Well, so much of the wood I burn is not well seasoned that my ashes are loaded with biochar. Who knows, that may be one reason why almost everything grows so well in my soil- although for vegetables it is not quite as productive as a true clay-loam bottom land type soil. It is almost perfect for fruit trees, though.
1 Like
@alan, I suspect it is the ash content - not the biochar that boosts the performance in your fruit trees.
Richard, if youād read my posts youād see I pretty much stated that. I suspect it just as you do and share your general skepticism- agree with everything youāve posted here.
@alan I apologize. I read what you wrote and misunderstood it. I thought you meant ābiochar mixed in with your ashā. My thought was that when mixed in with mulch above root areas, the potash content of the ash will be available to plants within 3-6 months whereas the biochar is likely to have negligible benefit in your soils.
Iām seeing posts that talk about regular fire ash and biochar and the two seem to be conflated to some degree. There are clearly nutrients in regular ash created when wood or other biomass is burned. It is my understanding that in a normal fire, if everything is consumed, you end up with ash. Biochar, as I understand it needs oxygen depravation. The organic matter is burned off and the structure remains. Iāve seen some SEM pictures and the surface area is amazing. I donāt think the main purpose is the nutrients remaining in the biochar. I think the main purpose is the structure that holds nutirents and creates areas fro microorganisms to thrive. Based only on reading, I kind of think of it as a sponge. Richard made the comment that it can make N less available to plants in some studies. I think the idea is to saturate the sponge with nutrients and then incorporate it distributed through the soil. Once incorporated, the idea is that as nutrients are cycled, more are retained at root level and available to plants. I believe that is why it needs to be charged with something like compost. Nutrients that would otherwise volatize are absorbed and microorganisms find a new home and multiply in the biochar.
The best I can tell soils that retain nutrients well already and have plenty of OM can be hurt more by tillage of incorporating biochar than they benefit since they already retain nutrients well. Soils that donāt retain nutrients well at root level (high clay or sand verses loam) benefit the most.
I think one would need commercial level quantities for any kind of wide spread application. That is what is driving me to looking at this for fruit trees. The amount needed would be relatively small and I could make it myself.
Iāve seen TLUD (top lit updraft) kilns easily built out of 55 gal drums. . This would probably suffice for a few cubic feet. As I understand it, it is possible to get to hot in a commercial kiln, but in a back yard TLUD, you really canāt get too hot.
Again, please take all this with a grain of salt. It comes from studies and literature Iāve read, not from personal experience (which is why Iāve come here with the topic). It is pretty hard to draw conclusions from most of the studies because biochar is so variable based on the biomass selected, the commercial process, and the way it is charged.
Iām still mulling this over and looking for folks who have tried itā¦
No problem Richard, Iām not that thin skinned and appreciate your many contributions to this forum.
Forestfarm, are those creative suggestions or theories based on research? Has anyone actually tested biochar to see how stable is the calcium in it and anything else it might contain? Essentially taken a quantity of it and soaked it in water and then tested the water after testing it originally for any change in mineral content? Or better yet, placed it in a soil that has been tested for nutrients, let it sit for a season and then test the soil again.
Alan,
I wasnāt making suggestions or proposing theories, I was seeking information and passing on the little bit Iāve read on the subject. As I said in the previous post, I donāt think it is the mineral content that is of interest. That comes primarily from what you charge it with. It is the structure that seems to be beneficial. And yes, there are a number of studies out there. Richard posted a few links. I also saw a Virginia Tech study that looked promising.
I was hoping some folks who are growing fruit trees from seed had tired it in backyard orchards and stuff. As Richard said, many of the studies I looked at were performed in the tropics on different soils (that is why the local VT study interested me).
Iām not trying to promote it. Like Richard, Iām pretty skeptical by nature and I donāt see it as miracle cure. Most magic beans are just that. There is enough technical data to suggest it is worth a hard look in some soils. As I said in a previous post, I donāt have the soil science background to evaluate it and I was hoping some folks with soils similar to mine had played with it.
As others have said, I want to learn from the experience of others before I go to the effort of trying it.
And I was only curious if youād seen studies that took the factors I mentioned into account. Iām curious, but not enough to go on a blind search- just looking for some time saving guidance.
Alan,
I have not seen studies aimed at nutrient content of biochar. The studies I saw focused on the impact charged biochar had on plants. As I said, the advocacy for biochar I saw was not making claims about any intrinsic nutrients but focused on its ability to help retrain nutrients in soil that donāt do so naturally.
These studies are currently behind āpay wallsā. If you have an account at a University library then you can search for and read them. Otherwise, a standard internet search is of little use.
Yeah, I joined the International Society of Horticulture for a while to get access to certain studies about growing fruit. Often you can pay to get access to a single study and such studies are sometimes released into the internet for free access but a lot of recent stuff is not available for free to the public.
It is interesting how we now feel entitled to free information. Universities used to be the gate keepers and run the toll booths for most of it.
Information costs a lot to produce- professional labor being a big part of that cost.
1 Like
Wow, organized crime is everywhere! 
1 Like
Well I wouldnāt mind having free beer too, but the fact is that the people who make it expect to be compensated for time and materials.
It was a joke, here professional labor has a different meaning.
1 Like
As far as the cost of these studies, they are a little over-priced. Maybe if the University gave these guys salariesā¦oh wait they do! Oh, itās my tax dollar paying for the research and they have the nerve to charge me? Why the joke was funny, as the difference is petite! I think they should charge, but like maybe 50 cents? Iāll buy a few novels instead. They are making a thousand percent more than Stephan King makes off each book. Well maybe not, but they are outrageous in price.
Seems most professionals can access for free, but the normal Joe pays for it. Much like all taxes.
In the U.S., most professionals are in private businesses and corporations who do pay annual fees for access. Considering the labor that goes into reviewing and producing the journals, we think that the price is a bargain.
Well I guess we have to agree to disagree, as I see it as a total ripoff.
Some organizations are decent, charge little or grant limited access. Not all are bad. If I could justify the expense, but I cannot. I would rather buy toys for my kids.
What the info offers me is not worth the price.
Very true for you. An adage from my childhood: If you donāt need a blender, donāt buy one!
For peer reviewed articles, the reviewers (or their institutions) are typically paid from $50 to $250 depending on the scope of the article and journal. There are multiple reviewers per article so just in fees alone thatās anywhere from $150 to $1500 per article. As a private professional who depends peer reviewed publications, paying the average cost of one article as the total price per year for all journals and articles to a university library is a bargain. For science and engineering based corporations, their annual fees for subscriptions is almost insignificant compared to their cost for other licensing ā for example a site license for analytic software is about $40,000 per month for a corporation with 500 or so professional employees.
Yeah The software license fees are really too much. You know a good database programmer could make any of the junk they sell as software.
I have dealt with this, and fees for my own professional journals, but it is cheap compared to this stuff. Most of the time, my employer paid for the continuing education and journal costs. I donāt miss keeping up on clinical pathology. Often cost factors make it impossible to use the best equipment in a clinical setting. Very frustrating to work with crap. Bean counters make those decisions, not medical professionals. They expect a certain result but are not willing to pay for what it would take to achieve such results. Prices are usually set indirectly by the government, so the system is broken big time. Fixed pricing will never work. I am so glad to be out of it, now to get the wife out as the same thing is happening in nursing.
LOL!