Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The ancient inhabitants of Amazonia knew how to keep fragile soils fertile—and may have hit upon a way to combat present-day climate change. That technique? Biochar, or any plant or animal waste turned to charcoal and put back into the ground.
Studies suggest as much as 900 million metric tons of carbon a year could be locked up this way—and improve the soil's ability to grow crops as well. That's nearly 20 percent of current CO2 emissions as a result of burning fossil fuels.
And a new study shows that biochar could have an impact on agriculture's other greenhouse gas emission: nitrous oxide, or laughing gas, which is no laughing matter when it comes to climate change. Biochar applied to Australian fields and left for a number of months cut such emissions by more than 70 percent, as well as preventing nitrogen and ammonia from leaching out of the soil in water. Such fertilizer leaching is responsible for dead zones across the world, like the one at the mouth of the Mississippi River currently.
Of course, biochar is no panacea, despite fans like Richard Branson. Some studies suggest biochar can accelerate microbes degrading organic matter into dread CO2 in places like the boreal forests of the northern hemisphere. But perhaps charcoal is better in soil than burned as fuel for barbecues. The terra preta soils of Brazil are still being farmed, centuries after the biochar was added.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentFinally some good news. I am going to try this out asap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the connection between carbon and climate is not fully understood as to just how great its impact might be (certainly it is part of the system but its ability to directly drive catastrophic climate change is not certain and I think unlikely),never the less, the capability for biochar to turn nutrient depleted soils into productive soils due to charcoals capacity to support micro-organism which in turn facilitate root systems ability to access nutrients is why the idea of the Amazon being a 'sterile paradise' is a modern scientific myth that had been foisted onto our modern perceptions, with the result of our modern view's failure to understand how the once numerous populations of Amazonia had managed to turn what we think of a pristine wilderness into what had been for hundreds if not thousands of years a permanent culture of productive trees, plants and fish ponds as archaeology is showing that it was prior to the introduction of European diseases and the subsequent annihilation of Amazonia's once vast populations. If for not other reason than it offers an alternative to the kind of resource management and extraction that is currently going on in the Amazonian Basin, it is worth supporting whole heartedly. I hope that the indigenous remnants of the once numerous Amazonians will one day be able to reclaim something of their ancestral rights to their land by rediscovering the remarkable technology that has been so long misunderstood and overlooked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid: Another nice "minute". Thanks for keeping Biochar in front of people. Two small quibbles:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa. I see no reason that 900 megatonnes of carbon should be our upper limit. Recently deceased Peter Read has argued for ten times as much. b. The next to last link to Dr. Wardle's concern about carbon release has not only not been replicated, but it has been refuted. See
http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI-RS-carbon-loss-2-Apr-2010.pdf (by Julie Major),
and response to question 8 at:
http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Biochar%20Misconceptions%20and%20the%20Science.pdf
Ron
Again thanks.
Yikes... doug. Can we say run-on? ;-) 169 wonds in that sentence!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust giving you a hard time. I like complicated sentences.
I wonder what unscientific comprehensive understanding of their environment led the ancient Amazonians to develop this non-intuitive method or resource management? If we could only achieve such brilliance!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiochar is a low-tech, high-value, low-cost sustainable system for increasing agricultural productivity, generating power, reducing waste and sequestering vast amounts of carbon. It's a carbon-negative system if properly engineered. We really need to be firing this up globally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee my post on biochar at the climate change blog of the Foreign Policy Association as well as my article at Grist: http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/08/13/biochar-on-grist/ and http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-13-ag-boosters-tout-biochar-as-offset-enhancer/
Doesn't charcoal itself often contain containments which can often leach out metals into groundwater? Don't trust this claim without a lot of careful research by those who aren't trying to sell you the latest snake oil products.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, in the long run, the final arbiter / accountancy / measure of sustainability will be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissoil carbon content. Once this royal road is constructed, traffic cops ( Carbon Board ) in place, the truth of land-management and Biochar systems will be self-evident.
A dream I've had for years is to base the coming carbon economy firmly on the foundation of top soils. My read of the agronomic history of civilization shows that the Kayopo Amazon Indians and the Egyptians were the only ones to maintain fertility for the long haul, millennium scales. Egypt has now forsaken their geologic advantage by building the Aswan dam, and are stuck, with the rest of us, in the soil C mining, NPK rat race to the bottom. The meta-analysis of Syn-N and soil Carbon content show our dilemma;
https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/articles/38/6/2295
The Ag Soil Carbon standard is in final review by the AMS branch at USDA.
Read over the work so far;
http://www.novecta.com/documents/Carbon-Standard.pdf
In my efforts to have Biochar's potential included, I have recruited several to join the list, briefed the entire committee about char when issues concerning N2O & CH4 soil GHG emissions were raised, fully briefed a couple of the 100 members when they replied individually to my "Reply all" briefs. The members cover the full spectrum of Ag interest.
Agriculture allowed our cultural accent and Agriculture will now prevent our descent.
Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,
Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= to 1 Ton CO2e) + Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1MWh exported electricity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.
Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
"Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes;
"Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !".
Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
Microbes like to sit down when they eat.
By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders & Kingdoms of life.
an overview of biochar and its benefits, applying it to the US context;
US -Focused Biochar report: Assessment of Biochar's Benefits for the USA http://www.biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/biochar_report_lowres.pdf
I wonder if there is a way to make this information known to the general public on a large scale, and what sort of system could be set up to exploit it. I know a lot of people like to have bonfires at the beach, maybe the local authorities could come by each morning and collect the ash/charcoal, package it and sell it to local garden stores.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToxic substances in charcoal: could be, but that depends on the starting material. Petroleum or coal coke will have some heavy metals, aromatics, and that might be what's in that bag you buy for your barbecue. But char made from household garbage or lumber waste should be OK. So as to trying this out at home, be sure the charcoal is wood-based. I suppose most of it is made from sawmill waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome stable aromatic compounds (e.g. dioxanes) might survive the char-forming process, so some research into the presence and fate of such stuff would be comforting.
Likewise, where there's life, there's phosphorous, and where there's phosphorous there's some arsenic. Not a problem for the folk in the Amazon, because they were just recycling the trivial amount that was already there, but another item to track if bringing char into the local system.
No snide comments about "non-scientific" Amazonians, please. They obviously made observations, tried some experiments and applied the results. Do we do more?
This might also deal with our garbage problem. These days, the people who deal with trash pickup want you to run garbage through a kitchen disposer, while to managers of the sewage plant may consider that an unecessary oxydemand on their plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn energy-efficient way to convert that, and even waste paper, into char might be a third way.
Hey jtdwyer...rather than "unscientific comprensive understanding" , I'd guess it was plain old trial and error or simple luck, like many early discoveries. I'd favor the modern approach every time... as evidenced by the huge number of amazing advancements happening now on an almost daily basis, verses the slow slow pace of discovery prior to the age of the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiochar can have a roll to play short term by providing a heat source (making charcoal is exothermic) and long term as way to re-sequester the carbon that we have released from fossil fuels. Ultimately, we need to progress to a more sustainable, balanced way of using our planet's resources. "Modern" agriculture much move away from it's dependence on fossil fuels and petrochemicals return to building the fertility of the soil. That addresses both the soil fertility problem as well as that of chemical leaching.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need desperately to take action now to reduce our use of fossil fuels. While many of our first steps will be imperfect and not ultimately sustainable, we need to take them. We must take positive action to move forward, monitoring as we go so we can understand the downstream consequences of our steps.
It is time to change for passively studying the problem and wringing our hands to actively engaging.
tharriss - That's one guess. I'd guess that the Amazonians had developed a much more comprehensive understanding of their local environment than even current residents of the region have, including the residual knowledge of the affects of diverse chemicals that has been passed down to the surviving indigenous culture. You know, I'd bet they were just as intelligent as we are, and in some ways more knowledgeable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI bet the development of curare formulations probably involved some careful methods of experimentation beyond the trial stage that might have led monkeys to avoid its primary components.
Bio-char is just a better than an old farming custom, slash and burn the forest, releasing the nutrients from the forest growth into the soil to grow crops. But this normally only lasted a few yrs until the ground was exhausted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat they probably did was bring biomass from other areas, burned it to revive the soil.
But a better way is crop rotation like growing beans after growing corn. This not only let the beans fertilize the next corn crop but also broke the corn, ect pest cycle as the bugs, ect that ate the corn staved, died.
I can see how biochar would be very good but only if included with other good farming practices. The Char seems to not only add nutrients but hold onto moisture, give good good bugs a place to grow, ect. That is fixes carbon is a bonus.
I think all biomass burning, yard, ect wastes along with most animal, human wastes should be returned to the soil as they are the natural fertilizers needed if done right, greatly reducing if not eliminating chemical/petro fertilizers. Not to mention cutting the pollution from them not doing it this way.
Farming needs to be a combo of plant//animal with RE production done locally is by far the best way in most cases. It would take far less oil/energy, in fact make much more energy that it takes, while producing local food and jobs too. But big Ag/oil/coal doesn't want that to happen so don't hold your breath.
The terra preta soils of Brazil so briefly mentioned apparently have some particular attributes that have not been reproduced by any modern formulation. Its benefits apparently cannot be so easily imparted to biochar, as seems to be implied by many of the articles linked above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the journalistic interest of 60-second Earth about *terra preta* is much more related with ecological concerns than with farming production! Its it! I think so!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiochar is only going to help us cut CO2 in the atmosphere if we at the same time adopt near-zero CO2 plans, some of which have been around for 25 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf enough scientific proof exists how about suggestions for individual action. I.e how do I do this in my yard, garden. How can a city or landscaping company go about adding charcoal, in what form and how much to landscaping projects. Yes, you are thinking in much bigger increments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut why not provide information for people willing to start building hope in very small increments?.
Would like to see suggestions as to how individuals and/or small groups, cities, gardening clubs, landscaping companioes etc. could act on this information. Yes, I know you are looking for big, commercial application, But individual use is a start and could help to work the information into general use/acceptance. Don't underestimate the enthusiasm and chattiness of the gardeners of the world!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo just where do we get all this "bio" from that we're going to burn (char)? Cut down the forests as is done presently for BBQ charcoal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this