Commercial scale agricultural biochar field trial in Québec, Canada over two years: effects of

biochar on soil fertility, biology and crop productivity and quality

by Barry Husk1, report written by Julie Major2

1
President, BlueLeaf Inc., 310 rue Chapleau, Drummondville, Québec, J2B 5E9 Canada;
2
PhD, Consultant, 1555 ch. Ste-Claire, Rivière-Beaudette, Québec, J0P 1R0 Canada

Abstract

A commercial scale biochar field trial was established on a farm in Québec, Canada in May 2008. A
very fine, commercially available biochar from fast pyrolysis of wood waste was applied as received
from the manufacturer using standard farm machinery. The target application rate was 5.6 t/ha, but an
estimated 30% of the material was wind-blown and lost during handling, transport to the field, soil
application and incorporation. This resulted in an estimated 3.9 t/ha biochar application. Biochar was
applied on a clay loam soil in a single, 1,000 m2 swath and compared to an adjacent, unamended
control swath, thus this is not a standard replicated experiment. Soybean was grown in 2008 and
mixed forage species in 2009, and a large dataset was gathered including monthly data on soil physical
parameters, soil chemical fertility, soil micro- and macrofauna, crop morphology, quality and yield.
Yield increases in soybean averaged 19% over the control, and forage biomass was doubled by
biochar application, compared to the control. In soybean, yield improvements arose from greater plant
population density, as opposed to greater seed production per plant. Yield differences cannot clearly
be attributed to chemical soil fertility differences among treatments. Total and available P are very
high on this soil which is considered to be P-saturated. Biochar-amended plots had lower total P
contents, and this cannot be fully explained with available data. Surface soil infiltration was greater
when biochar had been applied, but no differences were found in soil temperature, moisture content,
and resistance to penetration. The number of nodules per soybean plant was not affected by the
biochar treatment, but root colonization by ectomycorrhizae in the forage crop was greater when
biochar was applied. Earthworm density was generally greater with biochar, and data on fungal and
microbial grazers, and microbial and fungal biomass seem to support the hypothesis that biochar can
serve as a refuge for soil microbes. Total soil carbon, soil respiration and potential organic matter
mineralization were not measurably different in the biochar-amended plot. This is the first report on
results from commercial scale biochar field trials in Canada.

Introduction

Biochar refers to biomass-derived charcoal, obtained when biomass is “baked” under low or no
oxygen conditions (pyrolysis). Biochar holds promise as a tool for improving soil fertility and
sequestering carbon (C) in soil (Lehmann, 2007; Laird, 2008; Lehmann and Joseph, 2009), among
other potential benefits. Research has shown that crop yields can be improved by biochar application
(reviewed by Lehmann and Rondon, 2006; Blackwell et al., 2009), but most data available to date was
obtained working with highly weathered, infertile tropical soils. Much interest exists for improving
soils of temperate climates with biochar, but very little relevant data are currently available.

1
Furthermore, most current reports concern biochar trials carried out in experimental settings, using no
commercial farming machinery and very small plots.
The potential for significantly increased use of biochar in Canada, as in other developed
nations, will be largely driven by its acceptance and use in commercial agriculture. That use, in turn,
will be predicated primarily on any economic advantages offered by biochar to agricultural producers.
Its adaptation and use by traditional commercial farm operators will be largely driven by the ability of
biochar to reduce farming costs, increase yields and improve soil quality. In addition to the traditional
economic farming considerations of cost reductions and yield increasess, potential future farm income
related to greenhouse gas carbon trading (when and where available) offers the potential of economic
stimulus for agricultural biochar users.
In order to promote the commercial use of biochar it is therefore essential to evaluate and
demonstrate such potential economic advantages. In so doing, methods for the handling and
application of biochar on a commercial farming basis must also be tested and developed. Although
significant experimental work with biochar in underway in such countries as Australia and the United
States, very little experimental or developmental field work has been undertaken to date in Canada,
particularly in relation to the use of biochar in commercial farming operations. Little is known about
its use in local climate and soil conditions, or in relation to crops traditionally grown in Canada under
local growing conditions. Therefore, in light of the significant potential advantages biochar offers both
to the environment and to agricultural production, this evaluation was planned and undertaken as a
preliminary evaluation of the use of biochar in commercial farming operations in Canada, as well as in
relation to local climate and soil conditions.
Study objectives were to evaluate:
• the influence of biochar on certain basic physicochemical and biological soil and plant
parameters;
• the ability of biochar to retain moisture in the soil;
• the influence of biochar on crop and biomass yields;
• the influence of biochar on soil respiration;
• a method of handling and application of biochar to the soil.

Materials and methods

Field location
This trial was carried out at Ferme Richard Rouleau s.e.n.c. (N45º32.598, W72º02.237),
located in Saint-François-Xavier-de-Brompton, Québec, Canada, in the watershed of the St-François
River. The biochar handling and other agricultural field work was carried out by owners of Ferme
Ridelo Inc., lessees of this property. The valley landscape is dominated by farmland producing mostly
field crops such as corn, soybean and forages for dairy operations of the region. The soil at the
experimental location is a clay loam and had previously been managed according to standard practices,
including lime and dairy manure applications. Due to manure application management based on
nitrogen requirements, soils of this watershed are often saturated with phosphorus.

2
Biochar material
Biochar used in this trial was made and supplied by DynaMotive Energy Systems Corporation1
(West Lorne, Ontario, Canada) using fast pyrolysis technology to convert hardwood waste biomass
into biofuel and biochar, and is commercially available under the name CQuestTM. The material used
here was produced in 2007 and kept in storage by the producer until shipment to the trial site on 16
May 2008. The biochar was packed at the production facility in 200 liter (55 US gallon) steel drums,
each containing approximately 55 kg of product, and shipped by truck to the farm trial site. Typical
characteristics of the material, as analyzed by SGS Canada Inc. and supplied by the manufacturer, are
provided in Table 1.

Experimental plot establishment

Lime was applied at 1.5 t/ac (3.4 t/ha) on the entire experimental area on 28 May 2008.
Biochar was applied on the same day using a full-size lime spreader (Atelier Desprès Inc, Val-Alain,
Québec) which spreads lime in a 10 m wide swath. A single, 100 m swath of biochar was applied and
constitutes the treatment plot (1,000 m2), and comparisons are made to a control, identically sized
unamended plot which is directly adjacent to the treatment plot. This experiment is not randomized or
replicated.
The target application rate for biochar was 5.6 t/ha (5,000 lbs/ac). The amount of biochar
necessary to cover 1,000 m2 at this application rate was received from the supplier and placed inside
the spreader. In order to uniformly apply the biochar over the plot area, the guidelines provided for
lime application by the manufacturer of the spreader were used as a basis. Specifications for gate
opening, spreader rotation speed and tractor driving speed were listed for an application rate of 2,500
lbs of lime per acre, so reducing the given tractor speed by half would effectively double the
application rate to the desired 5,000 lbs/acre (5.6 t/ha), for lime. Due to the large density difference
between lime materials (2,700-6,200 kg/m3) and the biochar produced by DynaMotive (approximately
250 kg/m3), a final decision was made to apply the material in two passes. The first pass was made at
the minimum programmable tractor speed of 1.9 km/h, with the spreader height set as low as possible.
Some biochar remained in the spreader after this pass, an estimated 30% of the initial amount. For the
second pass, tractor speed was set at slightly more than double that of the first pass, or 4.8 km/h.
Biochar was exhausted from the spreader upon reaching the end of the 100 m swath. A tractor speed of
approximately 6.5 km/h would have allowed the application to be made in one pass, using these
spreader adjustements.

1
Neither BlueLeaf nor Julie Major promote or condone the use of any specific products, including any of those mentioned
in this report. They have no commercial or contractual relations with any suppliers of products or other participants
mentioned in this report. BlueLeaf and Julie Major make no claims or warranties, specific or implied, concerning any
products mentioned in this report and express no opinion as regards any such claims made by the manufacturers or
distributors of such products.

3
Table 1. Typical characteristics of CQuestTM biochar, as provided by the manufacturer. These data are
based on the analysis of one biochar sample in March 2006, unless otherwise specified. ASTM
methods used are for coal analysis.
Characteristic Unit Value Analytical Range1
method
Moisture % 2.0 ASTM D3173
Ash % 10.9 ASTM D3174 1-25
Volatile matter % 23.9 ASTM D3175 18-30
Fixed carbon (C) % 65.0 ASTM D3172
Total carbon % 72.5 60-75
Total nitrogen (N) % 0.5
C/N 161
H/C 0.04
O/C 0.15
Sulfur (S) % 0.02
Aluminum (Al) mg/kg ash 300 OES-ICP
Calcium (Ca) mg/kg ash 6460 OES-ICP
Phosphorus (P) mg/kg ash 180 OES-ICP
Potassium (K) mg/kg ash 6080 OES-ICP
3
Bulk density kg/m 250-350
Particles < 2 mm Typical % 100
Particles < 1 mm Typical % 95
Particles < 0.5 mm Typical % 60
1
As supplied by manufacturer in the Material’s Safety Data Sheet

Because a large proportion of this material consisted of very small particles (approximately
60% passed through a 0.5 mm sieve) (Table 1), and since the biochar was not moistened before
handling and application, some of the material was lost during handling, transporting to the field,
application, and incorporation (Fig. 1). Losses were greatest while applying with the lime spreader.
Despite wind velocity being low at the time of application, losses during this operation were visually
estimated at 25%, while losses during handling are estimated at 2% and losses during transportation at
3%, for a total of 30% estimated losses. Thus, the actual application rate is estimated to be 70% of
5,000 lbs/ac, or 3,500 lbs/ac (3.9 t/ha). After application biochar and lime were incorporated by one
pass of a disk harrow. Incorporation depth was approximately 20 cm. The control plot was also
harrowed to incorporate lime. To avoid sampling areas of the control plot possibly contaminated with
biochar, no samples were taken from the 5 m adjacent to the biochar-amended plot.

4
Figure 1. Clockwise from top left: Biochar losses during handling, transportation to the field,
application and incorporation.

Crop management
Roundup Ready® soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) variety 2590R (Pro Seeds of Canada,
Woodstock, Ontario) was seeded during the first week of June. During the growing season, the entire
experimental area was managed according to standard practices for nutrient, weed and pest
management. Soybean was harvested on 20 October 2008. Dairy manure was applied at 10 t/ac (22.4
t/ha) in the fall of 2008. In spring 2008, plots were tilled, rolled, lime was applied at 1.5 t/ac (3.4 t/ha),
and synthetic fertilizer (6-25-30 MAP) was applied at 100 lbs/ac (112 kg/ha). On 8 June 2009, a
pasture mixture of rye grass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) and
timothy (Phleum pratense L.) was broadcast seeded at a rate of 15 lbs/ac (17 kg/ha), and oats (Avena
sativa L.) were seeded at a rate of 70 lbs/ac (78 kg/ha) using a seed drill. Forage was harvested once
during the growing season on 20 August 2009, and an 8 inch (20 cm) stubble was left behind. The
spring was very wet in 2009, and forage was seeded late, resulting in poor establishment and growth of
plants, especially for clover, timothy and ryegrass.

Soil sampling and measurements

Soil was sampled in 2008 to 16 cm depth on 7 and 28 July, 27 August, 17 September and 5
November, and in 2009 on 25 May, 22 June, 21 July, 17 August, 14 September and 13 October, using
a corer. Ten samples were taken along a “W” pattern covering each entire plot, and were composited.
Using a 1:1 w:v mixture of composited soil and distilled water, electrical conductivity was measured
using a pocket meter, soil nitrate was measured using nitrate-nitrite strips, and pH using a pocket
meter (USDA, 1999). Portions of these moist samples were sent for chemical analysis at Laboratoires
d’analyses S.M. Inc. (Varennes, Québec, Canada). Chemical analysis included ash content, organic
matter content by combustion at 550 ºC, total C (LECO analyzer), total N (Kjeldahl), pH (1:1 w:v,

5
soil:water), and total calcium (Ca), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and P by acid digestion and ICP
determination. Biological analyses were performed by Soil Foodweb Canada Ltd (Vulcan, Alberta
Canada) and include direct counts using a microscope for bacteria and fungi, the “most probable
number” for protozoa, and a funnel collection apparatus for nematodes. These biological analyses
were carried out on soil samples taken on 30 September 2008, and on 25 May, 22 June, 21 July, 17
August, 14 September and 13 October 2009. Soil Foodweb Canada also performed soil fertility
analyses for samples taken in 2009, and included pH (measured as above), and nitrate- and
ammonium-N. Inorganic N species, and available Ca, K, and Mg were determined by extraction with a
Mehlich I solution and a color reaction followed by analysis on a spectrophotometer. Soil solution
electrical conductivity was measured in a 1:1 w:v mixture of soil and water using a probe.
Using the same sampling pattern as above and on the same dates, the following parameters
were measured at 10 locations in each plot: soil temperature (to 10 cm) using a Mannix DT300 digital
thermometer with a 13 cm stainless steel stem, resistance to penetration using a Wika hydraulic
penetrometer, model HyPen1, and soil moisture (to 10 cm) using an Aquaterr M-300 soil moisture
meter. This soil moisture meter is calibrated against liquid water and indicates percent moisture
relative to completely saturated conditions (100%). Surface infiltration was measured at one location
near the center of each plot on the dates mentioned above, using a single ring infiltrometer (USDA,
1999). On several occasions in 2009 the soil was very wet at the time of sampling and infiltration was
very slow, and the infiltration trials were not concluded.
Soil bulk density was assessed using an aluminum cylinder with a diameter of 7.6 cm and 12.7
cm height. This measurement was made on 7 and 28 July, 27 August, 17 September and 5 November
2008, and on 25 May, 22 June, 21 July, 17 August, 14 September and 13 October in 2009. Data from
2008 was not correctly recorded and is not presented. Samples were taken at 3 locations in each plot,
diagonally at regularly spaced intervals. The ring was inserted into the soil using a hand sledge to a
depth of 8 cm, and then removed. Soil was taken out of the ring and placed into a plastic bag and
sealed. In the laboratory, bags of moist soil were weighed, and the weight of the bag subtracted. Soil
was then dried in a microwave oven by submitting it to 4 minute cycles on full power, to constant
weight. Dry weight was recorded and bulk density calculated.
Soil respiration was measured using Draeger tubes in 2008, and using the Solvita® system in
2009. Draeger tubes provide a measurement of how much CO2 is present in a sample of gas taken
from the headspace above a soil chamber located in the field (see USDA, 1999), while the Solvita®
system uses a patented colorimetric reaction to measure the amount of CO2 produced during soil
incubation in a jar in the laboratory. This test is divided into two parts, one where field-moist soil is
incubated, and one where air-dried soil is incubated upon re-wetting, providing insight into potential N
mineralization. Solvita® respiration tests were made on 3 analytical replicates from one composite soil
sample taken from each plot. Respiration was measured using a 24 h incubation on soil sampled on 7
and 28 July, 27 August, 17 September and 5 November 2008 (Draeger tubes in the field), and in 2009
on 21 July, 17 August, 14 September and 13 October (moist soil incubation using Solvita®). Potential
C and N mineralization were similarly assessed on samples taken on 14 September and 13 October
2009.
Earthworm density was assessed by digging out a 1 cubic foot pit from 3 locations in each plot,
diagonally and at regularly spaced intervals. Soil was dug out using a shovel, and the soil placed on a
light-colored surface. Earthworms were visually separated from soil and counted. A solution of
mustard was used to assess the numbers of deep-burrowing worms (USDA, 1999), and these numbers
were added to the number for worms inside the soil sample. This assessment was carried out on 28

6
July, 17 September and 5 November 2008, and on 25 May, 22 June, 21 July, 17 August, 14 September
and 13 October 2009.

Crop sampling and measurements

In 2008, soybean leaf temperature was measured using a laser infrared thermometer, and leaf
Brix using an Atago Master refractometer, and a specially adapted vice-grip for squeezing leaves to
extract their juice. Temperature was measured on 10 plants and Brix was measured on 3 plants along a
“W’ pattern as described above for soil, on 28 July, 27 August and 17 September.
On 15 October 2008, 50 whole, continuous plants were harvested on two adjacent rows
approximately in the middle of each plot (total=100). These plants were individually measured for
above ground height, tap root length, total plant length, and the following data was collected on each
plant: number of root nodules/plant, number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant, total pod
weight, number of seeds per plant, total seed weight, and number of seeds per pod.
Plant density was assessed by measuring the length, on a row, necessary to encompass 100
plants. This assessment was made at one location in each plot. Additionally, a similar determination
was made for 50 plants on two adjacent rows, and the number of plants was also counted in one, 4 m2
quadrat. These measurements were made on 11 and 15 October 2008. Yields were also measured on
20 October 2008 using a New Holland® self-propelled combine harvester equipped with a full
precision farming package including yield and moisture measurement. Yield data provided by the
combine was taken over a larger area surrounding the experimental plots.
During the 2009 season, oat leaf temperature and Brix were measured on 22 June, 21 July, 17
August, 14 September and 13 October, and clover leaf temperature was measured on 14 September
and 13 October. These leaf temperature and Brix measurements were made on 25 plants along a “W”
pattern as described above.
On 20 July, 17 August and 20 September 2009, 32 oat plants were harvested using a transect
intercept method, where a string was stretched diagonally at approximately 45° to the rows in each
plot, and the plant closest to the string in each of 32 adjacent rows was harvested, including the roots.
These oat plants were measured for root length, above-ground plant height, total length, total weight of
roots and above-ground growth. Plants were then left to air-dry for two weeks, grouped by treatment
and weighed. On 1 August 2009 (before harvesting of forage), the number and fresh weight of oat
plants were measured after collecting above-ground oat biomass in three 1 m2 quadrats. These
quadrats were placed by moving fixed distances horizontally (2 m) and vertically (5 m) inside the
plots, before placing the quadrat down for sampling. After weighing, oat plants were sent to a forage
analysis laboratory (Agri-Analyse, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada). Forage analysis was carried out by
near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. Another biomass sample was taken for sending for this forage
analysis on 7 October 2009. These samples included all above-ground biomass taken in 30*30 cm
quadrats, in the pattern described above. On 29 September 2009 at the end of the growing season, the
same sampling technique was used to harvest all above-ground biomass from 1 m2 quadrats, and fresh
weight was measured.

Data analysis
Due to the lack of true replication in the design of the experiment, no statistical analyses were
performed on the data. Averages are presented and standard errors are shown in graphs, to illustrate
variability in the individual measurements that were made within each plot.

7
Results

Soil physical parameters

No clear trends were observed with soil temperature measured during the growing season. On
several occasions, temperature was slightly lower in the biochar-amended plot (Fig. 2).

30

25
Soil temperature (oC)

20

15

10

0
Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control
Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar
07/07/08 07/28/08 08/27/08 09/17/08 11/05/08 05/25/09 06/22/09 07/21/09 08/17/09 09/14/09 10/13/09
Sampling date

Figure 2. Soil temperature measured over two years, under different crops. Error bars represent the
standard error on means of 10 field measurements made inside one plot of each treatment.

Similarly, the effect of biochar application on the force needed to penetrate the soil (i.e. soil
compaction) was unclear (Fig. 3).

300.0
Force requireed to penetrate soil surface (psi)

250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0
Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control
Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

07/07/08 07/28/08 08/27/08 09/17/08 11/05/08 5/25/09 06/22/09 07/21/09 08/17/09 09/14/09 10/13/09
Sampling date

Figure 3. Resistance to surface soil penetration measured over two years, under different crops. Error
bars represent the standard error on means of 10 field measurements made inside one plot of each
treatment.

8
 Biochar generally considerably improved surface soil infiltration (Fig. 4), however soil
moisture measured over both years did not show any clear trends, when variability in the data is taken
into consideration (Fig. 5).
Surface infiltration (inches/hour)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control
Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar
07/07/08 7/7/2008 07/28/08 08/27/08 8/27/2008 09/17/08 11/05/08 05/25/09 09/14/09
(after (after
wetting) wetting)
sampling date

Figure 4. Soil surface infiltration rate measured over two years, under different crops. Single
measurements were made inside each plot at each sampling date. On two occasions the infiltration
trial was repeated because the soil was initially very dry. The second trial in those cases gives a better
estimate of infiltration rate.

120
Soil moisture (% saturation)

100

80

60

40

20

0
Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar
Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

07/07/08 07/28/08 08/27/08 09/17/08 11/05/08 05/25/09 06/22/09 07/21/09 08/17/09 09/14/09 10/13/09

Sampling date

Figure 5. Soil moisture (relative to saturation), measured over two years, under different crops. Error
bars represent the standard error on means of 10 field measurements made inside one plot of each
treatment.

Bulk density measurements made in 2009 were averaged, since no tillage was carried out after
seeding crops and no trends were observed in the data within the year. In 2009, bulk density was

9
slightly greater where biochar had been applied compared to the control plot (1.21 ± 0.06 vs. 1.10 ±
0.04, respectively.

Soil chemical parameters

The organic matter content of soil as determined by loss on ignition did not vary consistently
between treatments (Fig. 6).
Organic matter content (%w/w)

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
08

08

08

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

31 9
8

30 9

9
0
00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
7/

6/

5/

3/

2/

4/

3/

3/

2/

2/

1/
/5

/4

/4
7/

8/

9/

1/

2/

3/

4/

5/

6/

7/

8/
10

11

12

8/

9/
Sam pling date

Figure 6. Organic matter content of control (green symbols, dotted line) and biochar-amended (black
symbols, full line) soil as determined by loss upon ignition at 550 ºC. Note that not all biochar is
expected to be lost at 550 ºC, and thus would not be included in this result.

Total C content does take all biochar into consideration and was greater in the control plot
early in 2008, but later no differences were apparent (Fig. 7).

5
4.5
4
Total C (%)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
8

9
08

08

08

09

09
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20

20
2

2
7/

6/

5/

3/

2/

4/

3/

3/

2/

2/

1/
5/

4/

4/

1/

0/
7/

8/

9/

1/

2/

3/

4/

5/

6/

7/

8/
/

3
10

11

12

8/

9/

Sam pling date

Figure 7. Total C content of control (green symbols, dotted line) and biochar-amended (black
symbols, full line) soil.

10
 Total N was similar or greater in the control plot in 2008, and generally higher where biochar
had been applied in 2009 (Fig. 8).

3500
3000
Total N (mg/kg)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
08

08

08

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

31 9
8

30 9

9
0
00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
7/

6/

5/

3/

2/

4/

3/

3/

2/

2/

1/
/5

/4

/4
7/

8/

9/

1/

2/

3/

4/

5/

6/

7/

8/
10

11

12

8/

9/
Sam pling date

Figure 8. Total N content of control (green symbols, dotted line) and biochar-amended (black
symbols, full line) soil.

Nitrate-N contents did not show any trends in 2008, and were generally greater in the control in
2009 (Fig. 9). Ammonium-N was generally greater when biochar had been applied (Fig. 10).

3 7
6
2.5
NO3-N (ppm)

5
NO3-N (lbs/ac)

2 4
3
1.5
2
1 1
0
0.5
09

09

09

09
9

9
00

00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20
0
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
9/

9/

8/

7/
25

24

24

23

22

/7
6/

7/

8/

9/

7/28/2008 8/12/2008 8/27/2008 9/11/2008 9/26/2008 10/11/200810/26/2008

10
5/

6/

7/

8/

9/

Sam pling date Sam pling date

Figure 9. Nitrate-N content of control (green symbols, dotted line) and biochar-amended (black
symbols, full line) soil. In 2008 this measurement was made using nitrate-nitrite strips, and in 2009
soil was extracted with Mehlich I solution and nitrate-N determined colorimetrically.

11
 20
18
16
NH4-N (ppm)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
09

09

09

09
9

9
00

00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
9/

9/

8/

7/
25

24

24

23

22

/7
6/

7/

8/

9/

10
5/

6/

7/

8/

9/
Sam pling date

Figure 10. Ammonium-N content of control (green symbols, dotted line) and biochar-amended (black
symbols, full line) soil in 2009.

The pH did not vary consistently between the two treatments in 2008, but the measurement
made by Soil Foodweb Ltd. showed consistently greater pH in the control plot, in 2009 (Fig. 11).

7.6
7.4
7.2
pH (water)

7
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
8

9
08

08

08

09

09
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20

20
2

2
7/

6/

5/

3/

2/

4/

3/

3/

2/

2/

1/
/

/
/5

/4

/4

31

30
7/

8/

9/

1/

2/

3/

4/

5/

6/

7/

8/
10

11

12

8/

9/
Sam pling date

Figure 11. Soil pH of control (green and blue symbols, dotted lines) and biochar-amended (black and
red symbols, full lines) soil. Square and diamond symbols represent data from S.M. lab, while
triangles and circles represent data from Soil Foodweb. Blue and red symbols represent data obtained
in-house using pH meter.

Total P was greater in the control treatment during both years, and available P measured in
2009 was also greater in the control (Fig 12).

12
 80 1000
70 900
Available P (kg/ha)

Total P (mg/kg)
60 800
50
700
40
600
30
20 500
10 400
0 300

7/7/2008

8/7/2008
9/7/2008
10/7/2008

11/7/2008
12/7/2008
1/7/2009
2/7/2009
3/7/2009
4/7/2009
5/7/2009
6/7/2009
7/7/2009

8/7/2009
9/7/2009
10/7/2009
09

09

09

09
9

9
00

00

00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

2/
8/

6/

3/
25

22

20

17

31

14

28
6/

7/

8/

/1
5/

6/

7/

8/

8/

9/

9/

10
Sam pling date Sam pling date

Figure 12. Available (in 2009) and total P (in 2008 and 2009) measured on control (green) and
biochar-amended (black) soil.

In 2008, total Ca did not vary between treatments except at the first sampling date where it was
greater in the control treatment (Fig. 13). In 2009, total Ca was greater in the biochar-amended plot,
but available Ca was lower (Fig. 13). Total K behaved similarly in both treatments in 2008, but in
2009 slightly but consistently more total K was found in the biochar-amended plot (Fig. 13). Similarly,
more K was available in the biochar-amended plot in 2009, except on the first sampling date when the
crop had not been seeded. Total Mg was similar in both treatments in 2008, and trends were not
obvious for total Mg in 2009. Available Mg in 2009 was usually greater in the biochar-amended plot
(Fig. 13).

13
 Total Mg (mg/kg) Total K (mg/kg) Total Ca (mg/kg)

7/ 7/ 7/
7/ 7/ 7/
20 20 20

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
08

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
08 08 8/
8/ 8/ 6/
6/ 6/ 20
20 20
08 08 08
9/ 9/ 9/
5/ 5/ 5/
2 2 20
10 008 10 008 10 0
/5 /5 /5 8
/2 /2 /2
00 00 00
11 8 11 8 11 8
/4 /4 /4
/2 /2 /2
12 008 12 008
12 008 /4
/4 /4 /2
/2 /2 00
00 00
8 1/ 8 1/ 8
1/ 3/ 3/
3/ 20 20
20
09 09
2/ 09 2/ 2/
2/ 2/ 2/
20 20 20
09 3/ 09 3/ 09
3/ 4/ 4/
4/ 20 20
20
09 09
4/ 09 4/ 4/
3/ 3/ 3/
20 20 20
09 09 09
5/
Sam pling date

5/ 5/

Sam pling date

Sam pling date

3/ 3/ 3/
20 20 20
6/ 09 6/ 09 6/ 09
2/ 2/ 2/
20 20 20
09 09 09
7/ 7/ 7/
2/ 2/ 2/
20 20 20
09 8/ 09 8/ 09
8/ 1/ 1/
1/
2 2 2
8/ 009 8/ 009 8/ 009
31 31 31
/2 /2 /2
00 00 00
9/ 9/ 9/
30 9 30 9 30 9
/2 /2 /2
00 00 00
9 9 9

Available Mg (mg/kg) Available K (mg/kg) Available Ca (mg/kg)

5/ 5/ 5/
25 25 25
/2 /2 /2
00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

00 00 9

0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0

9 9
6/ 6/ 6/
9/ 9/ 9/
20 20 20
09 09 09
6/ 6/ 6/
24 24 24
/2 /2 /2
00 00 00
9 9 9

7/ 7/ 7/
9/ 9/ 9/
20 20 20
09 09 09
7/ 7/ 7/
24 24 24
/2 /2 /2
00 00 00
9 9 9

8/ 8/ 8/
8/ 8/ 8/
(green symbols, dotted line) and biochar-amended (black symbols, full line) soil. 20
09
20
09
20
09
8/ 8/ 8/

14). Manganese (Mn) availability was generally greater in the control plot (Fig. 14).
23 23 23
Sam pling date

/2
Sam pling date

Sam pling date

/2 /2 00
00 00
9 9 9

9/ 9/ 9/
7/ 7/ 7/
20 20 20
09 09 09
9/ 9/ 9/
22 22 22
/2 /2 /2
00 00 00
9 9 9
10
Figure 13. Total (in 2008 and 2009) and available (in 2009) Ca, K and Mg measured on control

10 10
/7 /7 /7
/2 /2 /2
00 00 00
9 9 9
Available copper (Cu) was similar in both treatments in 2009 except at the first sampling date
before the crop was seeded, when Cu availability in the biochar-amended plot was much greater (Fig.

14
 3.0
Available Cu (mg/kg)

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
09

09

09

09
9

9
00

00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
9/

9/

8/

7/
25

24

24

23

22

/7
6/

7/

8/

9/

10
5/

6/

7/

8/

9/
Sam pling date

16.0
Available Mn (mg/kg)

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
09

09

09

09
9

9
00

00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
9/

9/

8/

7/
25

24

24

23

22

/7
6/

7/

8/

9/

10
5/

6/

7/

8/

9/

Sam pling date

Figure 14. Available Cu and Mn measured in 2009 on control (green symbols, dotted line) and
biochar-amended (black symbols, full line) soil.

The electrical conductivity of the soil solution was generally lower when biochar had been
applied, in both years (Fig. 15). The redox potential as measured in 2008 did not differ between the
treatments, and neither did pNa (Fig. 16).

15
 250
Electrical conductivity

200
(uS/cm)

150

100

50

0
8/ 08

9/ 08

10 008

2/ 09

3/ 09

4/ 09

5/ 09

6/ 09

7/ 09

8/ 09
8/ 009
11 008

12 008

9/ 009

9
00

00
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
7/

6/

5/

3/

2/

4/

3/

3/

2/

2/

1/
/5

/4

/4

31

30
7/

1/
Sam pling date

Figure 15. Electrical conductivity measured on control (green symbols, dotted line) and biochar-
amended (black symbols, full line) soil.

350
300
Redox potential (?)

250
200
150
100
50
0
7/7/2008 7/22/2008 8/6/2008 8/21/2008
Sam pling date

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
pNa

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
08

08

08

08
8

8
00

00

00

00

00
20

20

20

20
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
0/
7/

6/

5/
22

21

20

/5

/4
7/

8/

9/

/2
10

11
7/

8/

9/

10

Sam pling date

Figure 16. Redox potential and pNa measured in 2008 on control (green symbols, dotted line) and
biochar-amended (black symbols, full line) soil.

16
Biological soil parameters

In 2009, when several pits were dug in each plot to assess earthworm density, the number of
earthworms was generally greater in the biochar-amended plot (Fig. 17).
number of earthworms / cubic foot

30

25

20

15

10

0
Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control
Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar
07/28/08 09/17/08 11/05/08 05/25/09 06/22/09 07/21/09 08/17/09 09/14/09 10/13/09
Sampling date

Figure 17. Earthworm density 2008 and 2009. Error bars represent the standard error on means of
data from 3 soil pits dug inside one plot of each treatment. When no error bars are shown, only one pit
per plot was dug.

Data from the soil foodweb analysis shows no clear differences between treatments in the dry
biomass of microorganisms (Fig. 18a). Active bacterial biomass was generally slightly higher where
biochar had been applied, but this is not true after forage harvest, when trends were less obvious (Fig.
18b). No trend was observable for total bacterial biomass (Fig. 18c), active fungal biomass (Fig. 18d),
total fungal biomass (Fig. 18e), or hyphal diameter (Fig. 18f). Percent colonization by
endomycorrhizal fungi was greater and within the expected range when biochar had been applied (Fig.
18g).

17
 1.0 40

Active bacterial dry biomass (µg/g soil)

A 35
B
0.9
Organism dry biomass

30
0.8
25

0.7 20
Control 15
0.6 Biochar amended
10
0.5
5

0.4 0
1200 30
Total bacterial dry biomass (µg/g soil)

Active fungal dry biomass (µg/g soil)

C D
1000 25

20
800
15
600
10
400
5
200 0

0
500 4.2
E
Total fungal dry biomass (µg/g soil)

F
4.0
400
Hyphal diameter (µm)

3.8
300
3.6

200 3.4

3.2
100
3.0

0 2.8
08 08 008 008 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09
/20 /20 /2 /2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /1/20 /1/20 /1/20 /1/20 /1/20 /1/20 /1/20 /1/20 /1/20 /1/20
9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
100 100
Percent endomycorrhizal colonization

G
Percent ectomycorrhizal colonization

H
80 80

60 60

40 40

20
20

0
0
9 09 09 09 09 09
00 0 /20 0 /20 /20 09 0 9 09 00
9 09 00
9
0/2 4/2 9/7 1/2 0/5 /19 0 /20 4 /20 / 20 1/2 /5/
20 9/2
8/1 8/2 9/2 1 10 8/1 8/2 9/7 9/2 10 /1
10

Figure 18. Bacterial and fungal analysis of soil samples for control and biochar-amended treatments.
Horizontal dotted lines indicate expected ranges as provided by Soil Foodweb Canada Ltd.

18
 The number of flagellate and ciliate protozoae per gram of soil did not show any trends (Fig.
19a, c), but the amount of amoebic protozoae was generally lower when biochar had been applied
(Fig. 19b). The total number of nematodes in biochar-amended soil was usually greater than in control
soil (Fig. 19d).

12000 70000
Number of flagellate protozoae/g soil)

Number of amoebic protozoae/g soil)

Lower limit of expected range A 60000
B
10000
50000
8000
40000
6000 30000

4000 20000
Control Lower limit of expected range
10000
2000 Biochar amended
0
0
400
C 30
Number of ciliate protozoae/g soil)

Total number nematodes/g soil)

D
25
300
20

200 15

10
100
5

0 0
08 08 008 008 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 08 08 008 008 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009
/20 /20 /2 /2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /20 /20 /2 /2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2
9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 19. Analysis of protozoae and nematodes of soil samples for control and biochar-amended
treatments. Horizontal dotted lines indicate expected ranges as provided by Soil Foodweb Canada
Ltd.

Identification of nematodes to the genus level reveals that soil amended with biochar contained
more bacterial feeders (Fig. 20a), fungal feeders (Fig. 20b), and fungal or root feeders (Fig. 20c) than
the control plot. No clear trends were observed for the number of predatory nematodes (Fig. 20d) and
exclusive root feeders (Fig. 20e). A sharp “spike” in the number of total nematodes, bacterial, fungal
and fungal or root feeding nematodes, as well as in the number of amoebic protozoans can be observed
for the sample from biochar-amended soil taken on 22 June 2009, i.e. the first sample taken after the
forage plants were seeded. This spike was not observed where biochar was not applied.

19
 14 2.5
12 A B
2.0
Bacterial feeders / g soil

Fungal feeders / g soil

10

8 1.5
Control
6 Biochar amended 1.0
4
0.5
2

0 0.0

3.0 0.25
C D
Fungal or root feeders / g soil

2.5

Predatory nematodes / g soil

0.20
2.0
0.15
1.5
0.10
1.0
0.05
0.5

0.0 0.00

08 08 008 008 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 08 08 008 008 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009 009
/20 /20 /2 /2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /20 /20 /2 /2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2 /1/2
9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.035

0.030
E
0.025
Root feeders / g soil

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

09 0 9
00
9 09 09 09 09
/20 /20 /2 /20 /20 /1 /20 /1 /20
5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10 11

Figure 20. Analysis of types of nematodes in soil samples for control and biochar-amended
treatments.

Soil respiration measured in the field in 2008 did not show any clear trends (Fig. 21a), while
respiration of field-moist soil measured in the laboratory 2009 did not vary between treatments (Fig.
21b). Soil respiration upon rewetting soil, or “potential C and N mineralization”, was slightly lower
than in the control, although apparently significantly so on only one of the two measured dates (Fig.
22).

20
 Soil respiration (lbs CO2/ac/day)

500

Soil respiration (ppm CO2)

90
450 80
400 70
350 60
300
50
250
40
200
150 30
100 20
50 10
0 0
Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar

07/07/08 07/28/08 08/27/08 09/17/08 11/05/08 07/21/09 08/17/09 09/14/09 10/13/09

Sampling date Sampling date

Figure 21. a (left) and b (right). Soil respiration samples over two years.

90
Soil respiration (ppm CO2)

80
70
upon rewetting

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Control Biochar Control Biochar

09/14/09 10/13/09
Sampling date

Figure 22. Soil respiration upon rewetting dry soil, indicative of potential C and N mineralization.
Error bars represent the standard error on means of data from 3 laboratory replicates on a composite
soil sample taken inside one plot of each treatment.

Crop characteristics
Soybean leaf temperature in 2008 was lower with biochar addition on all sampling dates (Fig.
23), but differences between treatments were small and trends were less clear for oats and clover in
2009 (Fig. 24). Trends in leaf ºBrix were also unclear, for soybean in 2008 and oats in 2009 (Fig. 25).

21
 30
Soybean leaf temperature (oC)

25

20

15

10

0
Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar

07/28/08 08/27/08 09/17/08

Sampling date

Figure 23. Soybean leaf temperature in 2008. Error bars represent the standard error on means of 10
field measurements made inside one plot of each treatment.

25
Leaf temperature (oC)

20

15

10

0
Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control
Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

06/22/09 07/21/09 08/17/09 09/14/09 10/13/09 09/14/09 10/13/09

Oat Clover
Sampling date

Figure 24. Leaf temperature of oats and clover in 2009. Error bars represent the standard error on
means of 25 field measurements made inside one plot of each treatment.

22
 14

12

10
Leaf Brix

0
Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar
Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control
07/28/08 08/27/08 09/17/08 06/22/09 07/21/09 08/17/09 09/14/09 10/13/09

Soybean Oat
Sampling date

Figure 25. Leaf ºBrix readings for soybean in 2008 and oats in 2009. Error bars represent the
standard error on means of 3 field measurements made inside one plot of each treatment for soybean,
and 10 measurements for oats.

Morphological soybean parameters are shown in Figure 26. Above-ground plant height was
greater with biochar addition, but taproot length was less, and total plant length was the same for both
treatments. The number of root nodules was lower when biochar was applied, but this does not appear
to be a significant difference. The number of side branches was not affected by biochar application.
The number of seed pods was lower with biochar, as was the total weight of seed pods on individual
plants. Individual seed pods had a similar weight whether or not biochar had been applied. The
number of seeds per plant was reduced with biochar application, as was the total weight of seed per
plant. The average weight of individual seeds did not vary with treatment, and neither did the average
number of seeds per pod.

23
 50

45

40
35

30
25

20
15
10

5
0
biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar

biochar
control

control

control

control

control

control

control

control

control

control

control

control

control
Plant Lead Total # # side # pods Total pod Avg pod # good Total Avg. wgt Avg # # undevel
height Root plant nodules branches wgt. (g) wgt. (g) seeds wgt. of good seeds/pod seeds
(cm) length length good seed
(cm) (cm) seed

Figure 26. Soybean plant morphological parameters measured in 2008, at crop maturity. Error bars
represent the standard error on means of data from 100 plants taken inside one plot of each treatment.

Figure 27 shows morphological parameters for oats in 2009, at 3 sampling dates. Treatment
differences are more apparent before forage was harvested on 20 August. Before harvest, above-
ground plant height, and root and total plant length were greater with biochar application (see Figs. 27,
28), apparently significantly so except in the case of root length on 17 August. After harvest, only root
length remained greater with biochar. The number of oat seeds per plant as counted on 17 Aug was
slightly greater when biochar was applied, although not significantly so.

24
 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar

Biochar
Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control

Control
Plant Root Total plant Plant Root Total plant # seeds Plant Root Total plant
height length length height length length height length length
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

20-Jul-09 17-Aug-09 28-Sep-09

Figure 27. Oat plant morphological parameters measured in 2009. Plants were mechanically
harvested on 20 August. Error bars represent the standard error on means of data from 32 plants
taken inside one plot of each treatment.

20 July 2009

Figure 28. Oat plants harvested on 20 July 2009 in the control and biochar-amended plot.

25
 In 2009, the analysis of forage (Table 2) shows that crude protein was lower in forage from
biochar amended plots at both sampling dates, although differences were small. The amount of fat,
starch, sugars and ash was slightly lower in forage from biochar-amended plots, as was the content of
Ca, P, K, Mg, Zn, Mn, Cu, Fe, and others, although differences were often very small. The relative
feed value was also lower by 4-10%, and the relative forage quality by 4-13%, when biochar had been
applied. These indices take into account several variables (but not protein or minerals) to give an idea
of the quality of the feed. Relative feed quality relates better to animal performance, as it takes into
account fiber digestibility.

26
Table 2. Near-infrared analysis of forage samples collected in 2009.
1-Aug-09 7-Oct-09
Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar Control Biochar
As Received As Received Dry Matter
Basis Dry Matter Basis Basis Basis
Moisture % 75.54 75.17 0.00 0.00 81.82 81.90 0.00 0.00
Dry Matter % 25.46 24.83 100.00 100.00 18.18 18.10 100.00 100.00
Protein
CRUDE PROTEIN % 3.26 2.80 12.80 11.30 3.02 2.92 16.59 16.13
Acid detergent insoluble crude protein
0.22 0.21 0.88 0.86 0.28 0.26 1.54 1.43
%
Acid detergent insoluble crude protein
8.18 9.27 8.18 9.27 9.30 8.88 9.30 8.88
(%CP) %
AVAILABLE PROTEIN (% CP) 3.26 2.80 12.80 11.30 3.02 2.92 16.59 16.13
SOLUBLE PROTEIN (% CP) 37.49 37.19 37.49 37.19 30.09 30.02 30.09 30.02
DEGRADABLE PROTEIN (% CP) 68.75 68.60 68.75 68.60 65.05 65.01 65.05 65.01
Neutral detergent insoluble crude
0.63 0.60 2.47 2.42 0.79 0.73 4.32 4.01
protein %
Neutral detergent insoluble crude
5.83 6.45 22.90 25.97 4.74 4.50 26.05 24.87
protein (%CP) %
Fiber
ACID DET. FIBER % 8.68 8.63 34.08 34.76 4.81 5.08 26.47 28.08
NEUTRAL DET. FIBER % 14.50 14.52 56.94 58.47 8.08 8.70 44.46 48.04
Digestible neutral detergent fiber % 8.06 7.79 31.67 31.37 4.06 4.15 22.32 22.95
Neutral detergent fiber digestibility
55.62 53.65 55.62 53.65 50.20 47.77 50.20 47.77
(%NDF) %
LIGNIN % 1.46 1.19 5.72 4.80 1.21 1.30 6.65 7.20
LIGNIN (%NDF) % 2.56 2.04 10.04 2.29 2.72 2.71 14.95 14.99
Non-fiber carbohydrate % 5.56 5.90 21.82 23.78 5.99 5.39 32.97 29.76
Non-structural carbohydrate % 2.20 2.08 8.64 8.36 1.97 1.85 10.85 10.23
RELATIVE FEED VALUE (RFV) 102.05 98.10 102.05 98.10 149.55 134.72 149.55 134.72
RELATIVE FORAGE QUALITY
111.99 106.98 111.99 106.98 151.18 131.04 151.18 131.04
(RFQ)
DRY MATTER INTAKE (% BODY
2.40 2.29 2.40 2.29 2.84 2.58 2.84 2.58
WT.)
FAT % 0.56 0.52 2.21 2.09 0.56 0.55 3.07 3.02
STARCH % 0.80 0.75 3.14 3.03 0.74 0.69 4.05 3.79
SUGARS % 1.40 1.32 5.50 5.33 1.24 1.17 6.79 6.44
ASH % 2.73 2.18 10.71 8.77 1.32 1.28 7.24 7.07
Minerals
CALCIUM (Ca) % 0.13 1.12 0.51 0.47 0.17 0.15 0.95 0.80
PHOSPHORUS (P) % 0.07 0.07 0.28 0.26 0.05 0.05 0.29 0.28
POTASSIUM (K) % 0.37 0.30 1.44 1.22 0.23 0.21 1.27 1.16
MAGNESIUM (Mg) % 0.05 0.04 0.18 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.22
SULFUR (S) % 0.04 0.03 0.14 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.20 0.20
CHLORIDE (CL) % 0.55 0.48 2.16 1.92 0.44 0.47 2.42 2.58
SODIUM (NA) % 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05
ZINC (Zn) ppm 12.06 7.20
MANGANESE (Mn) ppm 70.20 56.27

27
 COPPER (Cu) ppm 4.16 3.36
IRON (Fe) ppm 1342.04 877.54
Energy
TDN % (ADF) 15.29 14.72 60.05 59.27 12.49 12.10 68.71 66.87
Net energy lactation, MCAL/KG
0.34 0.33 1.35 1.33 0.28 0.27 1.56 1.52
(ADF)
Net energy maintenance, MCAL/KG
0.33 0.32 1.31 1.29 0.29 0.28 1.59 1.53
(ADF)
Net energy gain, MCAL/KG (ADF) 0.19 0.18 0.74 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.99 0.94
Total digestible nutrients (ruminant) %
57.35 57.41 57.35 57.41 65.40 62.60 65.40 62.60
(WEISS)
Net energy lactation, MCAL/KG
0.33 0.32 1.29 1.29 0.27 0.26 1.49 1.42
(WEISS)
Milk Per Day From Forage (Kg) 4.57 4.09 17.96 16.48 4.03 3.22 22.15 17.81
Milk Per Metric Ton From Forage
346 334 1359 1346 292 269 1606 1484
(Kg/MT)
Milk Per Hectare From Forage*
5428 5245 21318 21124 4581 4215 25199 23287
(Kg/Ha)
Net energy maintenance, MCAL/KG
0.31 0.31 1.22 1.24 0.26 0.25 1.45 1.38
(WEISS)
Net energy gain, MCAL/KG (WEISS) 0.13 0.13 0.50 0.52 0.13 0.12 0.73 0.66
* Calculated on a 15.7 metric ton DM ha basis

Crop yield
In 2008, soybean yield calculated by the harvester was greater by 20% in the biochar-amended
plot, as compared to the control (Table 3). Manually determined plant densities were greater when
biochar had been applied (Table 4).

Table 3. Soybean yield data provided by the harvester.

Parameter Unit Control Biochar
Harvested surface area ac 6.08 0.18
Dry weight lbs 5821 206
Moisture content % 13.8 13.7
Average dry yield lbs/ac 957.4 1144.4
Yield increase with biochar lbs 187.0
Yield increase with biochar % 20

Table 4. Percent increase in soybean plant density with biochar application.

Method Increase with biochar
100 plants on a single row 25%
50 plants on 2 adjacent rows 68%
2
One 4 m quadrat 11%
Average 35%

28
 In order to estimate yield increases from this manually collected data on soya, one can add the
percent differences in plant density (+35%) and total seed weight per plant (-18%), to give an
estimated yield increase of 17% with biochar application.
The number of oat plants, as well as their fresh weight measured on 1 August 2009 in 1 m2
quadrats were more than doubled when biochar was applied (Fig. 29). The total above-ground fresh
biomass of all forage species harvested on 29 September 2009 was also greater where biochar was
applied, although the difference does not appear to be significant (Figs. 30 and 31). Due to problems
with drying the small plants on which individual length measurements were made, air-dried weights of
oat plants are not reported, but plants harvested on 17 August 2009 (just before mechanical harvesting)
had seeds and the dry weight of seeds was greater in plants from the biochar-amended plot (14 g) than
the control (12 g).

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Control Biochar Control Biochar
# oat plants /m2 fresh weight (g)

Figure 29. Number and fresh weight of oat plants in 1m2 quadrats, counted on 1 August 2009. Error
bars represent the standard error on means of data from 3 quadrats taken inside one plot of each
treatment.

1400

1200

1000
Fresh weight (g)

800

600

400

200

0
Control Biochar

29
Figure 30. Above-ground fresh weight of all forage species on 29 September 2009. Error bars
represent the standard error on means of 3 field measurements made inside one plot of each
treatment.

Figure 31. Forage species at sampling on 1 August 2009.

Discussion

Biochar handling losses

Losses of biochar during biochar handling, shipping, storage, application and incorporation
amount to an estimated 30% in this experiment, and occurred as wind-blown dust. Major et al. (2009a)
also inferred losses of biochar of up to 53% after incorporation to soil of a coarser material than that
applied here. They attributed this loss to the lateral transport of biochar which remained on the soil
surface after application, during intense rain events which resulted in the accumulation of free water
on the soil surface. These results indicate the need to develop best management practices to reduce
losses while working with biochar. In this case, moistening the material would likely have reduced
dustiness. Application with a lime spreader required changes to the usual calibration of the equipment,
but resulted in adequate, uniform spreading, as visually observed. It is unclear whether uniformity of
application would have been reduced if the material had been wetted to reduce wind losses.

Crop yield, quality and soil chemical fertility

Crop biomass increases of 17-20% for soybean and 17-99% for forage, and crop density
increases of 11-68% for soybean and 102% for forage were observed, with an estimated biochar
application rate of 3.9 t/ha. Very few data are available on the performance of biochar applied to
temperate field soils. Laird et al. (2009) applied 4.4 and 8.2 ton/ac (9.8 and 18.4 t/ha, respectively) of
biochar to a fertile central Iowa soil, and observed a significant increase in maize population density of
15% in the first year after application, and a non-significant increase of 1.5% in the second year. No
differences were observed between the two biochar application rates. Maize yields were significantly
improved by 4% the first year after application, and again biochar application rate did not have an
effect. Yields in the control were approximately 11 t/ha, which is very high compared to yields in
other regions. Thus, results similar to those we observed here were obtained with more than doubled
application rates in Iowa. In tropical soils, yield increases tend to be higher, due to the lower fertility

30
of soils. With an application rate of 4 t/ha, Asai et al. (2009) found a doubling in rice yield at one of
their study locations. Using higher biochar application rates, yield increases of up to over 300% have
been reported on poor tropical soils (Blackwell et al., 2009).
For soybean in 2008, yield increases arose from greater plant density, and not greater seed
biomass per plant. This is consistent with the results from Laird et al. (2009), where differences in
crop population density were greater than differences in crop yield. However in oats, both population
density, plant fresh weight and seed air-dry weight were greater with biochar application. Crop height
in both soybean and oats was greater with biochar application, although root length was greater in oats
but not soybean. This resulted in a greater shoot to root ratio with biochar application in soybean, and
Rondon et al. (2007) made a similar observation with common beans.
Root nodulation in soybean was lower, as were seed yield of individual soybean plants and the
protein content in the forage when biochar was applied, indicating possible inorganic N limitation in
soil. Nitrate-N availability did not show trends (2008) or was reduced with biochar (2009). Greater
plant uptake is not likely and ammonium-N availability was greater when biochar was applied. Thus it
is possible that nitrification was impeded with biochar application. This could be related to the very
wet conditions which prevailed in 2009. Biochar has been shown to increase nitrification in forest soils
where nitrification is often inhibited by the presence of phenolic compounds, for example, but this is
not the case in agricultural soils (DeLuca et al., 2006). Greater losses of nitrate-N by leaching are
unlikely (Major, 2009; Major et al., 2009b).
Calcium availability was reduced with biochar application and K and Mg availability was
generally greater with biochar. However, forage analysis showed slightly lower contents of Ca, K and
Mg in plants grown with biochar. This is likely due to the fact that these cations are not expected to be
limiting at this pH, so greater availability did not lead to greater uptake. Availability of Mn was greater
in the control plot and this is inconsistent with the observed increase in pH in the control, as reported
from one laboratory. Total and available P were both lower when biochar had been applied.
Mechanisms for this are unclear. Phosphorus availability is not expected to impact crop yield in this
soil, since it is considered to be P-saturated (Pautler and Sims, 2000). A reduction in total P must result
from a net export of P from the system. Crop uptake could explain this, however lower total P with
biochar was observed from the first sampling date in 2008, when soybean plants were one month old.
Such a rapid effect of biochar on total P must be investigated further, since it is also unlikely that
surface runoff losses would produce such a rapid decrease. Lower P availability with biochar
application is consistent with lower pH in this treatment, as determined by one of the laboratories.
The mechanism underlying the yield increases observed here remain unclear. Greater percent
root colonization by endomycorrhizal fungi with biochar measured in 2009 may have improved zinc
(Zn) availability, for example (no data on soil available zinc was obtained). At this soil’s pH, Zn
availability is low.
The forage analysis in 2009 shows that sugar content was slightly lower when biochar had
been applied, and trends in ºBrix readings of field plant leaves were unclear for both crops. This is
consistent with the slightly lower relative feed quality calculated from forage analysis data.

Biochar effects on soil organisms

The active bacterial biomass was usually similar or slightly higher where biochar had been
applied compared with the control (Fig. 23b), and fungal biomass was not different. This is consistent
with the similar lack of clear trends in respiration of field-moist or rewetted soil. Others also observed
no increased soil respiration with biochar addition, in laboratory incubations (Bruun et al., 2009;

31
Kuzyakov et al., 2009; Spokas et al., 2009). Also in the field, Major et al. (2009a) found greater
respiration when biochar was applied, but attributed the difference to greater plant productivity where
biochar had been applied. However, differences in plant productivity were much greater than in this
experiment.
Biochar has been suggested to provide a substrate for soil microbiota to colonize, while being
protected from predators (Warnock et al., 2007; Thies and Rillig, 2009). In this study, fungal and
bacterial biomass was similar or slightly greater with biochar application as compared to the control,
while the number of nematodes, and specifically bacterial and fungal feeders, was also greater. This is
in agreement with the “refugia” hypothesis. The cause of the “spike” observed on 22 June 2009 for
some microorganisms is unclear.

Biochar effects on soil C

Organic matter was measured by loss on ignition at 550ºC in air. At this temperature, not all of
the biochar material is expected to be lost, thus resulting in an underestimation of the organic matter
content in the biochar-amended plot. Total C was not measured as greater in the biochar-amended plot,
indicating that the application rate of approximately 3.9 t/ha did not yield any measurable differences
in soil C content. This has important implications for potential C offset trading using biochar
technology.

Biochar effect on soil physical properties

Soil bulk density was greater when biochar had been applied, contrarily to what would be
expected both from biochar application to a clay loam and greater earthworm density. In this clay loam
soil, effects of biochar on soil moisture retention are expected to be modest or absent (Tryon, 1948;
Major, 2009), contrarily to loam and sandy soils (Tryon, 1948; Chan et al., 2007; Novak et al., 2009).
Indeed soil moisture measured over two years did not show any trends between treatments, and oat
leaf temperature in 2009 did not differ either. Soybean leaf temperature in 2008 was slightly lower
when biochar had been applied, indicating that in that year biochar might have improved the
availability of water, which is lower for a given water content in clay as opposed to sandy soils. More
studies are however needed to confirm this. Surface soil infiltration was improved considerably where
biochar was applied, as also shown by others (Asai et al., 2009; Major, 2009). While biochar reduced
the tensile strength (ease of penetration) of an Australian hard-setting soil (Chan et al., 2007), no effect
was observed here.
Contrarily to concerns which have been voiced that soil application of biochar could
potentially reduce the albedo (reflectivity) of soils, causing them to absorb more heat from the sun,
thus aggravating global warming, no clear trends in soil temperature were observed here over two
years. Soil temperature was actually lower when biochar had been applied, on several occasions.

Conclusions

Biochar was successfully applied using a commercial lime spreader, although wind losses of
the fine material were large and best management techniques, such as wetting the material prior to
handling, must be developed. Soybean and forage yields were improved, although forage quality was
slightly lower when biochar was applied. In the case of soybeans, the yield increase was brought about

32
by greater plant population density, and not greater seed production per plant. Available soil nutrient
availability data does not allow the explanation of observed yield increases. Biochar reduced total soil
P content, and this requires further investigation given that this soil is considered P-saturated and P
management is critical in this ecosystem. The application of approximately 3.9 t biochar/ha did not
produce measurable increases in total soil C or soil respiration. It must be kept in mind that statistical
analyses could not performed due to the lack of randomization and replication, thus these data must be
considered preliminary and further field studies are required to fully understand the effects of biochar
application on soils of this temperate region. The application rate used here was also low and greater
rates along with different biochar materials must be tested.

33
References

Asai, H., Samson, B.K., Stephan, H.M., Songyikhangsuthor, K., Homma, K., Kiyono, Y., Inoue, Y.,
Shiraiwa, T., Horie, T., 2009. Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice production in
Northern Laos 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field Crops Research
111, 81-84.
Blackwell, P., Riethmuller, G., Collins, M., 2009. Biochar Application to Soil (Chapter 12). In:
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and
Technology. Earthscan, London, UK, p. 207.
Bruun, S., El-Zahery, T., Jensen, L., 2009. Carbon sequestration with biochar - stability and effect on
decomposition of soil organic matter. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
Science 6, doi:10.1088/1755-1307/1086/1084/242010.
Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A., Joseph, S., 2007. Agronomic values of
greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment. Australian Journal of Soil Research 45, 629.
DeLuca, T.H., MacKenzie, M.D., Gundale, M.J., Holben, W.E., 2006. Wildfire-produced charcoal
directly influences nitrogen cycling in ponderosa pine forests. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 70, 448.
Kuzyakov, Y., Subbotina, I., Chen, H.Q., Bogomolova, I., Xu, X.L., 2009. Black carbon
decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by C-14 labeling. Soil
Biology & Biochemistry 41, 210-219.
Laird, D.A., 2008. The charcoal vision: A win-win-win scenario for simultaneously producing
bioenergy, permanently sequestering carbon, while improving soil and water quality.
Agronomy Journal 100, 178.
Laird, D., Felming, P., Wang, B., Karlen, D. 2009. Impact of Biochar Amendments on Soil Quality for
a Typical Midwestern Agricultural Soil. Talk given at the North American Biochar
Conference, August 9-12 2009, Boulder, CO USA.
Lehmann, J., 2007. A handful of carbon. Nature 447, 143.
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology.
Earthscan, London, UK.
Lehmann, J., Rondon, M., 2006. Bio-Char soil management on highly weathered soils in the humid
tropics. In: Uphoff, N.T., Ball, A.S., Fernandes, E., Herren, H., Husson, H., Laing, M., Palm,
C., Pretty, J., Sanchez, P., Sanginga, N., Thies, J. (Eds.), Biological Approaches to Sustainable
Soil Systems. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton FL, p. 517.
Major, J., 2009. Biochar application to a Colombia savanna Oxisol: fate and effect on soil fertility,
crop production, nutrient leching and soil hydrology. Department of Crop and Soil Siences.
Cornell University, Ithaca NY USA, p. 841.
Major, J., Lehmann, J., Rondon, M., Goodale, C., 2009a. Fate of soil-applied black carbon: downward
migration, leaching and soil respiration. Global Change Biol., doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2009.02044.x.
Major, J., Steiner, C., Downie, A., Lehmann, J., 2009b. Biochar Effects on Nutrient Leaching (Chapter
15). In: Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and
Technology. Earthscan, London, UK, p. 271.
Novak, J.M., Lima, I.M., Xing, B., Gaskin, J.W., Steiner, C., Das, K.C., Ahmedna, M., Rehrah, D.,
Watts, D.W., Busscher, W.J., Schomberg, H., 2009. Charcaterization of designer biochar
produced at different temperatures and their effects on a loamy sand. Annals of Environmental
Science 3, 195-206.

34
Pautler, M.C., Sims, T., 2000. Relationships between soil test phosphorus, soluble phosphorus,
and phosphorus saturation in Delaware soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64: 765-
773.
Rondon, M.A., Lehmann, J., Ramirez, J., Hurtado, M., 2007. Biological nitrogen fixation by common
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biology and Fertility of Soils
43, 699.
Spokas, K.A., Koskinen, W.C., Baker, J.M., Reicosky, D.C., 2009. Impacts of woodchip biochar
additions on greenhouse gas production and sorption/degradation of two herbicides in a
Minnesota soil. Chemosphere 77, 574-581.
Thies, J.E., Rillig, M.C., 2009. Characteristics of Biochar - Biological Properties (Chapter 6). In:
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and
Technology. Earthscan, London, UK, p. 85.
Tryon, E.H., 1948. Effect of Charcoal on Certain Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties of
Forest Soils. Ecol.Monogr. 18, 81.
USDA, 1999. Soil Quality Test Kit Guide. Available at
http://soils.usda.gov/SQI/assessment/files/test_kit_complete.pdf. Last accessed on 22 January
2010.
Warnock, D.D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T.W., Rillig, M.C., 2007. Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in
soil - concepts and mechanisms. Plant and Soil 300, 9.

35