long-term loss has been sparsely assessed, particularly when influenced by soil environmental conditions. Also, biochar loss and mobility through the soil profile and into the water resources has been scarcely quant ified and transport mechanisms remain poorly understood (3.2.1) Distribution and availability of contaminants (e.g. heavy metals, PAHs) within biochar Very little experimental evidence is available on the short- and long-term occurrence and bioavailability of such contaminants in biochar and biochar-enriched soil. Full and careful risk assessment in this context is urgently required, in order to relate the bioavailability and toxicity of the contaminant to biochar type and ‘safe’ application rates, biomass feedstock and pyrolysi s conditions, as well as soil type and environmental conditions (3.2.4) Effect on soil organic matter dynamics Various relevant processes are acknowledged but the way these are influenced by combinations of soil-climate-management factors remains largely unknown (Section 3.2.5) Pore size and connectivity Although pore size distribution in bi ochar may significantly alter key soil physical properties and processes (e.g. water retention, aeration, habitat), experimental evidence on this is scarce and the underlying mechanisms can only be hypothesised at this stage (2.3 and 3.1.3) Soil water retention/availability Adding biochar to soil can have dire ct and indirect effects on soil water retention, which can be short or long lived, and which can be negative or positive depending on soil type. Positive effects are dependent on high applications of bioc har. No conclusive evidence was found to allow the establishment of an unequivocal relation between soil water retention and biochar application (3.1.2) Soil compaction Various processes associated with soil compaction are relevant to biochar application, some reducing others increasing soil compaction. Experimental research is lacking. The main risk to soil compaction could probably be reduc ed by establishing a guide of good practice regarding biochar application (3.1.1 and 4.6) Priming effect Some inconclusive evidence of a po ssible priming effect exists in the literature, but the evidence is relatively inconclusive and covers only the short term and a very restricted sample of biochar and soil types (3.2.5.4) Effects on soil megafauna Neither the effects of direct contac t with biochar containing soils on the skin and respiratory systems of soil megafanua are known, nor the effects or ingestion due to eating other soil organisms, such as earthworms, which are likely to contain biochar in their guts (3.2.6.3) Hydrophobicity The mechnanisms of soil water repellency are understood poorly in general. How biochar might influence hydrophobicity remains largely untested (3.1.2.1) Enhanced decomposition of biochar due to agricultural management It is unknow how much subsequent agricultural management practices (planting, ploughing, etc.) in an agricultural soil with biochar may influence (accelerate) t he disintegration of biochar in the soil, thereby potentially reducing its carbon storage potential (3.2.3) Soil CEC There is good potential that biochar can improve the CEC of soil. However, the effectiveness and duration of this effect after addition to soils remain understood poorly (2.5 and 3.1.4) Soil Albedo That biochar will lower the albedo of the soil surface is fairly well established, but if and where this will lead to a substantial soil warming effect is untested (3.1.3) 6.1.1 Background and Introduction As a concept biochar is defined as ‘charcoal (biomass that has been pyrolysed in a zero or low oxygen environment) for which, owing to its inherent properties, scientific consensus ex ists that application to soil at a specific site is expected to sustai nably sequester carbon and concurrently improve soil functions (under current and future management), while avoiding short- and long-term detrimental effects to the wider environment as well as human and animal health’. Inspiration is derived from the anthropogenically created Terra Preta soils (Hortic Anth rosols) in Amazonia where charred organic material plus other (organic and mineral) materials appear to have been added purposefully to soil to in crease its agronomic quality. Ancient Anthrosols have been found in Europe as well, where organic matter (peat, manure, ‘plaggen’) wa s added to soil, but where charcoal additions appear to have been limited or non-existent. Fu rthermore, charcoal from wildfires (pyrogenic black carbon – BC) has been found in many soils around the world, including European soils where pyrogeni c BC can make up a large proportion of total soil organic carbon. Biochar can be produced from a wi de range of organic feedstocks under different pyrolysis conditions and at a range of scales. Many different materials have been proposed as biomass feedstocks for biochar. The suitability of each biomass type for su ch an application is dependent on a number of chemical, physical, environmental, as well as economic and logistical factors. The original feedstock used, combined with the pyrolysis conditions will determine the properties , both physical and chemical, of the biochar product. It is these differences in physicochemical properties that govern the specific interactions whic h will occur with the endemic soil biota upon addition of biochar to soil, and hence how soil dependent ecosystem functions and services are affected. The application strategy used to apply biochar to soils is an impor tant factor to consider when evaluating the effects of biochar on soil properti es and processes. Furtherm ore, the biochar loading capacity of soils has not been full y quantified, or even developed conceptually. 6.1.2 Physicochemical properties of Biochar Biochar is comprised of stable car bon compounds created when biomass is heated to temperatures between 300 to 1000°C under low (preferably z ero) oxygen concentrations. The structural and chemical composition of biochar is highly heterogeneous, with the ex ception of pH, which is tipically > 7. Some properties are pervasive th roughout all biochars, including the high C content and degree of aromaticity, partially explining the high levels of biochar’s inherent recalcitrance. Neverthless, the exact structural and chemical composition, including su rface chemistry, is depende nt on a combination of the feedstock type and the pyrolysis cond itions (mainly temperature) used. These same parameters are key in dete rmining particle size and pore size (macro, meso and micropore; distribution in biochar. Biochar’s physical and chemical characteristics may signific antly alter key soil physical properties and processes and are, therefor e, important to consider prior to its application to soil. Furthermore, these will determine the suitability of each biochar for a given application, as well as define its behaviour, transport and fate in the environment. Dissimilarities in properties between different biochar products emphasises the need for a case-by-case evaluation of each biochar product prior to its incorporation in to soil at a specific site. Further research aiming to fully evaluate the extent and implicati ons of biochar particle and pore size distribution on soil processes and functi oning is essential, as well as its influence on biochar mobility and fate. 6.1.3 Effects on soil propert ies, processes and functions This section has highlighted the relative paucity of knowledge concerning the specific mechanisms behind the reported interactions of biochar within the soil environment. However, while there is sti ll much that is unknown, large steps have been taken towards increasing our understanding of the effects of biochar on soil properti es and processed. Biocha r interacts with the soil system on a number of levels. Sub-mole cular interactions with clay and silt particles and SOM occur through Van der Waals forces and hydrophobic interactions. It is the interactions at this scale which will determine the influence of biochar on soil water repe llency and also the interactions with cations and anions and other organic co mpounds in soil. These interactions are very char specific, with the exac t properties being influenced by both the feedstock and the pyrolysis conditions used. There has been some evidence to suggest that biochar addition to soil may lead to loss of SOM via a priming effect in the short term. However, there is only very little research reported in the literature on this subject, and as such it is a highly pertinent area for further re search. The fact that Terra Pretas contain SOM as well as char fragm ents seems to demonstrate that the priming effect either does not exist in all situations or if it does, perhaps it only lasts a few seasons and it appear not to be sufficient to drive the loss of all native SOM from the soil. Biochar has th e potential to be highly persistent in the soil environment, as ev idenced both by its presence in Terra Pretas, even after millennia, and also as evidenced by studies discussed in this section. While biochars are highly heterogeneous across scales, it seems likely that properties such as recalcitrance and effects on water holding capacity are likely to persist across a range of bioc har types. It also seems probable, that while difference may occur within bi ochars on a microscale, biochars produced from the same feedstocks, under the same pyrolysis conditions are likely to be broadly similar, with predictable effects upon application to soil. What remains to be done are controll ed experiments with different biochars added to a range of soils under different environmental conditions and the precise properties and effects identified. This will lead towards biochars possibly being engineered for specific so ils and climate where specific effects are required. After its initial application to soil, bi ochar can function to stimulate the edaphic microflora and fauna due to various substr ates, such as sugars, which can be present on the biochar’s surface. Once these are metabolised, biochar functions more as a mineral component of the soil rather than an organic component, as evidenced by its high levels of recalcitrance meaning that it is not used as a carbon source for respirati on. Rather, the biochar functions as a highly porous network t he edaphic biota can colonise. Due to the large inherent porosity, biochar particles in soil can provide refugia for microorganisms whereby they may often be protected from grazing by other soil organisms which may be too large to enter the pores. This is likely to be one of the main mechanisms by which biochar-amended soils are able to harbour a larger microbial biomass when compared to non-biochar amended soils. Biochar incorporation into soil is also expected to enhance overall sorption capacity of soils towards trace anthropogenic organic contaminants (e.g. PAHs, pesticides, herbicides), in a stronger way, and mechanistically different, from that of native organic matter. Whereas this behaviour may greatly contribute to mitigating toxicity and transport of common pollutants in soil, biochar aging over time may result in leaching and increased bioavailability of such compounds. On the other hand, while the feasibility for reducing mobility of trace contaminants in soil might be beneficial, it might also result in their localised accumulation, although the extent and implications of this have not been experimentally assessed. Soil quality may not be necessarily impr oved by adding biochar to soil. Soil quality can be considered to be relatively high for supporting plant production and provision of ecosystem services if it contains carbon in the form of complex and dynamic substances such as humus and SOM. If crop residues are used for biochar, the proportion of carbon going into the dynamic SOM pool is likely to be reduced, with the carbon being returned to the soil in a relatively passive biochar form. The proportion of residues which are removed for pyrolysis versus the proportion which is allowed to remain in the soil will determine the balance between the dy namic SOM and the passive biochar and so is likely to affect soil quality for providing the desired roles, be it provision of good use as crop or timber , or functioning as a carbon pool. Biochar also has the potential to in troduce a wide range of hazardous organic compounds (e.g. heavy metals, PAHs) into the soil system, which can be present as contaminants in biochar that has been produced either from contaminated fedstocks or under processing conditions which favour their production. While a tight control over the feedstock type and processing conditions used can reduce the potent ial risk for soil contamination, experimental evidence of the occurrenc e and bioavailability and toxicity of such contaminants in biochar and bioc har-enriched soil (over time) remain scarce. A comprehensive risk assessment of each biochar product prior to its incoporation into soil, which takes into account the soil type and environmental conditions, is therefore, paramount. Increased crop yields are the most commonly reported benefits of adding biochar to soils. A full sear ch of the scientific literature led to a compilation of studies used for a meta-analysis of the e ffects of biochar application to soils and plant productivity. Meta-analysis techniques (Rosenberg et al., 1997) were used to quantify the effect of bioc har addition to soil on plant productivity from a range of experiments. Our results showed a sma ll overall, but statistically significant, positive effect of biochar application to soils on plant productivity in the majority of case s, covering a range of both soil and crop types. The greatest positive effects were seen on acidic free-draining soils with other soil types, specifically Calcar osols showing no significant effect. No statistically significant negative effect s were found. There was also a general trend for concurrent increases in crop pro ductivity with increases in pH up on biochar addition to soils. This sugges ts that one of the main mechanisms behind the reported positive effects of biochar application to soils on plant productivity may be a liming effect. These results underline the importance of testing each biochar material under representative conditions (i.e. soil- environment-climate-management factors). The degree and possible consequences of the changes biochar undergo in soil over time remain largely unknow n. Biochar loss and mobility through the soil profile and into water resources has so far been scarcely quantifie d and the underlying transport mechanisms are poorly understood. This is further complicated by the limited amount of long-term studies and the lack of standardised methods for simulating biochar aging and for long-term environmental monitoring. 6.1.4 Biochar and soil threats This chapter has described the interact ions between biochar and ‘threats to soil’. For most of these interactions, the body of scientific evidence is currently insufficient to arrive at a consensus. Ho wever, what is clear is that biochar application to soils will effect soil properties and processes and thereby interact with threats to soil. Aw areness of these interactions, and the mechanisms behind them, is required to lead to the research necessary for arriving at understanding mechanisms and effects on threats to soil, as well as the wider ecosystem. 6.1.5 Wider issues Biochar can be produced from a wi de range of organic feedstocks under different pyrolysis conditions and at a range of scales. The original feedstock used, combined with the pyrolysis conditi ons will affect the exact physical and chemical properties of the final biochar, and ultimately, the way and the extent to which soil dependent ecosystem se rvices are affected. Preliminary evidence appears to suggest that a tight control on the feedstock materials and pyrolysis conditions (mainly tem perature) may be enough in attenuating much of the current concern relating to the high levels of atmospheric pollutants (e.g. PAHs, dioxins) and par ticulate matter that may be emitted during biochar production, wh ile implications to human health remain mostly an occupational health issue. Health (e.g. dust exposure) and fire hazards associated to production, transpor t, application and storage need to be considered when determining the suitab ility of the biochar for a given application, while tight health and safety measures need to be put in place to mitigate such risks for the worker, as well as neighbouring residential areas. The profitability of any bi ochar operation will depend mainly on its potential to attract revenue as a soil additive and C sink and will be affected by the type of biomass feedstock and that of production (open vs closed, local vs centralised), which can, in turn, re sult in environmental and economic spillovers. Moreover, the demand for biochar, as a byproduct of pyrolysis, will be influenced by, and will indeed influenc e, the demand for biofuels, the demand for products such as manure and co mpost and the price of carbon in the carbon markets. Furthermore, the costs and benefits of a range of biochar operations and scenarios need to be quant ified. Cost-benefit analyses ought to cast the net wide by a ccounting not only for commercial factors but also for social costs and benefits. 6.2 Synthesis The aim of this report was to review the state-of-the-art regarding the interactions between biochar application to soils and effects on soil properties, processes and functions. Adding biochar to soil is not an alternative to reducing the emissions of greenhouse ga sses. Minimising future climate change requires immediate action to lower greenhouse gas emissions and harness alternative forms of energy (IPCC, 2007). 6.2.1 Irreversibility The irreversibility of bi ochar application to soils has implications for its development. Once biochar has been applied to soils, it is virtually impossible to remove. This irreversibility does not have to be a deterrent from considering biochar. Rather, the awareness of its irreversibility should lead to a careful case-by-case assessment of its impacts, underpinned by a comprehensive body of scientific evidence gathered und er representative soil-environment- climate-management conditions. Meta- analyses, an example of which on the relationship between biochar and crop productivity is presented in this report, can provide a valuable method for both signalling gaps in knowledge as well as providing a quantitative review of published experimental results. The results of meta-analyses can then be us ed to feed back to directing funding for more research where needed, and/ or to inform specific policy development. Objectivity of systematic reviews on biochar is of paramount importance. In the medical sciences this has been resolved by the founding of an independent organisation (the Cochra ne Collaboration), which provides regularly updated systematic reviews on specific healthcare issues using a global network of volunteers and a ce ntral database/library. A similar approach, although at a different scale, could be envisaged to ensure that the most robust and up to date research informs policy concerning biochar. Alternatively, this task could be performed by recognised, independent scientific institutions t hat do not (even partially) depend on conflicting funding, and that have the necessary expertise. 6.2.2 Quality assessment The evidence reviewed in this report has highlighted potentia l negative as well as positive effects on soils and, impor tantly, a very large degree of unknown effects (see Table 6.1; and Section 6.3) . Some of the potential negative effects can be ‘stopped at the gate’, i.e. by not allowing specific feedstocks that have been proven to be inappropr iate, and by regulating pyrolysis conditions to avoid undesirable biochar properties (a compulsory biochar quality assessment and monitoring approach could prove effective). Other potential negative effects on soils, or the wider ecosystem, need to be regulated on the application si de, i.e. at the field scale, taking into account the soil properties and processes as well as th reats to soil functions. Similarly, biochar properties can be ‘engineered’ (to an extent), through controlled use of feedstocks and pyrolysis conditions, to provide necessary benefits to soil functions and reduce threats when applied to fields that have specific soil- environmental-climatic-management conditions. However, the current state- of-the-art regarding the effects of bioc har on soils has a substantial lack of information on relevant factors (see Section 6.3). Results from research into the relative importance of these fact ors, and the associated environmental and soil management conditions, needs to drive further extension and development of a biochar quality assessment protocol. 6.2.3 Scale and life cycle Relevant factors for produc ing biochar with specific properties are feedstock characteristics and pyrolysis conditions , thereby affecting the scale and method of operation. The optim al scale of operation, from a soil improvement and climate adaptation perspective, will diffe r for different locations, as the availability of feedsto cks and the occurrence of soil-environment-climate- management conditions changes along with land use. The optimal scale of operation, from a climate mi tigation perspective, is, intuitively, the smallest scale. However, full life cycle assessment studies to evidence this have not been found. It is possible that at a larger scale of operation, if not production then at least application, a more comple mentary situation exists with larger concomitant reductions in CO 2 equivalent emissions by the ability to forego or reduce certain operations. For example, a farm on a fertile floodplain, with good water availability, may produce bioc har from feedstocks on the farm with good water and nutrient retention properties . If this is applied to soils on the same farm, it may allow a reduction of a single fertiliser pass. However, if the biochar is sold (or traded) to the farm next door, which may be on soils with low water and nutrient retention, then t here may be a reduction of two fertiliser passes and a substantial reduction in irri gation, for example. It is possible, therefore, that the CO 2 equivalents saved on the farm next door are more than the CO 2 equivalent emissions produced during transport from one farm to the other. This is of course just one hypothetical example of how off-site biochar distribution does not necessarily decrease the carbon negativity of the technology. One critical factor affecti ng this is the way long-lived specific beneficial effects of specific biochars will be under specific conditions. Experimental studies of sust ained effects, e.g. nutrient and water retention, of different biochars in different soil-environment-climate-management combinations are needed to feed into life cycle assessment studies. It i s possible that the optimum scale of oper ation, in terms of global warming mitigation, will be different in diffe rent parts of Europe and the world. 6.2.4 Mitigation/adaptation Besides global warming mitigation, bioc har can also be viewed from the perspective of adaptation to climate change. In the future, climate change looks likely to increase rainfall intens ity, if not annual totals, for example thereby increasing soil loss by water erosion, although there is much uncertainty about the spatio-temporal stru cture of this change as well as the socio-economic and agronomic c hanges that may accompany them. Independent from changes in climate, the production function of soil will become increasingly more important, in view of the projected increase in global human population and consequent dem ands for food. More than 99% of food supplies (calories) for human consumption come from the land, whereas less than 1% comes from oceans and other aquatic ecosystems (FAO, 2003). A common way of thinking about adapting food production to climate change is by genetically engin eering crops to survive and produce under adverse and variable environmental conditions. Th is may well work, if risks to the environment are minimised and public opinion favourable . However, other soil functions are likely to still be impair ed and threats exacerbated, such as increased loss of soil by erosion. Impr oving the properties of soil will increase the adaptive capacity of our agri-environmental systems. The ClimSoil report (Schils et al., 2008) reviews in detail the interrelation between climate change and soils. One of their conclusions is that land use and soil management are important tools that affe ct, and can increase, SOC stocks. In this way, the soils will be able to function better, even under changing climatic conditions. In arable fields, SOM content is mainta ined in a dynamic equilibrium. Arable soil is disturbed too much for it to ma intain greater contents of SOM than a specific upper limit, which is controlled by mainly clay contents and the soil wetness regime. Biochar, because of it s recalcitrance, and possibly because of its organo-mineral interaction and ac cessibility, provides a means of potentially increasing the relevant func tions of soils beyond that which can be achieved by OM alone in arable systems. Biochar application to so ils, therefore, may play both a global warming mitigation and a climate change adaptation role. For both, more research is needed before conclusive answers c an be given with a high degree of scientific certainty, parti cularly when considering specific soil-environment- climate-management conditions and intera ctions. However, it may be the case that in certain situations the biochar system does not mitigate global warming, i.e. is C neutral or positive, but that the enhanced soil functions from biochar application may still warr ant contemplation of its use. As far as the current scientific evidence allows us to conclude, biochar is not a ‘silver bullet’ or panacea for the whole host of issues ranging from food production and soil fertility to mitigating (or more correctly ‘abating’) global warming and climate change for which it is often posited. The critical knowledge gaps are manifold, mainly bec ause the charcoal-rich historic soils, as well as most experimental site s, have been studied mostly in tropical environments, added to the large range of biochar properties that can be produced from the feedstocks currently available subjected to different pyrolysis conditions. Biochar analogues , such as pyrogenic BC, are found in varying, and sometimes substantial amount s in soils all over the world. As well as causing some difficulty with predicting possible impacts of biochar addition to soil, the large variety in biochar properties that can be produced actually provides an opportunity to ‘engineer’ biochar for specific soil- environment-climate-management conditions, thereby potentially increasing soil functioning and decreasing threats to soil (and/or adapting to climate change). What is needed is a much be tter understanding of the mechanisms concerning biochar in soils and the wider environmen t. Although the research effort that would be r equired is substantial, the necessary methods are available. 6.3 Knowledge gaps Table 6.1 lists ‘unknown’ effects of biochar on soil properties, processes and functions. For ‘known’ positive or negative effects, Table 6.1 also discusses (briefly but with reference to more elab orate discussions in the report) the soil- environment-climate-management condition s for which the effects are valid and where they are not (know n). From the viewpoint of biochar effects on soil functions and soil threats, a number of key issues emerge that are discussed in the subsections below. Biochar res earch should aim to reach a sufficient level of scientific knowle dge to underpin future bioc har policy decisions. This review indicates that a large number of questions related to biochar application to soils remain unanswered. The multitude of gaps in current knowledge associated with bi ochar properties, the long-term effects of biochar application on soil functions and threats, and its behaviour and fate in different soil types (e.g. disintegrati on, mobility, recalcitrance, interaction with SOM), as well as sensitivity to management practi ces, require more scientific research. 6.3.1 Safety While the widespread interest in biochar applications to soils continues to rise, issues remain to be addressed concer ning the potential for soil contamination and atmospheric pollution associated to its production and handling, with potentially severe health, environmental and socio-ec onomic implications. The irreversibility of biochar incorporati on into soil emphasises the urgent need for a full and comprehensive characterisation of each bi ochar type in regard to potential contaminants (mainly heavy me tals and PAHs), as influenced by biomass feedstock and pyrolysis conditions. Very little focus has been paid to the long-term distribution of such contam inants in biochar-enriched soils and bioavailability to the micro- and macro- biota. In this context, risk assessment procedures for these compounds need to be re-evaluated on a case-by-case basis, based on bioavailable concentration s (rather than initial concentrations in biochar) and accounting for the influe nce of NOM on their desorption from biochar over time. This would allow understanding the true implications of their presence in biochar on human, ani mal and ecosystem health over a wide range of soil conditions, while enabling re lation of toxicity to biochar type and safe application rates, as well as f eedstock characteristics and pyrolysis conditions. Similarly, the emission of atmospheric pollutants during biochar production requires careful qualitative and quantitative analysis. It will provide a sound basis for the development and/ or optimisation of feedstock and pyrolysis operational conditions (as we ll as technologies) required to tackle these pollutants. 6.3.2 Soil organic matter dynamics Biochar can function as a carbon sink in soils under certain conditions. However, the reported long residenc e times of biochar have not been confirmed for today’s intensive agricul tural systems in temperature regions. Disintegration of biochar is likely to be stimulated by intensive agricultural practices (tilling, plouging, harrowing) and use of heavy machinery, thereby potentially reducing residence times. Work is required to better elucidate the biochar loading capacity of different soils , for different climatic conditions in order to maximise the amount of biocha r which can be stored in soils without impacting negatively on soil functions. In addition to crop yields, research should also focus on threshold amounts of biochar that can be added to soils without adverse consequences to soil physical properties, such as priming by increasing the pH or dedcreasing water-filled pore space, hydrophobic effects, or soil chemical properties, e.g. adding a high ash content (with salts) biochar to a soil already at risk of salinisation, or other ecosystem components, e.g. particulate or dissolved organic C reac hing ground/surface waters. Therefore, the biochar loading capacity should vary according to environmental conditions as well as biochar ‘quality’, s pecific to the environmental conditions of the site (soil, geomorphol ogy, hydrology, vegetation). 6.3.3 Soil biology Owing to the vital role that the soil biota plays in regulating numerous ecosystem services and soil functions, it is vital that a full understanding of the effects of biochar addition to soil is reached before policy is written. Due to the very high levels of heterogeneity found in soils, with regard to soil physical, chemical and biological properties, extensive testing is needed before scientifically sound predictions can be ma de regarding the effects of biochar addition to soils on the native edaphic co mmunities under a range of climatic conditions. Much of the data currently r eported in the literature shows a slight, but significant positive e ffect on the soil biota, with increased microbial biomass and respiration efficiency per unit carbon, with associated increases in above ground biomass production reported in the majority of cases. There is currently a major gap in our underst anding of the influence of biochar addition to soils on carbon fluxes. This is vital to increase our understanding of interactions between the soil biota and biochar as it will help to unravel the mechanisms behind any possible priming e ffect, as well as nutrient transfer and interactions with contaminants introduced with biochar. A very suitable method for probing this interaction would be the use of Stable Isotope Probing (SIP), which can be used with other molecu lar techniques to trace the flow of carbon from particular sources thr ough the soil system. Pyrolysing biomass labeled with a stable isot ope and measuring its emi ssion from the soil will allow accurate measures of its recalc itrance over time. Conducting controlled atmosphere experiments with stable isotope-labelled CO 2 will enable assessing the observed increased microbial respiration and investigation of whether this increase is due to a mo re efficient use of plant provided substrates (in case the label is detect ed in soil respiration), or if a priming effect has occurred leading to increas ed metabolisation of the SOM (in case the label is not detected). 6.3.4 Behaviour, mobility and fate Physical and chemical weather ing of biochar over time has implications for its solubilisation, leaching, translocation th rough the soil profile and into water systems, as well as interactions with other soil components (including contaminants). Up to now, biochar loss and environmental mobility have been quantified scarcely and such processes re main poorly understood. In addition, the contribution of soil management prac tices and the effects of increasingly warmer climates, together with potential greater erosivity as potential key mechanisms controlling biochar fate in soil, have also been assessed insufficiently up to now. 133 An effective evaluation of the long-te rm stability and mobility of biochar, including the way these are influenced by factors relating to biochar physicochemical characteristics, pyrolysis conditions and environmental factors, is paramount to understanding the contribution that biochar can make to improving soil processes and func tioning, and as a tool for sequestering carbon. Such knowledge should derive from long-term studies involving a wide range of soil conditions and climat ic factors, while using standardised methods for simulating biochar aging and for long-term environmental monitoring. 6.3.5 Agronomic effects Biochar has shown merit in improving the agronomic and environmental val ue of agricultural soils in certain pilo t studies under limited environmental conditions, but a scientific consens us on the agronomic and environmental benefits of biochar has not been reached yet. It remain s difficult to generalise these studies due to the va riable nature of feedstocks, their local availability, the variability in resulting biochar and the inherent biophysical characteristics of the sites it has been applied to, as well as the variability of agronomic practices it could be exposed to. Furthermore, there is a lack of (long-term) studies on the effects of biochar application in temperate regions. Direct and indirect effects of biochar on soil hydrology (e.g. water availability to plants) need to be studied experimentally for repr esentative conditions in the field and in the laboratory (soil water ret ention – pF – curves) before modelling exercises can begin. Ultimat ely, in those conditions where biochar application is beneficial to agriculture and environmen t, it should be considered as part of a soil conservation package aimed at in creasing the resilience of the agro- environmental system combined with the s equestration of carbon. The key is to identify the agri-soil m anagement strategy that is be st suited at a specific site. Other carbon sequestration and cons ervation methods, such as no-till, mulching, cover crops, complex crop ro tations, mixed farming systems and agroforestry, or a combination of these, need to be cons idered. In this context the interaction of biochar application with other methods warrants further investigation. References Almendros, G., Knicker, H., Gonzaléz-Vila, F. J., 2003. Rearrangement of carbon and nitrogen forms in peat a fter progressive thermal oxidation as determined by solid-state 13C- and 15N-NMR spectroscopy. Organic Geochemistry 34: 1559-1568. Amonette, J.E., Jospeh, S., 2009. Charecte ristics of Biochar: Microchemical Properties. In: J. Lehmann, Joseph, S. (Editor), Biochar for Environmental Management Scienc e and Technology. Earthscan, London. Anikwe, M.A.N. and Nwobodo, K.C.A., 2002. Long term effect of municipal waste disposal on soil properties and productivity of sites used for urban agriculture in Abakaliki, Ni geria. Bioresource Technology 83(3): 241-250. Antal Jr, M.J. and Grön li, M., 2003. The art, sci ence, and technology of charcoal production. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 42(8): 1619-1640. Ascough, P.L., Bird, M.I., Wormald, P ., Snape, C.E. and Apperley, D., 2008. Influence of production variables and starting material on charcoal stable isotopic and molecular char acteristics. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 72(24): 6090-6102. Augusto, L., Bakker, M.R. and Meredieu, C., 2008. Wood ash applications to temperate forest ecosystems – Pot ential benefits and drawbacks. Plant and Soil 306(1-2): 181-198. Ayodele, A, Oguntunde, P, Joseph, A and de Souza Dias Junior, M, 2009. Numerical analysis of the impact of charcoal production on soil hydrological behavior, runoff response and erosion susceptibility. Revista Brasileira de Ciênc ia do Solo, 33:137-145. Baldock, J. A., Smernik, R. J., 2002. Chemical composition and bioavailability of thermally altered Pinus resinosa (red pine) wood. Organic Geochemistry 33: 1093-1109. Bird, M. I., Moyo, C., Veenendaal, E. M ., Lloyd, J., Frost, P., 1999. Stability of elemental carbon in a sa vanna soil. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 13: 923-932. Bird, M.I., Ascough, P.L., Young, I.M. , Wood, C.V. and Scott, A.C., 2008. X- ray microtomographic imaging of char coal. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(10): 2698-2706. Blackwell, P., Reithmuller, G. and Colli ns, M., 2009. Biochar application to soil. In: J. Lehmann and S. Joseph (E ditors), Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology Earthscan. Blanco-Canqui, H. and Lal, R., 2008. Corn stover removal impacts on micro- scale soil physical properties. Geoderma 145(3-4): 335-346. Blume, H.P. and Leinweber, P., 2004. Plaggen soils: Landscape history, properties, and classification. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 167(3): 319-327. Boag B., J., H. D., Neilson, R., Santoro, G., 1999. Spatial distribution and relationship between the New Zealand flatworm Arthurdendyus triangulatus and earthworms in a grass field in Scotland. Pedobiologia,43: 340-344. Boardman, J., Favismortlock, D.T ., 1993. Climate-change and soil-erosion in Britain. Geographical Journal 159: 179–183. Borm, P. J. A., Kreyling, W., 2004. Toxicological hazards of inhaled nanoparticles: implications for drug del ivery. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 4: 1-11. Borm, P.J.A., Robbins, D., Haubold, S., Kuhlbusch, T., Fissan, H., Donaldson K., Schins, R., Stone, V., Kreyling, W., Lademann, J., Krutmann, J., Warheit, D., Oberdorster, E., 2006. The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 3: 11. Borm, P.J.A., Cakmak, G., Jermann, E ., Weishaupt, C., Kempers, P., Van Schooten, F. J., Oberdärst er, G., and Schins, R. P. F., 2005. Formation of PAH-DNA adducts after in vivo and vitro exposure of rats and lung cells to different commercial carbon blacks. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 205(2): 157-167. Borm, P.J.A., Schins, R.P.F. and Albrecht, C., 2004. Inhaled particles and lung cancer, part B: Paradigms and risk assessment. International Journal of Cancer 110(1): 3-14. Bourke, J., Manley-Harris, M., Fushimi, C., Dowaki, K., Nunoura, T., Antal, M. J. Jr., 2007. Do all carbonised char cols have the same structure? A model of the chemical structrue of carbonized charcoal. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 46: 5954-5967. Boxall, A.B.A., Tiede, K., Chaudhry, Q., 2007. Engineered nanomaterials in soils and water: how do they behave and how could they pose a risk to human health? Nanomedicine 2 (6): 919-927. Brady, N. C., 1990. The nature and properties of soils. 10 th Ed. Prentice-Hall. Brewer, C.E., Schmidt-Rohr, K., Sa trio, J.A. and Brown, R.C., 2009. Characterization of biochar from fast pyrolysis and gasification systems. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy 28(3): 386- 396. Bridle, T. R., Pritchard, D., 2004. Ener gy and nutrient recovery from sewage sludge via pyrolysis. Water Science Technology 50: 169-175. Briggs, C.M., Breiner, J., and Graham, R.C., 2005. Contributions of Pinus Ponderosa Charcoal to Soil Chemic al and Physical Properties. The ASA-CSSA-SSSA Internati onal Annual Meetings (November 6-10, 2005), Salt Lake City, U.S.A. Briones, M.J.I., Ineson, P. and Heinemeyer, A., 2007. Predicting potential impacts of climate change on t he geographical distribution of enchytraeids: A meta-analysis approach. Global Change Biology 13(11): 2252-2269. Brodowski, S., Amelung, W., Haumaier, L., Abetz, C., Zech, W., 2005. Morphological and chemical properties of black carbon in physical soil fractions as revealed by scanning electron microscopy and energy- dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Geoderma 128: 116-129. Brodowski, S., John, B., Flessa, H. and Amelung, W., 2006. Aggregate- occluded black carbon in soil. Eu ropean Journal of Soil Science 57(4): 539-546. Brown, M. A., Levine, M. D., Short, W., and Koomey, J. G., 2001. Scenarios for a clean energy future. Energy Policy 29: 1179-1196. Brown, R., 2009. Biochar Production Technology. In: Biochar for Environmental Management: Scienc e and Technology (Eds. Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S.), Earthscan. Bruun, S. and Luxhøi, J., 2008. Is bi ochar production really carbon-negative? Environmental Science and Technology 42(5): 1388. Bucheli, T., Gustafsson, Ö. , 2000. Quantification of the soot-water distribution coefficients of PAHs provides mechanistic basis for enhanced sorption observations. Environmental Science and Technology 34: 5144-5151. Bucheli, T., Gustafsson, Ö., 2001. Ubiqui tous observations of enhanced solid affinities for aromatic organochlorines in field situations: are in situ dissolved exposures overestimated by existing portioning models? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20: 1450-1456. Bucheli, T., Gustafsson, Ö., 2003. S oot sorption of non-ortho and ortho substituted PCBs. Chemosphere 53: 515-522. Buzea, C., Pacheco, I.I. and Robbie, K., 2008. Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity. Biointerphases 2(4): 17-71. Cetin, E., Moghtaderi, B., Gupta, R., Wall, T. F., 2004. Influence of pyrolysis conditions on the structure and gasificat ion reactivity of biomass chars. Fuel 83: 2139-2150. Chan, K. Y., van Zwieten, L., Meszaro s, I., Downie, A. Joseph, S., 2007a. Assessing the agronomic values of contrasting char materials on Australian hardsetting soil. Proceedings Conference of the International Agrichar Initiative, 30 May – 2 April, 2007, Terrigal, Australia. Chan, K. Y., Xu, Z., 2009. Biochar : Nutrient Properties and Their Enhancement. In: Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology (Eds. Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S.), Earthscan. Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A. and Joseph, S., 2007. Agronomic values of greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment. Australian Journal of So il Research 45(8): 629-634. Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A. and Joseph, S., 2008. Using poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Australian Journal of Soil Research 46(5): 437-444. Chaplot, V. A. M., Rumpel, C., Valentin, C., 2005. Water erosion impact on soil and carbon redistribut ions within uplands of Mekong River. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19 (4): 20-32. Chen, J., Zhu, D., Sun, C., 2007. Effect of heavy metals on the sorption of hydrophobic organic compounds to wood charcoal. Environmental Science and Technology 41: 2536-2541. Cheng, C. H., Lehmann, J., Engelhard, M., 2008. Natural oxidation of black carbon in soils: changes in molecu lar form and surface charge along a climosequence. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 72: 1598-1610. Cheng, C-H, Lehmann, J., Th ies, J., Burton, S. D., Engelhard, M. H., 2006. Oxidation of black car bon by biotic and abioti c processes. Organic Geochemistry 37: 1477-1488. Chiou, C. T., Kile, D. E., 1998. Deviat ions from sorption linearity on soils of polar and nonpolar organic compounds at low relative concentrations. Environmental Science and Technology 32: 338-343. Chun, Y., Sheng, G., Chiou, C. T., Xi ng, B., 2004. Compositions and Sorptive Properties of Crop Residue-Derived Chars. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 4649-4655. Cleary, J., Roulet, N.T. and Moore, T.R., 2005. Greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian peat extraction, 1990- 2000: A life-cycle analysis. Ambio 34(6): 456-461. Cohen-Ofri, I., Popovitz-Niro, R., Weiner, S., 2007. Structural characterization of modern and fossilized charcoal produced in natural fires as determined by using electron energy loss spectroscopy. Chemistry – A European Journal 13: 2306-2310. Cornelissen, G., Gustafsson, Ö., 2004. Sorption of phenanthrene to environmental black carbon in s ediment with and without organic matter and native sorbates. Envir onmental Science and Technology 38: 148-155. Cornelissen, G., Gustafss on, Ö., 2005. Importance of unburned coal carbon, black carbon, and amorphous organic carbon to phenanthrene sorption in sediments. Environmental Sc ience and Technology 39: 764-769. Cornelissen, G., Gustafsson, Ö., Bucheli, T. D., Jonker, M. T. O., Koelmans, A A., van Noort, P. C. M., 2005. Extensive sorption of organic compounds to black carbon, coal and kerogen in sediments and soils: mechanisms and consequences for dist ribution, bioaccumulation and biodegradation. Envir onmental Science and Technology 39: 6881- 6895. Curtis, P.S. and Wang, X., 1998. A meta -analysis of elevated CO2 effects on woody plant mass, form, and physiol ogy. Oecologia 113(3): 299-313. Davidson, D.A., Dercon, G., Stewart, M. and Watson, F., 2006. The legacy of past urban waste disposal on local soils. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(6): 778-783. Day, D., Evans, R.J., Lee, J.W. and Re icosky, D., 2005. Economical CO2, SOx, and NOx capture from foss il-fuel utilization with combined renewable hydrogen producti on and large-scale carbon sequestration. Energy 30(14): 2558-2579. De Graaff, M.A., van Groenigen, K.J., Six, J., Hungate, B. and van Kessel, C., 2006. Interactions between plant gr owth and soil nutrient cycling under elevated CO 2: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology 12(11): 2077- 2091. De Jonge, L.W., Jacobsen, O.H., Moldr up, P., 1999. Soil water repellency: effects of water content, temperatur e, and particle size. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63: 437–442. DeBano, L. F., 2000. Water repellency in soils: a historical overview. Journal of Hydrology 231-232: 4-32. Demirbas, A., 2004. Effects of temperat ure and particle size on bio-char yield from pyrolysis of agricultural residues . Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 72(2): 243-248. Demirbas, A., 2008. Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel projections. Energy Conversion and Management 49(8): 2106-2116. Derfus, A., Chan, W., Bhatia, S. N ., 2004. Probing the cytotoxicity of semiconductor quantum dots. Nanoletters 4 (1): 11-18. Derfus, A.M., Chan, W.C.W. and Bhatia, S.N., 2004. Probing the Cytotoxicity of Semiconductor Quantum Dots . Nano Letters, 4(1): 11-18. Diaz-Zorita, M., Buschiazzo, D. E., and Peinemann, N. (1999). Soil organic matter and wheat productivity in the semiarid Argentine pampas. Agronomy Journal 91: 276-279. Dickens, A.F., Gudeman, J.A., Gélinas, Y., Baldock, J.A., Tinner, W., Hu, F.S., and Hedges, J.I., 2007. Sources and distribution of CuO-derived benzene carboxylic acids in soils and sediments. Organic Geochemistry 38(8): 1256-1276. Ding, Q., Liang, P., Song, F., Xiang, A., 2006. Separation and preconcentration of silver ion usi ng multi-walled carbon nanotubes as solid phase extraction sorbent. Separation Science and Technology 41: 2723-2732. Doerr, S. H., Shakesby, R.A., Walsh, R.P.D., 2000. Soil water repellency: its causes, characteristics and hydro-geom orphological significance. Earth Science Reviews 51: 33-65. Downie, A., Crosky, A., Munroe, P., 2009. Physical properties of biochar. In: Biochar for Environmental M anagement: Science and Technology (Eds. Lehmann, J. & Jos eph, S.), Earthscan. Downie, A., van Zwieten, L., Doughty, W., Joseph, F., 2007. Nutrient retention characteristics of chars and the agr onomic implications. Proceedings, International Agrichar Iniative Conference, 30th April – 2nd May 2007, Terrigal, Australia. Earl, B., 1995. Tin smelting. The Oriental Institute News and Notes, 146. Edwards, J., 2009. Pyrolysis of Biom ass to Produce Bio-oil, Biochar and Combustible Gas Energy Postgr aduate Conference 2008. School of Engineering and Advanced Technology Massey University. EPA, 2007. Nanotechnology White Paper. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA 100/B-07/001, Wa shington DC 20460, USA. Falloon, P. D., Smith, P., Smith, J. U., Szabo, J., Coleman, K., and Marshall, S., 1998. Regional estimates of car bon sequestration potential: linking the Rothamsted Carbon Model to GIS databases. Biology and Fertility of Soils 27: 236-241. FAO, 2003. Food Balance Shee t. Last modified 08/06/2008: http://faostat.fao.org/ site/502/default.aspx. Fernandes, M. B. and Sicre, M.A., 1999. Polycyclic arom atic hydrocarbons in the Artic: Ob and Yeni sei estuaries and Kara Sea shelf. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 48: 725-737. Fernandes, M.B. and Brooks, P., 2003. Characterization of carbonaceous combustion residues: II. Nonpolar organic compounds. Chemosphere 53(5): 447-458. Fernandes, M.B., Skjemstad, J.O., Johnson, B.B., Wells, J.D. and Brooks, P., 2003. Characterization of carbonac eous combustion residues. I. Morphological, elemental and spectr oscopic features. Chemosphere, 51(8): 785-795. Fontaine, S., Bardoux, G., Benest, D., Ve rdier, B., Mariotti, A., and Abbadie, L., 2004. Mechanisms of the Priming Effect in a Savannah Soil Amended with Cellulose. So il Science Society of America Journal 68(1): 125-131. Fontaine, S., 2007. The priming effect and its implication for soil modeling, Disentangling Abiotic and Bi otic Effects on Soil Respiration. Innsbruck, 12th – 13th March 2007. Forbes, M. S., Raison, R. J., Sk jemstad, J. O., 2006. Formation, transformation and transport of black carbon (charcoal) in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment 370: 190- 206. Fortner, J.D., Lyon, D.Y., Sayes, C.M., Boyd, A.M., Falkner, J.C., Hotze, E.M., Alemany, L.B., Tao, Y.J., Guo, W., Ausman, K.D., Colvin, V.L., Hughes, J.B., 2005. C60 in water: nanocrystal formation and microbial response. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 4307-4316. Fowles, M., 2007. Black carbon sequestrati on as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomass and Bioener gy 31(6): 426-432. Freibauer, A., rounsevell, M.D.A., Sm ith, P. and Verhagen, J., 2002. “Background paper on carbon sequestrat ion in agricultural soils, under article 3.4 of the Kyoto Prot ocol,” Rep. No. Contract N°.2001.40.CO001. Garcia-Perez, M., 2008. The formation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins during pyrolysis. In: Washington State University. Gaskin, J.W., Steiner, C., Harris, K., Das, K.C. and Bibens, B., 2008. Effect of low-temperature pyrolysi s conditions on biochar for agricultural use. Transactions of the ASABE 51(6): 2061-2069. Gaunt J. and Cowie A., 2009. Biochar, Greenhouse Gass Accounting and Emissions Trading. In: Biochar for environmental management: Science and technology. (eds. Lehm ann, J., and Joseph, S). Earthscan Ltd, London. Gaunt, J.L. and Lehmann, J., 2008. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar seques tration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environmental Scie nce and Technology 42(11): 4152- 4158. Giani, L., Chertov, O., Gebhardt, C., Kalinina, O. , Nadporozhskaya, M., and Tolkdorf-Lienemann, E., 2004. Plag ganthrepts in northwest Russia? Genesis, properties and classifica tion. Geoderma 121(1-2): 113-122. Giby, J., Blair, A., Barab, J., Ka szniack, M., MacKensie, C., 2007. Combustible dusts: a serious industri al hazard. Journal of Hazardous Materials 142: 589-591. Glaser B., Guggenberger G., Zech W, 2004. Identifying the Pre-Columbian anthropogenic input on present soil pr operties of Amazonian Dark Earth (Terra Preta). In: Glaser, B ., Woods, W. (Eds.) Amazonian Dark Earths: Explorations in Space and Time. Springer, Heidelberg, 215 pp. Glaser, B., Balashov, E., Haumaier , L., Guggenberger, G. and Zech, W., 2000. Black carbon in density fractions of anthropogenic soils of the Brazilian Amazon region. Organic Geochemistry 31(7-8): 669-678. Glaser, B., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G. and Zech, W., 2001. The ‘Terra Preta’ phenomenon: A model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics. Naturwissenschaften 88(1): 37-41. Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., Zech, W., 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly w eathered soils in the tropics with charcoal: a review. Biology and Fertility of Soils 35: 219-230. Glaser, B., Parr, M., Braun, C. and Ko polo, G., 2009. Biochar is carbon negative. Nature Geoscience 2(1): 2. Goldberg, E. D., 1985. Black carbon in the Environment: properties and distribution. Wiley, NY. González, J. F., Román, S., Encinar, J. M., Martinéz, G., 2009. pyrolysis of various biomass residues and char utilization for the production of activated carbons. Journal of Analyt ical and Applied Pyrolysis 85: 134- 141. Goodman, C.M., McCusker, C.D., Yilmaz, T. and Rotello, V.M., 2004. Toxicity of gold nanoparticles functionaliz ed with cationic and anionic side chains. Bioconjugate Chemistry 15(4): 897-900. Grierson, S., Strezov, V., Ellem, G., McGregor, R. and Herbertson, J., 2009. Thermal characterisation of microalgae under slow pyrolysis conditions. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 85(1-2): 118- 123. Gu, B., Schmitt, J., Chen, Z., Liang, L ., McCarthy, J. F., 1995. Adsorption and desorption of different organic matter fractions on iron oxide. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59: 219-229. Gustafsson, Ö., Haghseta, F., Chan, C ., Macfarlane, J., Gschwend, P., 1997. Quantification of the d ilute sedimentary soot phase: implications for PAH speciation and bioavailabili ty. Environmental Science and Technology 31: 203-209. Hamer, U., Marschner, B., Brodowski, S. and Amelung, W., 2004. Interactive priming of black carbon and gl ucose mineralisation. Organic Geochemistry 35(7): 823-830. Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson- Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, and J.C. Zachos, 2008: Target atmospheric CO2: Wher e should humanity aim? Open Atmosphere Science. Journal, 2: 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217. Harris, P. J. F., 1997. Structure of non-graphitising carbons. International Materials Reviews 42 (5): 206-218. Harris, P. J. F., Tsang, S. C., 1997. High resolution of electron microscopy studies of non-graphitizing carbons. Philosophical Magazine A 76 (3): 667-677. Harris, P.J.F., 2005. New perspectives on the structure of graphitic carbons. Critical Reviews in Solid State and Ma terials Sciences 30(4): 235-253. Harvey, A.E., Jurgensen M. F., Larsen, M. J., 1976. Comparative distribution of ectomycorrhizae in a mature Douglas -fir/Larch forest soil in western Montana. Forest Science: 22: 350-358. Hata, T., Imamura, Y., Kobayashi, E., Yamane, K., Kikuchi, K., 2000. Onion- like graphitic particles observed in wood charcoal. Journal of Wood Science 46: 89-92. Haumaier, L. and Zech, W., 1995. Bla ck carbon-possible source of highly aromatic components of soil humic acids. Organic Geochemistry 23(3): 191-196. Hays, M. D., van der Wal, R. L., 2007. Heterogenous soot nanostructure in atmospheric and combustion source aerosols. Energy and Fuels 21: 801-811. Hedges, J.I., Eglinton, G., Hatcher, P.G., Kirchman, D.L., Arnosti, C., Derenne, S., 2000. The molecularl y-uncharacterized component of nonliving organic matter in natural environments. Organic Geochemistry 31: 945–958. Hedman, B., Naslund, M., Marklund, S. L., 2006. Emission of PCDD/F, PCB and HCB from combustion of firewood and pellets in residential stoves and boilers. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 4968-4975. Heymann, D., Jenneskens, L.W., Jehli čka, J., Koper, C. and Vlietstra, E., 2003. Terrestrial and extraterrestri al fullerenes. Fullerenes Nanotubes and Carbon Nanostructures 11(4): 333-370. Hiller, E., Fargasova, A., Zemanova, L ., Bartal, M., 2007. Influence of wheat ash on the MCPA imobilization in ag ricultural soils. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 78: 345-348. Hockaday, W. C., 2006. The organic geochemi stry of charcoal black carbon in the soils of the University of Mich igan Biological Station. Doctoral Thesis, Ohio State University, US. Hockaday, W.C., Grannas, A.M., Kim, S. and Hatcher, P.G., 2006. Direct molecular evidence for the degradation and mobility of black carbon in soils from ultrahigh-resolution mass spectral analysis of dissolved organic matter from a fire-impacted forest soil. Organic Geochemistry 37(4): 501-510. Hockaday, W.C., Grannas, A.M., Kim, S. and Hatcher, P.G., 2007. The transformation and mobility of charc oal in a fire-impacted watershed. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 71(14): 3432-3445. Holownicki, R., Doruchowski, G., G odyn, A. and Swiechowski, W., 2000. Variation of spray deposit and loss wit h air-jet directions applied in orchards. Journal of Agricultural and Engineering Research 77(2): 129- 136. Hospido, A., Moreira, M. T., Mart in, M., Rigola, M., Feijoo, G., 2005. Environmental evaluation of differ ent treatment processes for sludge from urban wastewater treatments: anaerobic digestion versus thermal processes. International Journal of Life Cycle Analysis 5: 336-345. Hossain, M. K., Strezov, V., Nelson, P ., 2007. Evaluation of agricultural char from sewage sludge. Proceedings Inter national Agrichar Iniative, 2007 Terrigal, Australia. Hubbe, A., Chertov, O., Kalinina, O., Nadporozhskaya, M., and Tolkdorf- Lienemann, E., Giani, L., 2007. Evi dence of plaggen soils in European North Russia (Arkhangelsk region). J ournal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 170(3): 329-334. Huber, S., Prokop, G., Arrouays, D., Ba nko, G., Bispo, A., Jones, R.J.A., Kibblewhite, M.G., Lexer, W., Möller, A., Rickson, R.J., Shishkov, T., Stephens, M., Toth, G. Van den Akker, J.J.H., Varallyay, G., Verheijen, F.G.A., Jones, A.R. (eds) (2008). Envi ronmental Assessment of Soil for Monitoring: Volume I Indicators & Criteria. EUR 23490 EN/1, Office for the Official Publications of t he European Communities, Luxembourg, 339pp. Hungerbuhler, H., Guldi, D. M., Asmus, K. D., 1993. Incorporation of C60 into artificial lipid membranes. Journal of American Chemistry Society 115: 3386-3387. Husain, L., Khan, A. J., Shareef, A., Ahmed, T., 2008. Forest Fire Derived Black Carbon in the Adirondack M ountains, NY, ~1745 to 1850 A.D. Hussain, N., Jaitley, V. and Florence, A.T., 2001. Recent advances in the understanding of uptake of microparticulates across the gastrointestinal lymphatics. Advanced Drug Delive ry Reviews 50(1-2): 107-142. Hyung, H., Fortner, J. D., Hughes, J. B., Kim, J. H., 2007. Natural organic matter stabilizes carbon nanot ubes in the aqueous phase. Environmental Science and Technology 42: 179-184. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001). “Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases”. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. International Energy Agency, 2006. Annual Report – IEA Bioenergy. Task 34 Pyrolysis of Biomass. http://www.ieabioenergy.com/DocSet.aspx?id=5566&ret=lib (last accessed: 11-12-2009. Ishii, T., Kadoya, K., 1994. Effects of c harcoal as a soil conditioner on citrus growth and vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal development. Journal of the Japaneese Society for Hort icultural Science 63: 529-535. Iwai, K., Mizuno, S., Mi yasaka, Y. and Mori, T., 2005. Correlation between suspended particles in the environm ental air and causes of disease among inhabitants: Cross- sectional studies using the vital statistics and air pollution data in Japan. Enviro nmental Research 99(1): 106-117. James, G., Sabatini, D. A., Chiou, C. T., Rutherford, D., Scott, A. C., Karapanagioti, H. K. , 2002. Evaluating phenant hrene sorption on various wood chars. Wate r Research 39: 549-558. Janssens, I.A., Freibauer, A., Ciais, P., Sm ith, P., Nabuurs, G.J., Folberth, G., Schlamadinger, B., Hutjes, R.W.A ., Ceulemans, R., Schulze, E.D., Valentini, R., and Dolman, A.J., 2003. Europe’s terrestrial biosphere absorbs 7 to 12% of European anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. Science, 300(5625): 1538-1542. Janssens, I.A., Freibauer, A., Schlamadi nger, B., Ceulemans, R., Ciais, P., Dolman, A.J., Heimann, M., Nabuurs, G. J., Smith, P., Valentini, R., and Schulze, E.D., 2005. The carbon budget of terrestrial ecosystems at country-scale – A European case study. Biogeosciences 2(1): 15-26. Janzen, H. H., 2004. Carbon cycling in earth systems – a soil science perspective. Agriculture Ecosyst ems & Environment 104: 399-417. Janzen, H.H., 2006. The soil carbon dilemm a: Shall we hoard it or use it? Soil Biology and Biochem istry 38(3): 419-424. Johnson, E., and Heinen, R., 2004. Ca rbon trading: time for industry involvement. Environment In ternational 30 : 279-288. Jones H.D., G.S., B. Boag, R. Neilson ., 2001. The diversity of earthworms in 200 Scottish fields and the possible effect of New Zealand land flatworms (Arthurdendyus triangul atus) on earthworm populations. Annals of Applied Biology 139: 75-92. Jones, D. M., 2008. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in biochars and related materials. Biochar: sustai nability and security in a changing climate. Proceedings 2nd International Biochar Iniative Conference 2008, Newcastle, UK. Jones, R.J.A., Verheijen, F.G.A., Reut er, H.I., Jones, A.R. (eds), 2008. Environmental Assessment of Soil for Monitoring Volume V: Procedures & Protocol s. EUR 23490 EN/5, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 165pp. Jonker, M. T. O., Hawthorne, S. B., Koelmans, A. A., 2005. Extremely Slowly Desorbing Polycyclic Aromatic Hydr ocarbons from Soot and Soot-like Materials: Evidence by Supercritical Fluid Extraction. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 7889-7895. Jonker, M. T. O., Koelmans, A. A ., 2002. Sorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated bi phenyls to soot and soot-like materials in the aqeous environment: mechanistic considerations. Environmental Science and Technology 36: 3725-3734. Joseph, S., Peacock, C., Lehmann, J., Munroe, P., 2009. Developing a Biochar Classification and Test Me thods. In: Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology (Eds. Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S.), Earthscan. Joung, H-T., Seo, Y-C., Kim, K-H., 2007. Distribution of dioxins, furans, and dioxin-like PCBs in solid produc ts generated by pyrolysis and melting of automobile shredder residues . Chemosphere 68: 1636-1641. Karajanagi, S. S., Yang, H. C., Asuri, P ., Sellitto, E., Dordick, J. S., Kane, R. S., 2006. Protein-assisted solubiliz ation of singled-walled nanotubes. Langmuir 22: 1392-1395. Kawamoto, K., Ishimaru, K., Imamura, Y ., 2005. Reactivity of wood charcoal with ozone. Journal of Wood Science 51: 66-72. Kearney, P. and Roberts, T. (Eds), 1998. Pesticide Remediation in Soils and Water. Wiley Series in Agrochemicals and Plant Protection. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK. Keiluweit, M., Kleber, M., 2009. Molecular level interactions in soil and sediments: the role of aromatic π-systems. Environmental Science and Technology 43: 3421-3429. Kharecha and Hansen, 2009. ‘We never said biochar is a miracle cure’, The Guardian, Wednesday 25 March 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/25/hansen-biochar- monbiot-response. Kilduff, J. E., Wigton, A., 1999. Sorption of TCE by humic-preloaded activated carbon: Incorporating size-exclusi on and pore blockage phenomena in a competitive adsorption model . Environmental Science and Technology 33: 250-256. Kim, S., Kaplan, L. A., Brenner, R., Ha tcher, P. G., 2004. Hydrogen-deficinet molecules in natural riverine water samples – Evidence for the existence of black carbon in DO M. Mar. Chemistry 92: 225-234. Kimetu, J.M., Lehmann, J., Ngoze, S. O., Mugen di, D. N., Kinyangi, J. M., Riha, S., Verchot, L., Rec ha, J. W., and Pell, A. N., 2008. Reversibility of soil productivity decline with organi c matter of differing quality along a degradation gradient. Eco systems 11(5): 726-739. King, J. A., Bradley, R. I., Harrison, R., and Carter, A. D., 2004. Carbon sequestration and saving potential associated with changes to the management of agricultural soils in England. Soil Use and Management 20: 394-402. King, P.M., 1981. Comparison of methods for measuring severity of water repellence of sandy a soils and assessment of some factors that affect its measurement. Australian Jour nal of Soil Science 19: 275–285. Kirkby, M.J., Jones, R.J.A., Irvine, B., Gobin, A., Govers, G., Cerdan, O., Van Rompaey, A.J.J., Le Bissonnais, Y., Daroussin, J., King, D., Montanarella, L., Grimm, M., Vieill efont, V., Puigdefabregas, J., Boer, M., Kosmas, C., Yassoglou, N., Ts ara, M., Mantel, S., Van Lynden, G.J., and Huting, J., 2004. P an-European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment: the PESERA map. Versi on 1 October 2003. Explanation of Special Publication Ispra 2004 No.73 (S.P.I.04.73), European Soil Bureau Research Report No.16, EUR 21176. Office for Official Publications of the European Co mmunities, Luxembourg. 18 pp. Kirkby, M.J., Le Bissonais, Y., Coulthar d, T.J., Daroussin, J., and McMahon, M.D., 2000. The development of land quality indicators for soil degradation by water eros ion. AgricultureEcosystems and Environment 81: 125–136. Kishimoto S, and Sugiura, G., 1985. Charcoal as a soil conditioner, in: Symposium on Forest Products Research, International Achievements for the Future 5:12–23. Kittelson, D. B., 2001. Proceedings of t he conference on Current Research on Diesel Exhaust Particles of the J apan Association of Aerosol Science and Technology, Tokyo, 9 January 2001 (unpublished data). Kleineidam, S. Schuth, C., and Grathw ol, P., 2002. Solubility-normalized combined adsorption-partitioni ng sorption isotherms for organic pollutants. Environmental Sci ence and Technology 36: 4689-4697. Knaapen, A.M., Borm, P.J.A., Albrech t, C. and Schins, R.P.F., 2004. Inhaled particles and lung cancer. Part A: Mechanisms. International Journal of Cancer 109(6): 799-809. Knicker, H., Totsche, K. U., Almendr os, G., and Gonzalez-Vila, F. J., 2005. Condensation degree of burnt peat and plant residues and the reliability of solid state VACP M AS 13C NMR spectra obtained from pyrogenic humic material. Organi c Geochemistry 36: 1359-1377. Knox, E.G., 2005. Oil combustion and childhood cancers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(9): 755-760. Koelmans, A. A., Jonker, M. T. O., Cor nelissen, G., Bucheli, T. D., van Noort, P. C. M., and Gustafss on, Ö., 2006. Black carbon: the reverse of its black side. Chemosphere 63: 365-377. Kögel-Knabner, I., Ekschmitt, K., Fle ssa, H., Guggenberger, G., Matzner, E., Marschner, B., and Von Lützow, M., 2008. An integrative approach of organic matter stabilization in temper ate soils: Linking chemistry, physics, and biology. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science,171(1): 5-13. Kolb, S.E., Fermanich, K.J. and Dornbush, M.E., 2009. Effect of Charcoal Quantity on Microbial Biomass and Acti vity in Temperate Soils. Soil Sci ence Society of America Journal 73(4): 1173-1181. Kuzyakov, Y., Friedel, J.K., and Stahr, K., 2000. Review of mechanisms and quantification of pr iming effects. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32: 11- 12: 1485-1498 Kuzyakov, Y., Subbotina, I., Chen, H., Bogomolova, I. and Xu, X., 2009. Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by 14C labeling. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41(2): 210- 219. Kwon, S. and Pignatello, J. J., 2005. Effect of Natu ral Organic Substances on the Surface and Adsorptive Properties of Environmental Black Carbon (Char): Pseudo Pore Blockage by Model Lipid Components and Its Implications for N 2-Probed Surface Properties of Natural Sorbents. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 7932-7939. Laird, D.A., 2008. The charcoal vi sion: A win-win-win scenario for simultaneously producing bio energy, permanently sequestering carbon, while improv ing soil and water quality. Agronomy Journal 100(1): 178-181. Laird, D.A., Chappell, M.A., Martens, D.A., Wershaw, R.L. and Thompson, M., 2008. Distinguishing black carbon from biogenic humic substances in soil clay fractions. Geoderma 143(1-2): 115-122. Lal, R. and Pimentel, D., 2007. Biofuels from crop residues. Soil and Tillage Research 93(2): 237-238. Lal, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestrati on impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304: 1623-1627. Lal, R., 2008. Crop residues as soil amendments and feedstock for bioethanol production. Waste Management 28(4): 747-758. Lal, R., 2009. Soil quality impacts of residue removal for bioethanol production. Soil and Tillage Research 102(2): 233-241. Lang, T. Jensen, A. D., Jensen, P. A ., 2005. Retention of organic elements during solid fuel pyrolysis with emphasis on the peculiar behaviour of nitrogen. Energy and Fuels 19: 1631-1643. Ledesma, E. B., Marsh, N. D., Sandrowit z, A. K., Wornat, M. J., 2002. Global kinetics rate parameters for the fo rmation of polyciclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the pyrolysis of catechol, a model compound representative of solid fules moie ties. Energy and Fuels 16: 1331-1336. Lehmann, J. and Sohi, S., 2008. Comment on “fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus”. Science 321: 5894. Lehmann, J., 2007. A handful of Carbon. Nature 447: 143-144 Lehmann, J., 2007. Bio-energy in the bl ack. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 381-387. Lehmann, J., Czimczik, C., Laird, D., and S ohi, S., 2009. Stability of biochar in the soil. In: Biochar for Envi ronmental Management: Science and Technology (Eds. Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S.), Earthscan. Lehmann, J., da Silva Jr., J. P., Rondon, M. C. M., Greenwood, J., Nehls, T. Steiner, C., and Glaser, B., 2002. Slash-and-char – a feasible alternative for soil fertility management in the Central Amazon? In: 17th World Congress of Soil Science, Bangkok. Lehmann, J., da Silva Jr., J. P., Steiner , C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., and Glaser, B., 2003b. Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol in the Central Amazon basin: Fertiliser, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and Soil 249: 343-357. Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J. and Rondon, M., 2006. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems – A review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11(2): 403-427. Lehmann, J., Kern, D. C., Glaser, B. , and Woods, W. I., 2003. Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties and Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Lehmann, J., Lan, Z., Hyland, C., Sato, S., Solomon, D., and Ketterings, Q. M., 2005. Long term dynamics of phos phorus and retention in manure amended soils. Environmental Sci ence and Technology 39 (17): 6672- 6680. Levis, S., Bonan, G.B. and Bonfils, C., 2004. Soil feedback drives the mid- Holocene North African monsoon north ward in fully coupled CCSM2 simulations with a dynamic vegetati on model. Climate Dynamics 23(7- 8): 791-802. Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kiny angi, J., Grossman, J., O’Neill, B., Skjemstad, J.O., Thies, J., Luizão, F.J., Petersen, J., and Neves, E.G., 2006. Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70(5): 1719-1730. Liang, B. Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Sohi,S., Thies, J., Skjemstad, J.O.,. Luizão, F.J., Engelhard, M.H., Ne ves, E.G., and Wirick, S., 2008. Stability of biomass-derived black ca rbon in soils. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 72(24): 6069-6078. Liang, P., Ding, Q., and So ng, F., 2005a. Application of multi-walled carbon nanotubes as solid phase adsorbent for the preconcentration of trace copper in water samples. Journal of Separation Science 28: 2339- 2343. Liang, P., Liu, Y, Guo, L., Zeng, J., and Lu, H. B., 2004. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes as solid phase adsorbent for the preconcentration of trace metal ions and their determination by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry. J ournal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 19: 1489-1492. Lima, I. M. and Marshall, W. E., 2005. Gr anular activated carbons from broiler manure: physical, chemical and adsorptive properties. Bioresource Technology 96: 699-706. Linak, W.P., Miller, C.A. and Wendt, J.O.L ., 2000. Comparison of particle size distributions and elemental partiti oning from the combustion of pulverized coal and residual fuel o il. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 50(8): 1532-1544. Long, R. Q., Yang, R. T., 2001. Car bon nanotubes as superior sorbent for dioxin removal. Journal of American Chemistry Society 123: 2058- 2059. Loveland, P., and Webb, J., 2003. Is there a critical level of organic matter in the agricultural soils of temperat e regions: a review. Soil & Tillage Research 70: 1-18. Lovelock, J. A geophysiologists’s t houghts on geoengineerging. Philosophical Transactions of the Roya l Society A 366, 3883-3890, doi:10.1098/rsta/2008.0135. Lua, A. C., Yang, T., and Guo, J., 2004. Ef fects of pyrolysis conditions on the properties of activated carbons pr epared from pistachio-nut shells. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 72: 279-287. Lützow, M.V., Kögel-Knabner, I., Ekschmi tt, K., Matzner, G., Guggenberger, G., Marschner, B., and Fl essa, H., 2006. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: Mechanisms and thei r relevance under different soil conditions – A review. European J ournal of Soil Science 57(4): 426- 445. Machida, M., Yamzaki, R., Aikawa, M., and Tatsumoto, H., 2005. Role of minerals in carbonaceous adsorbents fo r removal of Pb (II) ions from aqaueous solution. Separation Purification Technology 46: 88-94. Maiti, S., Dey, S., Purakayastha, S., and Ghosh, B., 2006. Physical and thermochemical characterisation of rice husk char as a potential biomass source. Bioresource Technology 97: 2065-2070. Mannino, A. and Harvey, H. R., 2004. Black carbon in estuarine and coastal ocean dissolved organic matter. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 735-740. Marris, E., 2006. Putting the carbon back: Black is the new green. Nature 442(7103): 624-626. Marschner, B., Brodowski, S., Dreves, A ., Gleixner, G., Gude, A., Grootes, P. M., Hamer, U., Heim, A., Jandl, G., Ji, R., Kaiser, K., Kalbitz, K., Kramer, C., Leinweber, P., Rethemey er, J., Schäffer, A., Schmidt, M. W. I., Schwark, L., and Wiesenberg, G. L. B., 2008. How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils? Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 171(1): 91-110. Marsh, H., Heintz, E. A., Rodriguez-Re inoso, F., 1997. Introduction to Carbon Technologies. University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain. Martínez, M. L., Torres, M. M., Gu zmán, C. A., Maestri, D. M., 2006. Preparation and characteristics of ac tivated carbon from olive stones and walnut shells. Industrial crops and products 23: 23-28. Masiello, C. A. and Druffel, E. R. M., 1998. Black carbon in deep-sea sediments. Science 280: 1911-1913. Mathews, J.A., 2008. Carbon- negative biofuels. Energy Policy 36(3): 940-945. Maynard, R., 2004. Key airborne pollutants – The impact on health. Science of the Total Environment 334-335: 9-13. Mbagwu, JSC and Piccolo, A, 1997. Effe cts of humic substances from oxidized coal on soil chemical properties and maize yield. In: Drozd J, Gonet SS, Senesi N, Weber J (eds) The role of humic substances in the ecosystems and in environmental protection. IHSS, Polish Society of Humic Substances, Wroclaw, Poland: pp 921–925. McCarl B., Peacocke G.V .C., Chrisman R., Kung C., and Sands R. D., 2009. Economics of biochar production, utilis ation and emissions. In: Biochar for environmental management: Science and technology. (eds. Lehmann, J., and Joseph, S). Earthscan Ltd, London. McHenry, M.P., 2009. Agricultural bio-char pr oduction, renewable energy generation and farm carbon sequestration in Western Australia: Certainty, uncertainty and risk. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129(1-3): 1-7. Meharg, A.A., Deacon,C., Edwards, K.J., Donaldson, M., Davidson, D., Spring, C., Scrimgeour, C.M., Feldmann, J., and Rabb, A., 2006. Ancient manuring practices pollute ar able soils at the St Kilda World Heritage Site, Scottish North At lantic. Chemosphere 64(11): 1818- 1828. Mercado, L.M., Bellouin, N., Sitch, S., B oucher, O., Huntingford, C., Wild, M., and Cox, P.M., 2009. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458(7241): 1014-1017. Mizuta, K., Matsumoto, T., Hatate, Y., Nishihara, K. and Nakanishi, T., 2004. Removal of nitrate-nitrogen from drinking water using bamboo powder charcoal. Bioresource Te chnology 95(3): 255-257. Moore, M.N., 2006. Do nanoparticles pr esent ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment? En vironment International 32(8): 967-976. Morterra, C., Low, M J. D., and Severdia, A. G., 1984. IR studies of carbon. 3. The oxidation of cellulose chars. Carbon 22: 5-12. Muralidhara, H. S., 1982. Conversion of tannery waste to useful products. Resources and Conservation 8: 43-59. NASA, 2008. Carbon Cycle. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/l angley/images/content/174212main_rn_b errien2.jpg Accessed June 2009. Naujokas, A. A., 1985. Spontaneous combustion of carbon beds. Plant Operations Progress 4: 120-2070. Nearing, M.A., Pruski, F.F., and O’Neal , M.R., 2004. Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: a re view. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59(1): 43–50. Neff, J.C., Townsend, A.R., Gleixner, G., Lehman, S.J., Turnbull, J. and Bowman, W.D., 2002. Variable effe cts of nitrogen additions on the stability and turnover of soil ca rbon. Nature 419(6910): 915-917. Nehls, T., 2002. Fertility improvement of a terra firme oxisol in central Amazonia by charcoal application. Final thesis in Geoecology, University of Bayreuth, Institute of Soil Science and Soil Geography: 81 pp. Nelson, P.F., 2007. Trace metal emissi ons in fine particles from coal combustion. Energy and Fuels 21(2): 477-484. Nguyen, B.T. and Lehmann, J., Bla ck carbon decomposition under varying water regimes. Organic G eochemistry 40: 846-853. Nguyen, B.T., Lehmann, J., Kinyangi, J ., Smernik, R., Riha, S. J., and Engelhard, M. H., 2008. Long-term black carbon dynamics in cultivated soil. Biogeochemistry, 89(3): 295-308. Nguyen, B.T., Lehmann, J., Kinyangi, J ., Smernik, R., Riha, S. J., and Engelhard, M. H., 2009. Long-term black carbon dynamics in cultivated soil. Biogeochemistry 92(1-2): 163-176. Nisho, M.a.O., S. , 1991. Stimulation of t he growth of alfalfa and infection of mycorrhizal fungi by the application of charcol. Bulletin of the National Grassland Research Institute, 45: 61-71. Niyogi, S., Abraham, T. E. and Rama krishna, S. V., 1998. Removal of cromium (VI) from industrial effl uents by immobilized biomass of Rhizopus arrhizus . Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 57: 809-816. Nowack, B. and Bucheli, T.D., 2007. Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Envi ronmental Pollution 150(1): 5-22. Oberdörster, G., 2002. Toxicokinetics and effects of fibrous and non-fibrous particles. Inhalation Toxi cology 14 (1): 29-56. Oberdörster, G., Stone, V. and Donaldson, K., 2007. Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspecti ve. Nanotoxicology 1(1): 2-25. Ogawa, M., 1994. Symbiosis of people and nature in the tropics. Farming Japan, 28: 10-34. Ogawa, M., Okimori, Y. and Takahashi, F., 2006. Carbon sequestration by carbonization of biomass and forestation: Three case studies. Mitigation and Adaptati on Strategies for Global Change 11(2): 429-444. Oguntunde, P.G., Abiodun, B. J., Ajayi, A.E. and Van De Giesen, N., 2008. Effects of charcoal production on so il physical properties in Ghana. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 171(4): 591-596. Oguntunde, P.G., Fosu, M., Ajayi, A. E. and Van De Giesen, N.D., 2004. Effects of charcoal production on maize yield, chemical properties and texture of soil. Biology and Fe rtility of Soils 39(4): 295-299. Okimori, Y., Ogawa, M. and Takahashi, F., 2003. Potential of CO 2 emission reductions by carbonizing biomass waste from industrial tree plantation in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Mitigat ion and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 8(3): 261-280. O’Neill, B., Grossman, J., Tsai, M. T ., Gomes, J. E., Lehmann, J., Peterson, J., Neves, E., and Thies, J. E., 2009. Bacterial Community Composition in Brazilian Anthrosols and Adjacent Soils Characterized Using Culturing and Molecular Identificat ion. Microbial Ecology: 1-13. Ostrom, E., Janssen, M.A., and Anderies, J.M., 2007. Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 104 (39): 15176-15178. Painter, T.J., 2001. Carbohydrate pol ymers in food preservation: An integrated view of the Maillard reaction with special reference to the discoveries of preserved foods in Sphagnum dominated peat bogs. Carbohydrate Polymers 36: 335-347. Pakdel, H., and Roy, C., 1991. Hydrocarbon Content of Liquid Products of Tar from Pyrolysis and Gasification. Energy & Fuels: 427-436. Pastor-Villegas, J., Pastor-Valle, J. P ., Meneses Rodriguez, J. M., and García García, M., 2006. Study of comme rcial wood charcoals for the preparation of carbon adsorbents. Jour nal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 76: 103-108. Pendall, E., Bridgham, S., Hanson, P. J., Hungate, B., Kicklighter, D. W., Johnson, D. W., Law, B. E., Luo, Y. Q., Megonigal, J. P., Olsrud, M., Ryan, M. G., and Wan, S. Q., 2004. Below-ground process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature: a discussion of observations, measurement methods, and models. Ne w Phytologist 162: 311-322. Penner, J. E., Eddleman, H., and No vakav, T., 1993. Towards the development of a global inventor y for black carbon. Atmospheric Environment 27 A (8): 1277-1295. Pessenda, L.C.R., Gouveia, S.E.M., and Aravena, R., 2001. Radiocarbon dating of total soil organic ma tter and humin fraction and its comparison with 14C ages of fossil charcoal. Radiocarbon 43 (2001): 595–601. Petrus, L. and Noordermeer, M.A., 2006. Biomass to biofuels, a chemical perspective. Green Chemistry 8, The Royal Society of Chemistry: 861- 867. Phillips, D.L., White, D., and Johnson, B., 1993. Implications of climate- change scenarios for soil-erosion potential in the USA. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 4 (2): 61–72. Piccolo, A. and Mbagwu, J.S.C., 1997. Exogenous humic substances as conditioners for the rehabilitation of degraded soils. Agro-Foods Industry Hi-Tech: 8(2): 2-4. Piccolo, A., Pietramellara, G. and Mbagw u, J.S.C., 1996. Effects of coal derived humic substances on water ret ention and structural stability of mediterranean soils. Soil Use an d Management, 12(4): 209-213. Piccolo, A., Pietramella ra, G. and Mbagwu, J.S.C., 1997. Use of humic substances as soil conditioners to increase aggregate stability. Geoderma, 75(3-4): 267-277. Pignatello, J. J., Kwon, S., and Lu, Y., 2006. Effect of Natural Organic Substances on the Surface and Adsorp tive properties of Environmental Black Carbon (Char): Attenuation of Surface Activity by Humic and Fulvic Acids. Environmental Sc ience and Technolology 40: 7757-7763. Pointing, S., 2001. Feasibility of bioremediation by white rot fungi: Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 57, 20-33. Ponge, J.-F., Topoliantz, S., Ballof, S.,.R ossi, J.P., Lavelle, P., Betsch, J.M., and Gaucher, P., 2006. Ingestion of charcoal by the Amazonian earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus: A potential for tropical soil fertility. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38(7): 2008-2009. Post, D.F., Fimbres, A., Matthias, A.D., Sano, E.E., Accioly, L., Batchily, A.K., and Ferreira, L.G., 2000. Predicting soil albedo from soil color and spectral reflectance data. Soil Science Society of America Journal,64(3): 1027-1034. Post, W. M., Peng, T. H., Emanuel, W. R., King, A. W., Dale, V. H., and Deangelis, D. L., 1990. The Global Ca rbon-Cycle. American Scientist 78: 310-326. Preston, C. M., and Schmidt, M. W. I., 2006. Black (pyrogenic) carbon in boreal forests: a synthesis of current knowledge and uncertainties. Biogeosciences Discussions 3:211-271. Pulido, L. L., Hata, T., Imamura, Y., Ishihara, S., and Kajioto, T., 1998. Removal of mercury and other meta ls by carbonized wood powder from aqueous solution of their salts. Journal of Wood Science 44(3): 237-243. Quénéa, K., Derenne, S., Rumpel, C., Rouzaud, J.N., Gustafsson, O., Carcaillet, C., Mariotti,A., and Largeau, C., 2006. Black carbon yields and types in forest and cultivated sandy soils (Landes de Gascogne, France) as determined with different methods: Influence of change in land use. Organic Geochem istry, 37(9): 1185-1189. Radovic, L. R., Moreno-Castilla, C., and Rivera-Utrilla, J., 2001. Carbon materials as adsorbents in aqueous solutions. In: Chemistry and Physics of Carbon (ed. L. R. Radovic): 227-405. Renner, R., 2007. Rethinking biocha r. Environmental Science and Technology 41(17): 5932-5933. Ritsema, C. J., and Dekker, L. W., 1996. Water repellency and its role in forming preferred flow paths in soils. Australian Journal of Soil Research 34: 475-487. Ritz, K., 2007. The plate debate: cult ivable communities have no utility in contemporary environmental microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 60: 358-362. Roberts, K., Gloy, B., Joseph, S., Sc ott, N. and Lehmann, J., (2009), Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: Estimating the energetic, economic and climate c hange potential. Environment Science and Technology 44: 827-833. Rogers, F., Arnott, P., Zielinska, B ., Sagebiel, J., Kelly, K.E., Wagner, D., Lighty, J., and Sarofim, A.F., 2005. Real-time measurements of jet aircraft engine exhaust. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 55(5): 583-593. Rondon, M.A., Lehmann, J., Ramírez, J. and Hurtado, M., 2007. Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phas eolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biology and Fertility of Soils 43(6): 699-708. Rosenberg, M.S., Adams, D.C., and Gure vitch, J., 2000. MetaWin Statistical Software for Meta-Analysis, Versi on 2. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Rumpel, C. Chaplot, V., Planchon, O., Bernadoux, J., Valentin, C., and Mariotti, A., 2006b. Preferential er osion of black carbon on steep slopes with slash and burn agriculture. Catena 65 (1): 30-40. Rumpel, C., Alexis, M., C habbi, A., Chaplot, V., Rasse, D. P., Valentin, C., and Mariotti, A., 2006a. Black carbon c ontribution to soil organic matter composition in tropical sloping l and under slash and burn agriculture. Geoderma 130: 35-46. Russell, E.J., 1926. Plant nutrition and crop production. University of California Press, Berkeley, California: 115 pp. Rustad, L.E., Campbell, J.L., Marion, G.M., Norby, R.J., Mitchell, M.J., Hartley, A.E., Cornelissen, J.H. C., and Gurevitch, J., 2001. A meta- analysis of the response of soil resp iration, net nitrogen mineralisation, and aboveground plant growth to experimental ecosystem warming. Oecologia, 126(4): 543-562. Saito, M., and Marumoto, T., 2002. Inoc ulation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: the status quo in Japan and t he future prospects. Plant and Soil 244: 273–279. Salloum, M. J., Chefetz, B., Hatcher, P. G., 2002. Phenanthrene sorption by alliphatic-rich natural organic ma tter. Environmental Science and Technology 36: 1953-1958. Sánchez, M.E., Lindao, E., Margaleff, D., Martínez, O. and Morán, A., 2009. Pyrolysis of agricultural residues from rape and sunflowers: Production and characterization of bio-fuels and biochar soil management. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 85(1-2): 142-144. Sander, M., and Pignatello, J. J., 2005. Characterisation of charcoal adsorption sites for aromatic co mpounds: Insights drawn from single and bi-solute competitive experiments. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 1606-1615. Schils, R., Kuikman, P., Li ski, J., van Oijen, M., Smit h, P., Webb, J. Alm, J., Somogyi, Z., van den Akker, J., Billett, M., Emmett, B., Evans, C., Lindner, M., Palosuo, T., Bellamy , P., Jandl, R., and Hiederer, R., 2008. Review of existing information on the interrelations between soil and climate change. Final Re port. Contract number 070307/2007/486157/SER/B1, 208 pp. Schmidt, M.W.I., Skjemstad, J.O. and Jäger, C., 2002. Carbon isotope geochemistry and nanomorphology of soil black carbon: Black chernozemic soils in central Eur ope originate from ancient biomass burning. Global Biogeochemic al Cycles 16(4): 70-1. Schmidt, M.W.I., Skjemstad, J.O., Gehrt, E. and Kögel-Knabner, I., 1999. Charred organic carbon in German chernozemic soils. European Journal of Soil Science 50(2): 351-365. Schnitzer, M.I., Monreal, C.M., Facey, G.A., and Fransham, P.B., 2007. The conversion of chicken manure to biooil by fast pyrolysis I. Analyses of chicken manure, biooils and c har by 13C and 1H NMR and FTIR spectrophotometry. Journal of Envir onmental Science and Health, Part B: Pesticides, Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes 42 (1): 71- 77. Schwartz, J. and Morris, R., 1995. Air pollution and hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in Detroit, Michigan. American Journal of Epidemiology 142(1): 23-35. Seifritz, W., 1993. Should we store carbon in charcoal? International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 18(5): 405-407. Weyers, S.L., Liesch, A.M., Gaskin, J.W., Das, K.C. 2009. Earthworms Contribute to Increased Turnover in Biochar Amended Soils [abstract][CD-ROM]. ASA-CSSA- SSSA Annual Meeting Abstracts. ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual M eeting. Nov. 1-5, 2009, Pittsburgh, PA. Sheng, G., Yang, Y., Huang, M., and Yang, K., 2005. Influence of pH on pesticide sorption by soil contai ning wheat residue-derived char. Environmental Pollution 134: 457-463. Shindo, H., 1991. Elementary composition, humus composition, and decomposition in soil of charred grassland plants. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 37: pp. 651–657. Shneour, E.A., 1966. Oxidat ion of graphitic carbon in certain soils. Science 151(3713): 991-992. Sjöström, E., 1993. Wood Chemistry: Fundamentals and Applications, second edition, Academic Press, San Diego, U.S.A. Skjemstad, J. O., Taylor, J. A., O ades, J. M., and McClure, S. G., 1996. The chemistry and nature of protected car bon in soil. Australian Journal of Soil Resources 34: 251-271. Sleutel, S., De Neve, S., Hofman, G., Boeckx, P., Beheydt, D., Van Cleemput, O., Mestdagh, I., Lootens, P., Carlier, L., Van Camp, N., Verbeeck, H., Vande Walle, I., Samson, R., Lus t, N., and Lemeur, R., 2003. Carbon stock changes and carbon sequestrati on potential of Flemish cropland soils. Global Change Biology 9: 1193-1203. Smernik, R.J., Kookana, R.S. and Skjemstad, J.O., 2006. NMR characterization of 13C-benzene so rbed to natural and prepared charcoals. Environmental Science and Technology 40(6): 1764-1769. Smith, P., Powlson, D. S., Smith, J. U., Falloon, P., and Coleman, K., 2000a. Meeting Europe’s climate change co mmitments: quantitative estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation by agric ulture. Global Change Biology 6: 525-539. Smith, P., Powlson, D. S., Smith, J. U., Falloon, P., and Coleman, K., 2000b. Meeting the UK’s climate change commitments: options for carbon mitigation on agricultural land. Soil Use and Management 16: 1-11. Soane, B. D., 1990. The Ro le of Organic-Matter in Soil Compactibility – a Review of Some Practical Aspec ts. Soil & Tillage Research 16: 179- 201. Sohi, S., Lopez-Capel, E., Krull, E., and Bol, R., 2009. Biochar, climate change and soil: a review to gui de future research. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report. Solomon, D., Lehmann, J., Thies, J., Schäfer, T., Liang, B., Kinyangi, J., Neves, E., Petersen, J., Luizão, F., and Skjemstad, J.., 2007. Molecular signature and sources of biochemical recalcitrance of organic C in Amazonian Dark Earths . Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 71(9): 2285-2298. Star, A., Steuerman, D. W., Heath, J. R., and Stoddart, J. F., 2002. Starched carbon nanotubes. Angewandte Chemie -International Edition 41: 2508-2512. Steinbeiss, S., Gleixner, G. and Anto nietti, M., 2009. Effect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biology and Biochem istry 41(6): 1301-1310. Steiner, C., 2004. Plant nitrogen uptake doubled in charcoal amended soils, Energy with Agricultural Carb on Utilization Symposium, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A. Steiner, C., 2007. Slash and Char as Al ternative to Slash and Burn: soil charcoal amendments maintain soil fertility and establish a carbon sink. Cuvillier Verlag, Gottingen. Steiner, C., De Arruda, M.R., Teix eira, W.G. and Zech, W., 2007. Soil respiration curves as soil fertilit y indicators in perennial central Amazonian plantations treated with charcoal, and mineral or organic fertilisers. Tropical Science 47(4): 218-230. Steiner, C., Glaser, B., Teixeira, W. G., Lehmann, J., Blum, W. E. H., and Zech, W., 2008. Nitrogen retention and plant uptake on a highly weathered central Amazonian Fe rralsol amended with compost and charcoal. Journal of Plant Nutriti on and Soil Science 171(6): 893-899. Steiner, C., Teixeira, W., Lehmann, J., Nehls, T., de Macêdo, J., Blum, W., and Zech, W., 2007. Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop produc tion and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upl and soil. Plant and Soil 291(1): 275- 290. Stowell, G., Tubs, V., 2003. Rice husk and market study. EXP 129. ETSU U/00/0061/REP.DTI/Pub URN 03/665. Strezov, V., Morrison, A. and Nelson, P.F., 2007. Pyrolytic mercury removal from coal and its adverse effect on coal swelling. Energy and Fuels 21(2): 496-500. Subke, J.A., Inglima, I. and Cotrufo, M.F., 2006. Trends and methodological impacts in soil CO2 efflux partitio ning: A metaanalytical review. Global Change Biology 12(6): 921-943. Sundquist, E. T., 1993. The Global Ca rbon-Dioxide Budget. Science 259: 1812-1812. Swissinfo, 2007. Hundreds of mushroom species face extinction, Swissinfo. Tinkle, S. S., Antonini, J. M., Rich, B. A., Roberts, J. R., Salmen, R., DePree, K., and Adkins, A. J., 2003. Skin as a route of exposure and sensitization in chronic beryllium disease. Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 1202-1208. Toll, R., Jacobi, U., Richter, H ., Lademann, J., Schaefer, H., and Blume- Peytavi, U., 2004. Penetration profile of microspheres in follicular targeting of terminal hair follicles. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 123: 168-176. Topoliantz, S. and Ponge, J.F., 2003. Burrowing activity of the geophagous earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus (Oligochaeta: Glossoscolecidae) in the presence of charcoal. Appl ied Soil Ecology 23(3): 267-271. Topoliantz, S. and Ponge, J.F., 2005. Charcoal consumption and casting activity by Pontoscolex corethru rus (Glossoscolecidae). Applied Soil Ecology 28(3): 217-224. Torsvik, V., Goksoyr, J. and Daae, F., 1990. High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. Applied Environment al Microbiology 56: 782-787. Tóth, G., Montanarella, L., Stolbovoy, V ., Máté, F., Bódis, K., Jones, A., Panagos, P. and van Liedekerke, M ., 2008. Soils of the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Offici al Publications of the European Communities. EUR – Scientific and Te chnical Research series – ISSN 1018-5593; ISBN 978-92-79-09530-6; DOI 10.2788/87029: 85 pp. Tryon, E.H., 1948. Effect of charcoal on certain physical, chemical, and biological properties of forest soils. Ecological Monographs 18(1): 83- 113. Tsui, L. and Roy, W.R., 2008. The potent ial applications of using compost chars for removing the hydrophobic her bicide atrazine from solution. Bioresource Technology 99(13): 5673-5678. Turetsky, M., Wieder, K., Halsey, L. and Vitt, D., 2002. Current disturbance and the diminishing peatland car bon sink. Geophysical Research Letters 29(11):21-1 – 21-4. U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, 2002. Atmospher ic Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm? fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46 &lShowInd=0&subtop=342&lv=list. listByChapter&r=209837. Accessed July 2009 Vaario, L.M., Tanaka, M., Ide, Y ., Gill, W. M., Suzuki, K., 1999. In vitro ectomycorrhiza formation between Abies firma and Pisolithus tinctorius. . Mycorrhiza 9: 177-183. Van der Velde, M, Bour aoui, F and Aloe, A, 2009. Pan-European regional- scale modelling of water and N effi ciencies of rapeseed cultivation for biodiesel production. Global Change Biology 15: 24-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486. 2008.01706.x. Van Groenigen, K.J. Six, J., Hungate, B. A., de Graaff, M.A., van Breemen, N., and van Kessel, C., 2006. Element interactions limit soil carbon storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(17): 6571-6574. Van Genuchten, M.T. 1980. A Closed-form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society ofAmerica Journal 44: 892-898. Van Kooten, G.C., Eagle, A.J., Manley , J. and Smolak, T., 2004. How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-anal ysis of carbon forest sinks. Environmental Science and Policy 7(4): 239-251. Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Morris, S., Chan, K.Y., Downie, A., Rust, J., Joseph, S., and Cowie, A., 2009. Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic per formance and soil fertility. Plant and Soil: 1-12. Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Downie, A ., Joseph, F., Chan, K. Y., Cowie, A., Wainberg, R., and Morris, S., 2007. Paper mill char: benefits for soil health and plant production. Proc eedings, International Agrichar Initiative Conference, 30th April – 2nd May 2007, Terrigal, Australia. Van Zwieten, L., Singh, B., Joseph, S ., Kimber, S., Cowie, A., and Chan, K. Y., 2009. Biochar and Emissions of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases from Soil. In: Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology (Eds. Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S.), Earthscan. Van, D. T. T., Mui, N. T., and Ledin, I., 2006. Effect of processing foliage of Acacia mangium and inclusion of bamboo charcoal in the diet on performance of growing goats. Anim al Feed Science and Technology 130: 242-256. Velasco-Santos, C., Martinez-Hernandez, A. L., Consultchi, A., Rodriguez, R., and Castaño, V. M., 2003. Naturally produced carbon nanotubes. Chemical Physics Letters 373: 272-276. Verheijen, F.G.A. and Cammeraat, L.H. , 2007. The association between three dominant shrub species and water repellent soils along a range of soil moisture contents in semi-arid Spai n. Hydrological Processes 21(17): 2310-2316. Verheijen, F.G.A., Jones, R.J.A., Ri ckson, R.J. and Smith, C.J., 2009. Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Science Reviews 94(1-4): 23-38. Von Lützow, M., Kögel-Kna bner, I., Ludwig, B., Matzner, E., Flessa, H., Ekschmitt, K., Guggenberger, G., Marschner , B., and Kalbitz, K., 2008. Stabilization mechanisms of organic matter in four temperate soils: Development and application of a c onceptual model. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Sc ience 171(1): 111-124. Wang, K., Wang, P., Jingmi ao, L., Sparrow, M., Haginoya, S., and Zhou, X., 2005. Variation of surface albedo and soil thermal parameters with soil moisture content at a semi-desert site on the western Tibetan Plateau. Boundary-Layer Meteorol ogy 116(1): 117-129. Wang, X., Sato, T., and Xing, B., 2006. Competitive sorption of pyrene on wood chars. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 3267-3272. Wardle, D.A., Nilsson, M.C. and Zackrisson, O., 2008. Fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus. Science 320(5876): 629. Wardle, D.A., Nilsson, M.C. and Zackrisson, O., 2008. Response to comment on “fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus”. Science 321(5894): 1295d. Warnock, D.D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T. W. and Rillig, M.C., 2007. Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil – Concepts and mechanisms. Plant and Soil 300(1-2): 9-20. Warren, G.P., Robinson, J.S. and So meus, E., 2009. Dissolution of phosphorus from animal bone char in 12 soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 84(2): 167-178. West, T. O., and Post, W. M., 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: A glob al data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66: 1930-1946. Wilcke, W., 2000. Polycyclic aromatic hydr ocarbons (PAHs) in soil – A review. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 163(3): 229-248. Wilhelm, W.W., Johnson, J.M.F., Hatfi eld, J.L., Voorhees, W.B. and Linden, D.R., 2004. Crop and Soil Productivity Response to Corn Residue Removal: A Literature Review. Agronomy Journal 96(1): 1-17. Winsley P., 2007. Biochar and Bionener gy Production for Climate Change. New Zealand Science Review 64 (1): 1-10. Woods, WI, Falcao, NPS and Teixeira, WG, 2006. Biochar trials aim to enrich soil for smallholders, Nature 443: 144. Wu, Y., Hudson, J. S., Lu, Q., Moore, J. M., Mount, A. S., Rao, A. M., Alexov, E., and Ke, P. C., 2006. Coating si ngle-walled carbon nanotubes with phospholipids. Journal of Physi cal Chemistry B 110: 2475-2478. Yamato, M., Okimori, Y ., Wibowo, I.F., Anshori, S. and Ogawa, M., 2006. Effects of the application of charr ed bark of Acacia mangium on the yield of maize, cowpea and peanut, and soil chemical properties in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Soil Scienc e and Plant Nutrition, 52(4): 489- 495. Yanai, Y., Toyota, K. and Okazaki, M. , 2007. Effects of charcoal addition on N2O emissions from soil resulting from rewetting air-dried soil in short- term laboratory experiments: Original article. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 53(2): 181-188. Yang, K., Wang, X. L., Zhu, L. Z ., and Xing, B. S., 2006b. Competitive sorption of pyrene, phenanthrene and naphtalene on multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 5804- 5810. Yang, Y., and Sheng, G., 2003. E nhanced pesticide sorption by soils 160 containing particulate matter from crop residue burns. Environmental Science and Technology 37: 3635-3639. Yu, C., Tang, Y., Fang, M., Luo, Z., and Ceng, K., 2005. Experimental study on alkali emission during rice straw Pyrolysis. Journal of Zhejiang University (Engineering Science) 39: 1435-1444. Zackrisson, O., Nilsson, M. C. and Wa rdle, D. A., 1996. Key ecological function of charcol from wildfires in t he Boreal forest. Oikos: 77: 10-19. Zhu, D., Kwon, S., and Pignatello, J. J., 2005. Adsorption of Single-Ring Organic Compounds to Wood Charcoal s Prepared to under Different Thermochemical Conditions. Envi ronmental Science and Technology 39: 3990-3998. Zhu, D., and Pignatello, J. J., 2005. C haracterization of Aromatic Compound Sorptive Interactions with Black Carbon (Charcoal) Assisted by Graphite as a Model. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 2033-2041. Zhu, Y., Zhao, Q., Li, Y., Cai, X., and Li, W., 2006c. The interaction and toxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes with Stylon ychia mytilus. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 6: 1357-1364. 161 European Commission EUR 24099 – EN – Joint Research Centre – In stitute for Environment and Sustainability Title: Biochar Application to Soils – A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions Author(s): F. Verheijen, S. Jeffery, A.C. Bastos, M. van der Velde, I. Diafas Luxembourg: Office for O fficial Publications of the European Communities 2009 – 151 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm EUR – Scientific and Technical Re search series – ISSN 1018-5593 ISBN 978-92-79-14293 DOI 10.2788/472 Abstract Biochar application to soils is being consid ered as a means to sequester carbon (C) while concurrently improving soil func tions. The main focus of this report is providing a critical scientific review of the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of biochar application to soils on soil properties and functions. Wide r issues, including atmospheric emissions and occupational health and safety associated to biochar production and handling, are put into context. The aim of this review is to provide a sound scientific basis for policy development, to identify gaps in current knowledge, and to re commend further research relating to biochar application to soils. See Table 1 for an overview of the key findings from this report. Biochar research is in its relative infancy and as su ch substantially more data are required before robust predictions can be made regar ding the effects of biochar application to soils, across a range of soil, climatic and land management factors. Definition In this report, biochar is defined as: “charcoal (biomass that has been pyrolysed in a zero or low oxygen environment) for which, owing to its inherent pr operties, scientific consensus exists that application to soil at a specific site is expected to sustainably sequester carbon and concurrently improve soil functions ( under current and future management), while avoiding short- and long-term detrimental effect s to the wider environment as well as human and animal health.” Biochar as a material is defined as: “charcoal for application to soils”. It should be noted that the term ‘bio char’ is generally associated with other co-produced end products of pyrolysis such as ‘syngas’. However, these are not usually applied to soil and as such are only discussed in brief in the report. Biochar properties Biochar is an organic material produced via t he pyrolysis of C-based feedstocks (biomass) and is best described as a ‘soil conditioner’. Despite many different materials having been proposed as biomass feedstock for biochar (inclu ding wood, crop residues and manures), the suitability of each feedstock for such an ap plication is dependent on a number of chemical, physical, environmental, as well as economic and logistical factors. Evidence suggests that components of the carbon in bioc har are highly recalcitrant in soils, with reported residence times for wood biochar being in the range of 100s to 1,000s of years, i.e. approximately 10- 1,000 times longer than residence times of mo st soil organic matter. Therefore, biochar addition to soil can provide a potential sink for C. It is important to note, however, that there is a paucity of data concerning biochar produced from feedstocks other than wood, but the information that is available is discussed in the report. Owing to the current interest in climate change mitigation, and the irrevers ibility of biochar application to soil, an effective evaluation of biochar stability in the env ironment and its effects on soil processes and functioning is paramount. The current state of knowledge concerning these fa ctors is discussed throughout this report. 162 Pyrolysis conditions and feedstock characterist ics largely control the physico-chemical properties (e.g. composition, pa rticle and pore size distribution) of the resulting biochar, which in turn, determine the suitability for a giv en application, as well as define its behaviour, transport and fate in the environ ment. Reported biochar properties are highly heterogeneous, both within individual biochar par ticles but mainly between biochar originating from different feedstocks and/or produced under different pyrolysis conditions. For example, biochar properties have been repor ted with cation exchange capacities (CECs) from negligible to approximately 40 cmolc g -1, and C:N ratios from 7 to 500, wh ile the pH is normally neutral to basic . While this heterogeneity leads to difficu lties in identifying the underlying mechanisms behind reported effects in the sci entific literature, it also provides a possible opportunity to engineer biochar with properties that are best suited to a particular site (depending on soil type, hydrology, climate, land us e, soil contaminants, etc.). Effects on soils Biochar characteristics (e.g. particle and pore size distribution, surfac e chemistry, relative proportion of readily available components), as well as physical and chemical stabilisation mechanisms of biochar in soils, determine the effe cts of biochar on soil functions. However, the relative contribution of each of these fa ctors has been assessed poorly, particularly under the influence of different climatic and soil conditions, as well as soil management and land use. Reported biochar loss from soils may be ex plained to a certain degree by abiotic and biological degradatio n and translocation within the soil profile and into water systems. Nevertheless, such mechanisms have been quantified scarcely and remain poorly understood, partly due to the limited amount of long-term studies, and partly due to the lack of standardised methods for simulating biochar aging and long-term environmental monitoring. A sound understanding of the contribution that biochar can make as a tool to improve soil properties, processes and functioning , or at least avoiding negative effects, largely relies on knowing the ex tent and full implications of the biochar interactions and changes over time within the soil system. Extrapolation of reported results must be done with caution, especially when considering the relatively small number of studies reported in the primary literature, combined with the small range of climatic, crop and soil ty pes investigated when compared to possible instigation of biochar application to soils on a national or European scale. To try and bridge the gap between small scale, controlled experiments and large scale implem entation of biochar application to a range of soil types across a r ange of different climates (although chiefly tropical), a statistical meta-analysis was undertak en. A full search of the scientific literature led to a compilation of studies used for a meta- analysis of the effects of biochar application to soils and plant productivity. Re sults showed a small overall, but statistically significant, positive effect of biochar application to soils on pl ant productivity in the majority of cases. The greatest positive effects were seen on acidic free-draining soils with other soil types, specifically calcarosols showi ng no significant effect (either positive or negative). There was also a general trend for concurrent increases in crop productivity with increases in pH up on biochar addition to soils. This suggests that one of the main mechanisms behind the reported positive effects of biochar applic ation to soils on plant productivity may be a liming effect. However, further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. There is currently a lack of data concerning the effects of biochar application to soils on other soil functions. This means that although these are qualitativ ely and comprehensively discussed in this report, a robust meta-analysis on such effects is as of yet not po ssible. Table 1 provides an overview of the key findings – positive, negative, and unknown – regarding the (potential) effects on soil, including relevant conditions. 163 Preliminary, but inconclusive , evidence has also been report ed concerning a possible priming effect whereby accelerated decomposition of so il organic matter occurs upon biochar addition to soil. This has the potential to both harm cr op productivity in the long term due to loss of soil organic matter, as well as releasing more CO 2 into the atmosphere as increased quantities of soil organic matter is respired from the soil. Th is is an area which requires urgent further research. Biochar incorporation into soil is expected to enhance overall sorption capacity of soils towards anthropogenic organic contaminants (e.g . PAHs, PCBs, pesticides and herbicides), in a mechanistically different (and stronger) way than amor phous organic matter. Whereas this behaviour may greatly mitigate toxicity and transport of common pollutants in soils through reducing their bioavailability, it might al so result in their localised accumulation, although the extent and implications of this have not been assessed experimentally. The potential of biochar to be a source of soil co ntamination needs to be evaluated on a case-by- case basis, not only with concern to the biochar product itself, but also to soil type and environmental conditions. Implications As highlighted above, before policy can be develo ped in detail, there is an urgent need for further experimental research in with regard to long-term effects of biochar application on soil functions, as well as on the behaviour and fate in different soil types (e.g. disintegration, mobility, recalcitrance), and under different m anagement practices. The use of representative pilot areas, in different soil ecoregions, involving biochars produced fr om a representative range of feedstocks is vital. Potential resear ch methodologies are discussed in the report. Future research should also include biochars from non-lignin-based feedstocks (such as crop residues, manures, sewage and green waste) and focus on their properties and environmental behaviour and fate as influenced by soil conditions. It must be stressed that published research is almost exclusively fo cused on (sub)tropical regions, and that the available data often only relate to the first or second year following biochar application. Preliminary evidence suggests that a tight control on the feedstock materials and pyrolysis conditions might substantially reduce the emi ssion levels of atmospheric pollutants (e.g. PAHs, dioxins) and particulate matter associated to biochar production. While implications to human health remain mostly an occupational hazard, robust qualitative and quantitative assessment of such emissions from pyrolysi s of traditional biomass feedstock is lacking. Biochar potentially affects many different soil functions and ecosystem services, and interacts with most of the ‘threats to soil’ outlined by the Soil Thematic Stra tegy (COM (2006) 231). It is because of the wide range of implic ations from biochar application to soils, combined with the irreversibility of its applicat ion that more interdisciplinary research needs to be undertaken before policy is implemented. Policy should first be designed with the aim to invest in fundamental scientific research in biochar application to soil. Once positive effects on soil have been established robustly for certain biochars at a specific site (set of environmental conditions), a tiered approach can be imagined w here these combinations of biochar and specific site conditions are considered for implementation first. A second tier would then consist of other biochars (from different feeds tock and/or pyrolysis conditions) for which more research is required before site-s pecific application is considered. From a climate change mitigation perspective, bi ochar needs to be considered in parallel with other mitigation strategies and cannot be seen as an alternative to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. From a soil conservation perspective, biochar may be part of a wider practical package of established strategies and, if so, needs to be considered in combination 164 with other techniques. 165 How to obtain EU publications Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 166 The mission of the JRC is to provide cust omer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementat ion and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European Commission, the J RC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Un ion. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of t he Member States, while bei ng independent of special interests, whether private or national. LB-NA-24099-EN-C


Biochar As a Soil Amendment

16 June, 2017
 

Or login with

Don’t have an account? Register

1-8 Characters

By clicking the Register button below, you agree to our terms of service.

Already have an account? Log in

EMBED

SHARE

DOWNLOAD

REPORT

You can download, share and embed this document

Dominic Woolf January 2008 Biochar as a soil amendment: A review of the environmental implications. Introduction The term 'biochar' refers to black carbon formed by the pyrolysis of biomass i.e. by heating biomass in an oxygen-free or low oxygen environment such that it does not (or only partially) combusts. Traditional charcoal is one example of biochar produced from wood. The term 'biochar' is much broader than this however, encompassing black carbon produced from any biomass feedstock. The use of biochar as a soil additive has been proposed as a means to simultaneously mitigate anthropogenic climate change whilst improving agricultural soil fertility. This paper provides a review of what is known about both of these claims and also about the wider environmental implications of the adoption of this process. The intention of this review is not just to summarise current knowledge of the subject, but also to identify gaps in knowledge that require further research. Climate change is now widely recognised as a serious threat to both human society and natural ecosystems. The IPCC (Forster et al 2007 1 , 131) state that “since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate”, where the term ‘extremely likely’ is defined to mean “with a confidence limit of 95% or greater”. If this anthropogenic warming trend continues, we may face impacts that are “abrupt and irreversible” (IPCC 2007 2 , 13). And Stern (2007) concluded that the economic impact of climate change under a ‘business as usual’ scenario would exceed the combined cost of the great depression and the two World Wars. Stern (2007) further concludes that while the economic costs alone of continuing business as usual will amount to between 5% and 20% of global GDP every year , the cost of avoiding this by investment in mitigation strategies may be as little as 1% of GDP. It is becoming increasingly accepted that a limit of 2.0 ° C above current global mean temperature represents an upper bound upon the temperature rise we can allow before 1Figure 1 : Relative probability of Equilibrium Global Temperature Change for various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (King, 2007) we face an unacceptable risk of incurring dire consequences (Commission Of The European Communities, 2007). As the graph in figure 1 shows (data from Hadley centre for climate prediction and research, reproduced from King, 2007), even if we manage to stabilise atmospheric CO 2 concentration at 450 ppm, it is far from certain (approximately 20% probability of success) that this limit will not be exceeded in time. However, since time lags in reaching equilibrium temperature are long (in the order of centuries), it is more common amongst policy makers to discuss the measures required to keep climate within safe bounds this century, in the hope that longer timescales will allow us greater latitude in the development and deployment of novel mitigation and adaptation measures. In a study of the long-term (500 years) implications of various greenhouse gas emission scenarios, Weaver et al (2007) concluded that a minimum of 60% global reduction in emissions by 2050 will be needed to keep temperature rises this century below the 2.0°C threshold “that some have argued represents an upper bound on manageable climate warming”. However, Weaver et al (2007) also found that even if emissions are stabilised at 90% below current levels by 2050, the 2.0°C temperature rise will still be exceeded eventually. They argue therefore that “if a 2.0°C warming is to be avoided, direct CO 2 capture from the air, together with subsequent sequestration, would eventually have to be introduced in addition to sustained 90% global carbon emissions reductions by 2050”. But how might this direct capture from the air and sequestration of CO 2 be achieved? Most of the proposed methods of carbon capture and storage (CCS) are aimed at capturing CO 2 directly from exhaust emissions before they have entered the atmosphere (IPCC 2005). As such, they can be considered as strategies to reduce emissions rather than to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere. There is one exception to this – where CCS is used to capture and sequester CO 2 emissions from biomass combustion. In this case, the complete system, including photosynthesis to provide the biomass, becomes a net carbon sink. Rhodes and Keith (2003) calculate that biomass energy with CCS could produce competitively priced electricity once carbon emission prices exceed 54.5 US $/tCO 2 . Obersteiner et al (2001) estimate that between 240 to 450 GtC from biomass energy conversion could potentially be available for capture and storage over the course of the century (based on the IPCC SRES scenarios). This is equivalent to in the order of 35% of the cumulative emissions in the scenarios considered. At present, few other plausible methods for the large scale removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere are known: one possibility is to increase the size of the earth’s biomass carbon pool (for example by reforestation, reduced tillage or other land-use changes); a second is fertilisation of oceans; and a third is the production and sequestration of biochar. In its third assessment report, The IPCC (2001) estimated that the terrestrial biosphere could mitigate between 10 and 20% of the world's fossil fuel emissions by 2050. However, in the recent fourth assessment report, Barker et al (2007) focus on the host of uncertainties in how terrestrial ecosystems will respond to climate change, leading to an uncertainty in whether it might become a net carbon emitter or sink. In any case, the primary production of both terrestrial and oceanic biospheres is expected to decline with increasing global temperatures (Woodward 2007) leading to declining natural sinks of anthropogenic CO 2 and an increasing proportion of our CO 2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere. In the long term of course, terrestrial sinks are limited by land requirements and saturation (Obersteiner 2001). Their attractiveness as a means to mitigate climate change is also reduced by concerns over how permanent such sinks are. For example 2 carbon sequestered in forests can be rapidly returned to the atmosphere by fire or a resumption of deforestation, and soil carbon stocks accumulated by reduced tillage can be quickly lost by a resumption of tillage. The ease with which soil organic carbon stores may be lost is highlighted by a study of the National soil Inventory of England and Wales over the period from 1978 to 2003 which showed an average loss rate of soil carbon of 0.6 %yr -1 , and a loss rate as high as 2%yr -1 in high carbon soils (Bellamy et al 2005). Bellamy et al (2005) suggest that these losses of soil carbon may be attributable to climate change as they occur across both England and Wales independently of land use. This conclusion is questioned, however, by Smith et al (2007) who calculate that it is physically implausible that observed temperature rises alone could account for more than 10-20% of this carbon loss. Smith et al (2007) suggest four other possible mechanisms that may account for the loss in agricultural soil carbon: reduced spreading of animal manure, increased removal of agricultural residues, deeper ploughing, and possible legacy effects from pre 1978 changes in land use. Smith et al (2007) also suggest some possible mechanisms to account for carbon losses from organic soils (such as peat bogs) such as lowering water table, recovery from acidification, enhanced atmospheric nitrogen deposition, or increased use of muirburn. In addition to terrestrial ecosystems, ocean ecosystems may also provide possibilities for enhanced carbon sinks. There is a downward export of carbon in the oceans (sometimes referred to as “the biological pump”) due to the sinking of biologically derived organic matter (Boyd and Trull, 2006). Currently, the biological pump transfers between 5 – 15 GtCyr -1 to the deep sea ( Falkowski et al., 1998). It has been proposed that f ertilisation of the ocean to encourage phytoplankton growth may enhance the rate at which this process of organic carbon deposition occurs, and thus provide a useful means to remove atmospheric CO 2 (Martin et al , 1990 ). One method by which this might be economically achieved is the use of iron fertilisation. Iron fertilisation of the oceans relies on the fact that large areas of ocean exist which are rich in macronutrients, yet a lack of the micronutrient iron is the limiting factor in the growth of phytoplankton (Coale et al 2004). Models predict that if all of the unused N and P in Southern Ocean surface waters were converted to organic carbon over the next 100 years (an unlikely extreme), 15% of the anthropogenic CO 2 could be hypothetically sequestered (Chisholm et al 2001). Another possible method to enhance phytoplankton growth has been suggested by Lovelock and Rapley (2007), which is to place vertical pipes in the ocean that utilise wave energy to pump cooler nutrient-rich water up to the surface where it will encourage algal blooms. Aside from sequestering carbon, enhanced phytoplankton productivity may have another, possibly greater, effect on the climate by increasing emissions of dimethyl sulphide (Wingenter et al 2007). Increased dimethyl sulphide concentrations in the atmosphere may lead to an increase in cloud condensation nuclei, that in turn will lead to smaller cloud droplet size, an increase in cloud reflectivity, and thus a cooling effect on the climate (Charlson et al , 1987). Fertilisation of the ocean is not without adverse side-effects though. According to Street and Payton (2005), “studies of iron biogeochemistry over the last two decades have begun to illustrate the great complexity of the ocean system. Attempts to engineer this system are likely to provoke a similarly complex, unpredictable response”. Based on the 3 potential for harmful side-effects such as hypoxia, the growth of toxic algae, or the confiscation of nutrients from downstream ecosystems (Shrope 2007, Chisholm 2001), it was agreed at the recent London Convention that large-scale eutrophication of the oceans should be treated with utmost caution and is not yet justified ( Schiermeier 2007) . It would appear, then, that removal of excess CO 2 from the atmosphere will form an important part of an overall climate change mitigation strategy alongside a portfolio of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, it would appear that strategies such as enhanced net primary production of the terrestrial biosphere (for example by afforestation) and enhanced carbon deposition in oceans by fertilisation may not alone be up to the task of wholesale removal of atmospheric carbon. So, let us now turn our attention to another strategy by which removal of atmospheric CO 2 might be achieved – the production and sequestration of biochar. 1. The Carbon Cycle There are two main ways that biochar can influence the global carbon cycle. The first is that, if biochar is produced from material that would otherwise have oxidised in the short to medium term, and the resultant carbon-rich char can be placed in an environment in which it is protected from oxidation, then it may provide a means to sequester carbon that would otherwise have entered the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. The second is that gaseous and liquid products of pyrolysis may be used as a fuel that can offset the use of fossil fuels. 1.1. Carbon sequestration It has been suggested by numerous authors (see for example Sombroek et al 2003, Lehmann 2006) that the use of biochar as a soil additive meets the requirements specified above that the char be protected from oxidation, and that it may be produced from material that would otherwise have degraded to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Despite this, the carbon sequestration potential of adding biochar to soils has been widely overlooked. Freibauer et al (2004), for example, make no mention of it in their review of the potential for sequestration in European soils. Neither has provision been made under the Kyoto Protocol for carbon sequestered in this manner. To assess the carbon sequestration potential of adding biochar to soil, we must consider four factors: the longevity of char in soil; the avoided rate of greenhouse gas emission; how much biochar can be added to soils; and how much biochar can be produced by economically and environmentally acceptable means. 1.1.1. Stability of biochar in soils If biochar is to be useful for the purposes of sequestering carbon, it is necessary that it must be long-lived and resistant to chemical processes such as oxidation to carbon dioxide or reduction to methane. There is no doubt that in certain environments, charcoal is indeed recalcitrant. In a study of marine sediments in the North Pacific Basin, Herring (1985) found that “ charcoal in the marine sediment is stable for several tens of millions of years” and that “ charcoal forms a large percentage of the carbon content in the 4 sediments”. Large accumulations of charred material with residence times in excess of 1000 years have also been found in soil profiles (Forbes et al 2006, Glaser et al 2001, Saldarriaga, et al 1986). Glaser et al (2003) attribute the presence of large stocks of pyrogenic black carbon in Amazonian dark earths, several hundred years after the cessation of activities that added it to the soil, to its chemical recalcitrance. Also, 14 C ages of black carbon of 1000 to 1500 years from Amazonian Dark Earths suggest that it is highly stable (Glaser, 1999). Deposits of charcoal up to 9500 have been found in wet tropical forest soils in Guyana (Hammond et al, 2007 ), up to 6000 years old in Amazonia (Soubies 1979), and up to 23,000 years old in Costa Rica (Titiz & Sanford, 2007). The conclusion that BC is long-lived is supported by Bird and Gr ö cke (1997) who found that a component of charred material is highly oxidation resistant under laboratory treatment both with acid dichromate and basic peroxide. The fraction of biochar that will exhibit such oxidation resistance will of course depend upon both the feedstock and pyrolysis conditions. These observations do not, however, rule out the possibility that char may decompose more rapidly in other environments. Indeed there is evidence that it may do so. Masiello (2004) argues that there must be some, as yet unknown, large scale loss process for black carbon. Firstly, there is a discrepancy between known rates of black carbon production and loss. Kuhlbusch (1995) estimates annual BC production to be 0.05 – 0.27 Gt/year. The rate at which organic carbon is deposited to the sea floor on the other hand is estimated at 0.16 Gt/year (Hedges & Keil, 1995). According to Masiello (2004), “the only documented loss process for BC is deposition in ocean sediments”. This implies, according to Masiello, that BC should account for at least 30% of sedimentary organic carbon, whereas it is only observed to provide about 3 – 10%. Furthermore, at least some of this sedimentary BC is thought to come from petrogenic graphite adding to the discrepancy between terrestrial rates of production and sedimentary loss of BC. So, if BC is not being removed from the soil as fast as it is being produced, might it simply be accumulating there? According to Masiello (2004), this possibility is also ruled out by a calculation of how much BC there would be in the soil organic carbon pool assuming it had been produced at current rates since the last glacial maximum. Masiello (2004) calculates that this would imply between 25 – 125% of total soil organic carbon would be BC which, Masiello (2004) states, is implausibly high even if we take the lower limit and account for losses by erosion. Stallard (1998) offers a possible explanation for this discrepancy between the rate of production of BC and the rate at which it is deposited in ocean sediments. According to Stallard (1998, 231), “The terrestrial sediment cycle is not in equilibrium. Agriculture, civil engineering, and mining mobilize vast quantities of soils, unconsolidated sediment, and bedrock, perhaps more than all natural geomorphic processes combined.” Stallard (1998, 232) goes on to state that “Much of this sediment is stored in a variety of deposits, often near the site of erosion, and does not get to the ocean.” Whilst the precise amount of carbon thus buried in terrestrial sediments can not be known “without considerable additional work”, Stallard (1998) calculates that human-induced burial of 0.6 – 1.5 Gt C yr -1 is entirely plausible. Further evidence for the possible existence of an unknown process for removing BC fairly rapidly from soil comes from studies of Siberian boreal forest fires. Czimczik et al (2003) found that little BC remained just 250 years after a forest 5 fire compared to the amount that might be expected to have been produced. They offer a number of hypotheses to explain this discrepancy, including either a low conversion of OC to BC in the fire; or BC losses due to erosion, translocation within the soil profile and degradation. Of particular interest here is the possibility that the BC was lost by degradation. Two possible mechanisms for this suggested by Czimczik et al (2003) are oxidation by subsequent fires or by microbial action. Both of these possible loss mechanisms should be of concern to us. If fire is able to oxidise a large percentage of the black carbon in underlying soils, then we should be cautious about deploying biochar in either forestry soils or in arid regions. If microbial action is able to oxidise char, we need to know what microbes can achieve this, the mechanism by which it occurs, and under what conditions and at what rate this will take place. Waldrop (2007) of the US Geological Survey states “ Black carbon, resulting from the oxidation of wood and forest floor carbon following wildfire, is thought to be largely biologically unavailable, but this has not been thoroughly examined. Utilizing 13 C isotope techniques, I am determining whether black carbon can be decomposed by soil organisms, whether the extent of decomposition is affected by microbial species, and whether the mechanism of action is via extracellular oxidative enzymes ”. Should microbial oxidation of char arise as an epiphenomenon from extracellular microbial secretions, then it is unlikely that there will be an evolutionary pressure to exploit the widespread availability of biochar. If, however, there are micro- organisms that can utilise char as either an energy or carbon source, then the creation of large reserves of soil biochar may create an ecological niche that evolution can exploit. In a study on the effect of glucose on microbial decomposition of black carbon in soils, Hamer et al (2004) found that “apparently, some microorganisms were able to live with BC as sole C source”. In the same study, Hamer et al (2004) found that BC in soils may enhance the rate of decomposition of labile C compounds. It is worth noting that the longevity of BC in soils cannot be characterised by a single number. Pyrogenic BC is not a homogeneous substance (Hedges et al, 2000), and different fractions of it will decompose at different rates under different conditions. As Preston & Schmidt (2006) say, “Except for anoxic peats or permanently frozen soil, the high end for the half-life of PyC may be expected to be in the kY region (maybe 5–7 ky), for cold, wet environments, and for the PyC fraction with more recalcitrant structure. At the other extreme, a half-life in the order of 100 y (Bird et al., 1999) may be not unrealistic for some fraction of PyC from boreal wildfire, with less thermal alteration and especially with surface exposure (unpublished field observations from Canadian and Siberian boreal forest sites)”. In addition to the question of how long biochar may last in soils, there is the question of how long we must require it to last. Precisely how long we must require the half-life of biochar in soil to be before it can be considered an effective form of sequestration is a poorly defined quantity. Ideally, we should like the carbon to remain locked up for timescales that would make decomposition of biochar a negligible effect on the global climate compared to other geological processes – say hundreds of thousands of years. It may be, however, that even a half-life as short as a few centuries could still provide us with a useful tool to manage the global climate while human society makes the transition away from fossil fuel dependence, provided we replenish soil carbon stocks faster than they decompose. The evidence cited above of ancient BC in sediments, large 6 accumulations of BC in some soils and BC resistance to chemical oxidation, suggests that black carbon is stable over at least such a timescale. Nonetheless, considerable uncertainties remain about just how fast biochar may decompose under different soil conditions. The rate at which biochar may decompose in any conditions in which its use is contemplated for the purpose of carbon sequestration must be established beyond doubt before we may gamble the future climate upon this uncertainty. 1.1.2. At what rate would carbon have entered the atmosphere had it not been converted to char? It is generally the case that technologies intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have an upfront cost in terms of money, energy and carbon emissions that will only be recouped over time. For example, the construction of a wind farm may involve large carbon dioxide emissions to produce cement for the foundations. This upfront cost will we paid back over time as electricity from the wind farm offsets production from fossil fuels. A similar logic applies to biochar production. The initial pyrolysis process will produce carbon dioxide. This initial carbon cost will be recouped over time as it offsets the carbon dioxide (and possibly methane) emissions that would have occurred if the biomass had instead decomposed or been oxidised by other means. How quickly this greenhouse gas payback occurs will depend upon the rate at which the biomass would have released greenhouse gases were it not pyrolysed. We can illustrate this with a simple model. If we assume that the rate of decomposition of biochar is negligible, then the total amount of avoided CO 2 emissions as a function of time is given by where, DecompCO 2 rate = the rate at which CO 2 would have been produced if the biomass were allowed to decompose, PyroCO 2 = the amount of CO 2 released by pyrolysis, t = time For illustrative purposes only, let us make the simplifying assumption that the rate of decay of biomass follows an exponential decay curve. Making the further assumption that 50% of the carbon in the biomass is released as CO 2 during pyrolysis, we can plot the CO 2 emissions as a function of time for both pyrolysis and biomass decay. Figure 2 shows such a plot for 1000 Mg of biomass with a decay half-life of 10 years. Figure 3 then shows the avoided CO 2 emissions as a function of time (using equation 1). 72220.PyroCOdtrateDecompCOSavedCOt-úû ùêë é=ò ( 1 ), Figure 2 : CO 2 emission rate for decomposition / pyrolysis of 1000 Mg of biomass Figure 3 : Avoided CO 2 emission by biochar production In this case, since we assumed that half of the carbon content of the biomass was released during pyrolysis, the carbon emission break-even point occurs at the half-life of the biomass decay curve i.e. once decay processes would also have released half the original carbon content. Before this time, biochar production has led to an increase rather than a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. 8CO2 Emission Rate 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 01020304050 Time (yr) CO2 emission (Mg/yr) Decomposition Pyrolysis Av oided CO2 Emissions -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 01020304050 Time (yr) Net Avoided CO2 Emission (Mg) It is quite apparent from this simplified analysis that the rate at which any biomass feedstock would have decayed had it not been pyrolysed is a critical factor in determining the usefulness of biochar production in climate change mitigation in the short term. If we wish to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, then we cannot really expect the pyrolysis of feedstocks that have an expected half-life much beyond decadal timescales to aid us in achieving these targets. Moreover the pyrolysis of feedstocks that have significantly longer life expectancies (for example woodlands or plastics) would be highly detrimental to achieving carbon dioxide emission reduction targets by mid-century. More detailed analysis will be required in order to comprehensively evaluate the net greenhouse gas emissions as a function of time for different potential feedstocks. Our cursory analysis however strongly suggests that we should limit ourselves to the use of fast-cycling carbon pools for the provision of biochar feedstocks. 1.1.3. How much biochar can be added to soil? The amount of biochar that can be added to soils before it ceases to function as a beneficial soil amendment and becomes detrimental will be the limiting factor in the use of biochar as a soil additive. The strongest evidence that high concentrations of black carbon in soil may be beneficial under some conditions comes from the Amazonian Dark Earths (ADEs) such as terra preta and terra mulata – charcoal rich soils which contain approximately three times more soil organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus than adjacent soils and have twice the productivity (Glaser, 2007). A hectare of terra preta can contain up to 250 Mg of soil organic carbon (SOC) in the top 30cm (compared to 100 Mg in unimproved soils from similar parent material), and up to 500 Mg ha-1 in the top 1m (Glaser, 1999). Of this total SOC, as much as 40% may be black carbon (Lehmann, 2007), though the mean value in the most charcoal rich layer – the top 40cm – is around 20% (Glaser 2001). The mean total amounts of black carbon found in terra preta soils were 25±10 Mg ha – 1 and 25±9 Mg ha –1 at 0–30 cm and 30–100 cm soil depths, respectively (Glaser 2001). These values do not necessarily represent a ceiling on how much black carbon may be beneficially added to soils. Indeed, Lehmann et al (2003) found that cation exchange capacity (CEC) of ADEs increased linearly with increasing SOC – a trend that continued up to the highest SOC values studied. Lehmann et al (2007), report increasing yields with increasing biochar applications of up to 140MgCha -1 (at which rate, the maximum yield had not yet been reached) on highly weathered soils in the humid tropics, for most of their tests. This was not true for all crops however – Rondon et al (2004) found that biomass growth of beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) rose with biochar applications up to 60MgCha -1 but fell to the same value as for control plots when biochar application was increased to 90MgCha -1 (although yield of beans still increased). Lehmann et al (2007) conclude that “ crops respond positively to bio-char additions up to 50MgC ha − 1 and may show growth reductions only at very high applications.” It is important to note however, that these data come principally from studies on highly weathered tropical soils with very low natural SOC levels. Much less is known about the effect of biochar additions to relatively fertile temperate soils. The lack of research on such soils arises because the potential benefits of raised fertility are unlikely to be as great as in regions with soils of low natural fertility. However, if we are interested also in the global potential for biochar to sequester 9 carbon, it is imperative that its effects in all major agricultural soil types be investigated. Biochar addition at 140MgCha -1 to the 1600 Mha of cropland and 1250 Mha of temperate grass lands globally would result in a total of 400 Pg of carbon sequestration potential (Lehmann, 2007). This is approximately 50 times the current anthropogenic carbon emissions of 7.8 PgCyr -1 (Marland et al 2006). There is no absolute reason that use of biochar need be limited by the ratio at which it can be added to th