FYI No biochar benefit for temperate zone crops, says new report

[Shedder]

No biochar benefit for temperate zone crops, says new report

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170425131407.htm

Scientists believe that biochar, the partially burned remains of plants, has been used as fertilizer for at least 2,000 years in the Amazon Basin. Since initial studies published several years ago promoted biochar, farmers around the world have been using it as a soil additive to increase fertility and crop yields. But a new study casts doubt on biochar's efficacy, finding that using it only improves crop growth in the tropics, with no yield benefit at all in the temperate zone.

A team of researchers from the United Kingdom, Portugal, The Netherlands, Canada and the U.S. gathered data from more than 1,000 experiments conducted around the world that measured the effect of biochar on crop yield. By using meta-analysis, an advanced statistical technique that analyzes many studies at the same time, they performed rigorous testing to determine whether the beneficial effect of adding biochar depends on geography.

That's when the surprising result emerged. Although previous studies assumed that the beneficial effects of biochar are universal, applying to soils in all climate zones, researchers proved that geography matters by assembling and analyzing this very large dataset.

"We saw a huge boost for crops grown in the tropics, but zero results for crops in the temperate zone," said Dr. Bruce Hungate, Director of the Center for Ecosystem Science and Society at Northern Arizona University and co-author on the study. "Given all the talk about the benefits of biochar, we were really surprised."

The idea of biochar was inspired by a rare type of humanmade soil found in the Amazon Basin, terra preta -- Portuguese for 'black earth', so named because the soil is rich in black carbon generated by the partially burned remains of old plants, much like charcoal. Terra preta is fertile, with favourable pH, unlike typical tropical soils, which are low fertility and acidic. Initial experiments showed that adding biochar to typical tropical soils increased crop yields, making it possible for farmers to cultivate a plot of land in these soils for more than a few years.

The new study supports that view. "It makes sense that biochar can benefit farms in low-nutrient, acidic soils such as in the tropics," explained Dr. Hungate, "But many temperate zone soils are higher in nutrients and more moderate in pH. And if, on top of that, farmers add nutrients through fertilizers, there isn't much room for biochar to increase yield."

Many other benefits have been claimed for biochar, including managing waste, storing carbon in the soil and being more environmentally friendly than adding synthetic chemicals to the soil. The new study did not evaluate these other potential benefits, and the authors note that some of them may still hold true in both temperate and tropical regions.

"There may be a potential upside to using biochar in the temperate zone, like promoting soil carbon storage to slow climate change," said Dr. Hungate, "but our analysis, summarizing more than 1,000 observations, shows that the yield benefits just aren't there. So if the goal for biochar application is boosting crop yield, stick to the tropics."

The report has been published, open access, in Environmental Research Letters.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

I bet the college didn't receive an anonymous donation either before the article was published.

 

[H20fwler]

Interesting read. I'm still going to put my fireplace ashes on the garden and till them in, seems to help, gets rid of the ash and makes me feel better!

I did see a pretty neat documentary on just this on the Smithsonian channel showing chard wood and broken clay tiles&plates mixed into the soil in Central America.

 

[yoderjac]

Very interesting. I would speculate the study focused on traditional farming crop yields. As the summary says, there is likely less room for improvement with high input farming as is normal for the temperate zones. I think it is more useful to think of biocar as one component of a long-term soil improvement program focused on better nutrient cycling with low input sustainable farming techniques. I would tend to agree with the general conclusion that the worse soil you start with, the more potential benefit biochar might provide.

I played around with it last year for use in container grown trees. It isn't practical for me to use on a large scale basis. I think I screwed up and ended up with too my N in the C:N ration and it had the same effect as adding too much N fertilizer to a young seedling.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Knehrke]

It's bothersome that the first comment is questioning the ethics of a prominent scientist and university. I'm not going to argue whether there's merit to this or not (and I'm not trying to start a fight), but it seems to be a sign of the times that impulses run toward accusation and shaming when something doesn't fit your personal beliefs. It's one thing to comment on the scientific validity of the study...that's how we make progress...but another altogether to simply dismiss the results as having been bought.

Am I overreacting? Yeah, probably. The comment may have been made tongue in cheek. But science is getting attacked right and left, I'm sensitized, and I'm tired of it.

Rant over.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

And we're also told by scientists that GMO foods and the meat from animals that consume GMO crops are safe to eat even though independent studies say otherwise.

This post also isn't meant as an attack on anyone or their opinions.

 

[SD51555]

It's bothersome that the first comment is questioning the ethics of a prominent scientist and university. I'm not going to argue whether there's merit to this or not (and I'm not trying to start a fight), but it seems to be a sign of the times that impulses run toward accusation and shaming when something doesn't fit your personal beliefs. It's one thing to comment on the scientific validity of the study...that's how we make progress...but another altogether to simply dismiss the results as having been bought.

Am I overreacting? Yeah, probably. The comment may have been made tongue in cheek. But science is getting attacked right and left, I'm sensitized, and I'm tired of it.

Rant over.

That's how science used to work in the old days. You couldn't just publish what you claimed you found or successfully avoided finding. You had to go make your case and stand up to intense scrutiny. It's also only practical to question what comes of science nowadays given how grants and buildings seem to follow favorable studies.

How long was the world flat? The first guy to stand up and claim it was round wasn't hailed as genius.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

It just seems to make sense to me that certain companies wouldnt want farmers in the largest producer of ag crops in the world to use a much cheaper alternative to the products their companies are selling. Is our soil better? I dont know but id assume it is. That being said it MAY not benefit US growers as much as growers in regions with poorer soils but then again.....

When input costs are lower farmers dont need to have the same yield (in and extremely flooded market) to make the same amount of money. If more farmers would just make use of proper crop rotation and covers they wouldnt need to add nearly as much fertilizer and in many cases wouldnt need to add any.

 

[BiocharScientist]

Hi there,

I am one of the co-authors of the paper linked to here. I am an independent scientist who has received no funding from biochar or pyroloysis companies nor indeed, considering the findings of the paper, the "anti-biochar lobby". The paper presents our objective and unbiased findings.

Don't believe me? Well the great thing about science is you don't have to as you can check for yourself! We have made the database on which the analysis is based publicly available through the webpage of the article here. You can use the database yourself to re-run the analysis if you so wish. We have included the method we followed in the paper so you can check our results, as is normal for scientific publications.

Perhaps you think that is not enough as we may have fiddled the data in the database so it says what we want it to say? In the "Supplementary data" file, also available on the page I just linked to, we include references to all of the papers that are included in the database (and each category of analysis, plus all of the other analyses that could be run for auxillary variables that were available. All are included to show that we are not "cherry picking" our results). Feel free to check the data in the original papers to see if it agrees with the data in our database. If you wish to do so, and come across a paywall stopping you accessing any articles, PM me and I will send you the article.

Science should be challenged - that is how it progresses and how we find out what is really real. Dismissing findings because they do not agree with what you want to believe may make your world seem more comfortable but only increases ignorance.

 

[Knehrke]

Well said. Thanks for weighing in.

 

[yoderjac]

Hi there,

I am one of the co-authors of the paper linked to here. I am an independent scientist who has received no funding from biochar or pyroloysis companies nor indeed, considering the findings of the paper, the "anti-biochar lobby". The paper presents our objective and unbiased findings.

Don't believe me? Well the great thing about science is you don't have to as you can check for yourself! We have made the database on which the analysis is based publicly available through the webpage of the article here. You can use the database yourself to re-run the analysis if you so wish. We have included the method we followed in the paper so you can check our results, as is normal for scientific publications.

Perhaps you think that is not enough as we may have fiddled the data in the database so it says what we want it to say? In the "Supplementary data" file, also available on the page I just linked to, we include references to all of the papers that are included in the database (and each category of analysis, plus all of the other analyses that could be run for auxillary variables that were available. All are included to show that we are not "cherry picking" our results). Feel free to check the data in the original papers to see if it agrees with the data in our database. If you wish to do so, and come across a paywall stopping you accessing any articles, PM me and I will send you the article.

Science should be challenged - that is how it progresses and how we find out what is really real. Dismissing findings because they do not agree with what you want to believe may make your world seem more comfortable but only increases ignorance.

I don't doubt the data or integrity of the study at all. I do question the conclusions we are led to in the article. Articles are often dumbed down and over simplified. Qualifications and limitations provided in the original papers are often dropped as things are translated for the non-scientific general public.

Perhaps you can shed some light. I presume most of this data was collected from farming operations. Temperate zone farming had tended to be more high intensity, high input farming. In the tropics we seem to have more sustenance farming. There are definitely differences in soils. Just to clarify, I take it that the paper is saying there is a correlation between latitude and crop yield improvements resulting from the use of biochar. It is not saying that there is a causal relationship and that depending on soils and growing techniques that biochar does not have a place in soil improvement in temperate zones. Correct?

I think the general public is often overwhelmed and generally ill-equipped to evaluate scientific papers. Instead, we rely on a journalist's summary which is attracts more eyes when there is controversy.

We all carry biases but if we are unwilling to change our opinions when the preponderance of the evidence changes, that bias is overwhelming logic.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

I don't believe that anybody was saying that the study is wrong or that the scientists doing the research had been paid off. There is a great amount of skepticism toward the science community because there has been more than a few cases of results being tampered with to fit a certain company or governments profit motives. The FACT of the mater is that SOME scientific findings are more theory than gospel truth.

Being that we have someone on this board that was involved with the topic at hand I am going to be lazy and not read the article and just ask a couple of questions because one of them was mentioned in a post above.

How many years was biochar used in temperate region test plots before coming to any conclusions? It is coined as having long lasting benefits and also can take a year or more before seeing the benefits.

Was it tested with no till farming practices? The benefits could be even more long lasting if the ground isnt being worked a couple of times a year. It is stated to increase the microbial activity in soil in which is greatly reduced by tillage. (many field have such little organic matter and low numbers of the bacteria and fungi plants need to flourish that they are basically biological deserts)

Was it tested on fields without drain tile that had good crop rotation and cover crops without additional commercial inputs? If it helps in the retention of nutrients farmers that do use cover crops i would assume would be able to save some money on cover crop seed because more nutrients are being held in the soil with the application of biochar.

I can see that it wouldnt be worth doing on ground that is tiled and is planted into corn for many years in a row with heavy applications of fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. One of the benefits of biochar is increased retention of nutrients and water. If a field has a bunch of drain tile underneath of it it isnt going to retain as much water and nutrients as a field that doesnt have tile.

I am a trout fishing NUT. Here in the driftless region we have a Karst topography and nitrogen leeching into the water table is a HUGE problem. Most of the water has high nitrate levels and is unfit to drink especially for young children. In the summer months in stream vegetation is a huge problem because of the nitrates. It starves the water of oxygen that is needed to sustain trout and the invertebrates that they feed on.

If it increased the ability of the soil to hold water then it would also reduce the amount of water that is needed to be applied by irrigation systems in sandier soils.

Biochar may not be the answer for everywhere but there are plenty of instances in north america where it could be beneficial.

 

[BiocharScientist]

"I bet the college didn't receive an anonymous donation either before the article was published.
S.T.Fanatic, Tuesday at 9:32 PM"

"I don't believe that anybody was saying that the study is wrong or that the scientists doing the research had been paid off.
S.T.Fanatic, Today at 2:37 PM"


There is some incongruity here, or are you going to claim that the first sentence was not sarcastic?


“Instead, we rely on a journalist's summary which is attracts more eyes when there is controversy.
yoderjac, Today at 2:07 PM"


The press release has not been “dumbed down”. It was reviewed by all co-authors of the paper. This one at least is not the result of a journalist sensationalising for page hits.


“Being that we have someone on this board that was involved with the topic at hand I am going to be lazy and not read the article and just ask a couple of questions because one of them was mentioned in a post above.
S.T.Fanatic, Today at 2:37 PM"

The paper is the result of numerous drafts and discussions between the different co-authors, across an international range of institutes, who have worked together to objectively analyse the data available and to present it in as clear, transparent and unbiased way as we could. It is the result of a vast amount of work, as you may start to grasp if you actually read it and look at the associated data.

The paper is available fully open access, free of charge, as is all of the data. I am happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the contents of the paper, but I do not see why I should have to write a summary for you just because you cannot be bothered to read it.


“I presume most of this data was collected from farming operations.
yoderjac, Today at 2:07 PM"


The data was collected from peer reviewed publications from experiments that include replication, randomisation and an appropriate control. It includes both field and pot experiments. The database is available in the article page. If you read the article, which is not very long, you will see discussion on this. If you wish to explore further there is also more discussion, including a section specifically on the weaknesses of the paper and the analysis in the Supplementary Information, which is also available open access, for free, through the same site that hosts the article.

 

[Knehrke]

It seems like this has turned the corner toward a thoughtful discussion. This isn't my area of expertise, but I want to point out that there are certainly benefits to biochar that weren't addressed in the paper and which the authors aren't testing. Some of these are benefits that other board members have alluded to above.

I also want to commend Biocharscientist for weighing in, but also to remind him that many non-scientists are not prepared to tackle primary literature. While it's easy to tell folks to go to the source, it's probably more impactful to directly address their questions...even if they haven't read the paper. Many of the members on here are extremely bright and articulate; even if I don't share their opinions, I do respect them. As a scientist, I think that it's our obligation to take the extra step as we engage the public. Particularly when the questions aren't overtly aggressive, but instead looking to clarify. It's great when folks connect to share their respective expertise; after all, that's what this board is all about.

My wife says I sound "preachy"--sorry! Not my intent. Just trying to promote a good discourse.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

I guess if we are into dodging questions my suggestion would be to re read the statements above and come up with your own conclusion.

 

[BiocharScientist]

Indeed there are potential benefits to biochar that were not addressed in the paper - as we state clearly and discuss in the paper...

I have no intention of dodging questions and have already stated that I am happy to answer any questions that might arise from reading the paper.

The article is open access and written in accessible language so I don't see why someone else's stated laziness should require me to do more work and take up more of my time answering questions that could easily be answered by reading the article, which is really no longer than most popular magazine articles.

I am even willing to send a PDF of the article to anyone who PMs me, in case you think I am trying to direct hits to our publication's website - that is not my goal and indeed I do not get any benefit from those hits anyway...

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

I'm sure you're a stand up guy and not trying to profit from any of this. No sarcasm insinuated. When I have time i'll read it. I was just trying to take a short cut.

 

[yoderjac]

"I bet the college didn't receive an anonymous donation either before the article was published.
S.T.Fanatic, Tuesday at 9:32 PM"

"I don't believe that anybody was saying that the study is wrong or that the scientists doing the research had been paid off.
S.T.Fanatic, Today at 2:37 PM"


There is some incongruity here, or are you going to claim that the first sentence was not sarcastic?


“Instead, we rely on a journalist's summary which is attracts more eyes when there is controversy.
yoderjac, Today at 2:07 PM"


The press release has not been “dumbed down”. It was reviewed by all co-authors of the paper. This one at least is not the result of a journalist sensationalising for page hits.

“Being that we have someone on this board that was involved with the topic at hand I am going to be lazy and not read the article and just ask a couple of questions because one of them was mentioned in a post above.
S.T.Fanatic, Today at 2:37 PM"

The paper is the result of numerous drafts and discussions between the different co-authors, across an international range of institutes, who have worked together to objectively analyse the data available and to present it in as clear, transparent and unbiased way as we could. It is the result of a vast amount of work, as you may start to grasp if you actually read it and look at the associated data.

The paper is available fully open access, free of charge, as is all of the data. I am happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the contents of the paper, but I do not see why I should have to write a summary for you just because you cannot be bothered to read it.


“I presume most of this data was collected from farming operations.
yoderjac, Today at 2:07 PM"


The data was collected from peer reviewed publications from experiments that include replication, randomisation and an appropriate control. It includes both field and pot experiments. The database is available in the article page. If you read the article, which is not very long, you will see discussion on this. If you wish to explore further there is also more discussion, including a section specifically on the weaknesses of the paper and the analysis in the Supplementary Information, which is also available open access, for free, through the same site that hosts the article.

Yes, it is a metadata analysis. The data I was referring to is the underlying data. My point is that the article was very much "dumbed down" The paper itself was very well done and like most scientific pointed out the limitations. I'm not at all arguing with the paper, just how we (the general public) draw conclusions.

Headline: No biochar benefit for temperate zone crops

Article: Makes no mention of "arable land".

Paper: Good discussion of possible factors with analysis showing the statistical correlation between the studies conducted and latitude.

Consumer Takeaway: Don't bother with biocar if you are not in the tropics...

Most consumers on this forum are focused on improving habitat for wildlife. Many (not all) are working with marginal land. And as you said in a previous post, there are potential benefits discussed in the paper but not fully discussed in the dumbed down article. This is not necessarily a critique of the article. Pretty much by definition, an article aimed at the general public is dumbed down from the underlying research. I often see the press discuss opposing points of view but when you get the scientists on both "sides" together, they agree on 95%+ of the research but just like anyone have their own opinions and my disagree on the conclusions best drawn. Most studies end with something like: "We recommend further studies to ...."

Can't speak for other posters, but my intent was to ignore the headline and article and look deeper. When I got a chance to read the paper, it said pretty much exactly what I presumed it would say. It documents a well qualified statistical correlation between latitude and biochar benefits probably applicable to most high intensity farming operations.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bowman]

I tried to incorporate the article, but could not because of length.

I absolutely appreciate the information on this site.

These are some of my observations from the study:

1. biochar increased yield through liming and fertilization, consistent with the low soil pH, low fertility, and low fertilizer inputs typical of arable tropical soils.

2. but may especially benefit agriculture in low-nutrient, acidic soils

3. Biochar has been shown to increase soil carbon storage, soil fertility, and soil water holding capacity

4. but may especially benefit agriculture in low-nutrient, acidic soils

5. Most studies did not report the change in soil pH following biochar application, which indicates that the liming effect was often not considered in the experimental design.

6. Our results show that biochar can be a useful tool to improve crop yield in nutrient-poor and acidic soils.

7. Biochar has been shown to increase soil carbon storage, soil fertility, and soil water holding capacity

Last, a question to Biochar Scientist, how do you manage your property? Thank you.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

The problem with Biochar in the US is the high inputs. When farmers are artificially supercharging their soils with commercial fertilizers there isn't going to be the benefit. If farmers would start giving two shits about run off and nitrogen management there could be a high demand for the biochar. As of now it is just plain easier to make a call to the coop and have them spread a bunch of high salt fertilizer on the soil.