In a very positive development for biochar stakeholders, a Biochar Characterization Standard Working Group is being convened by the International Biochar Initiative.

All of us working with biochar recognize this as a critically important issue.  One is left to wonder how much more effective recent federal research would have been if it had included a robust characterization of the biochar stock provided by the fast pyrolysis industries.

That research often does a poor job in controlling for the liming effect of the biochar.  How much of a boost to productivity would you get with just the liming effect absent the charcoal?  This clearly matters and, as I have shared with some of the Working Group members, I would like to see acid neutralizing potential or ANP ( in units of calcium carbonate equivalent or CCE) be at least considered as a labeling requirement. Other aspects are more critical, but even a coarse rating of low-med-high ANP would be very useful. Acid neutralizing potential is usually low in biochar, between 1 and 2% CCE. On the other hand, some biochar stocks can have substantial ANP above 20% and as a consequence could alter forested soil ecology in unintended ways. Out here in the inland Western US and Canada, our soils are less acidic than in the East, thus the same ANP application basis that will have no discernible effect on soil pH in the East, could move our soils from pH 7 to 8. That concern is what keeps Avista’s Kettle Falls mill-waste-to-energy, high carbon, ash going into a private landfill rather than beneficially reused on our forests here, whereas ash application is accepted practice in the Eastern states. Personally, I think the Kettle Falls material could, and should, be land applied. Its just a matter of finding the appropriate site conditions.

The idea of using biochar to enhance urban soils came on strong last week at the Sustainable Sites Symposium in Chicago. The quality of a landscape depends largely on the quality of its soils. Root invigoration research indicates a tree given a more productive enviroment doesn’t need as many roots to thrive. This can have huge implications for urban forestry. Biochar can help support a larger and more vigorous urban canopy. However biochar effects are complex, affected by source, pyrolysis process, and site dynamics.  There is little research to support urban use of biochar, but the value of potential soil health improvements assures eventual study. Symposium attendee Christine Esposito reports that the City of Chicago is receptive to making sites available to study biochar in urban soils. I am thinking Lopa Brunjes could use this story to good effect in her February biochar presentation to TED.