Use of Biochar for Soil Health Management and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in India: Potential and constraints

Full text

Use of Biochar for
Soil Health Enhancement and
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in India:
Ch. Srinivasarao, K.A. Gopinath, G. Venkatesh, A.K. Dubey, Harsha Wakudkar,
T.J. Purakayastha, H. Pathak, Pramod Jha, B.L. Lakaria, D.J. Rajkhowa,
Sandip Mandal, S. Jeyaraman, B. Venkateswarlu and A.K. Sikka
Potential and Constraints
National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture
Hyderabad
NICRA Bulletin 1/2013

Use of Biochar for Soil Health Enhancement
and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in India:
Potential and Constraints
Ch. Srinivasarao, K.A. Gopinath, G. Venkatesh,
A.K. Dubey, Harsha Wakudkar, T.J. Purakayastha, H. Pathak,
Pramod Jha, B.L. Lakaria, D.J. Rajkhowa, Sandip Mandal,
S. Jeyaraman, B. Venkateswarlu and A.K. Sikka
Partners
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi
Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam, Meghalaya
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture
Hyderabad

Citation:
Ch. Srinivasarao, Gopinath, K.A., Venkatesh, G., Dubey, A.K., Harsha Wakudkar,
Purakayastha, T.J., Pathak, H., Pramod Jha, Lakaria, B.L., Rajkhowa, D.J., Sandip
Mandal, Jeyaraman, S., Venkateswarlu, B. and Sikka, A.K. 2013. Use of biochar for
soil health management and greenhouse gas mitigation in India: Potential and
constraints, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh. 51p.
June, 2013
No. of copies : 500
Published by:
The Director
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture
Santoshnagar, Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh, India.
Email: director@crida.in
Website : http://nicra-icar.in
Printed at:
Venu Enterprises
Vanasthalipuram, Hyd-70
Mob.: 99492 36019
venuenterprises2010@gmail.com

FOREWORD
Climate change is threatening food security globally. Countries like India are more
vulnerable in view of the tropical monsoon climate and poor coping capacity of the
small and marginal farmers. Several agricultural practices like indiscriminate use
of agro-chemicals and crop residue burning contribute to emission of greenhouse
gasses leading to warming of the atmosphere. Sequestration of carbon both in the
vegetation and soil is the most effective means of mitigating GHG emissions. There
are several strategies of soil carbon sequestration which can be adopted at farm
level. These include: conservation agriculture, biomass recycling, crop rotations
and use of organic amendments. One of the recent developments is the conversion
of crop residue biomass into biochar and using the char as a soil amendment rather
than directly using the crop residues. Several studies show that biochar has a long
life in soil and is more effective in sequestering carbon besides improving other soil
properties like water holding capacity and nutrient availability.
In Indian conditions, there is an immense scope for converting millions of tonnes
of crop residues which are not used as fodder into biochar and use the same for
enriching soil carbon. Research program has been initiated under NICRA by
different partner institutions on production of biochar, its characterization and the
benefits of its application to field crops. However, this being a new subject, there
is a need for a bulletin to discuss various issues related to production and use of
biochar.
I am happy to note that various institutions of the NARS under the NICRA umbrella
have collectively brought out this practical bulletin on biochar. This bulletin
provides lucid information on various aspects related to biochar production and its
application in agriculture and identifies some future researchable issues. I am sure
this bulletin will be highly useful to all the researchers involved in use of biochar in
agriculture. I complement the authors for this unique effort.
B.VENKATESWARLU

PREFACE
It is crucial to maintain a threshold level of organic matter in the soil for
maintaining physical, chemical and biological integrity of the soil and for sustained
agricultural productivity. Efficient use of biomass by converting it as a useful source
of soil amendment/nutrients is one way to manage soil health and fertility. The
current availability of biomass in India is estimated at about 500 million tons/year.
These residues are either partially utilized or un-utilized due to various constraints.
It is estimated that about 93 million tons of crop residues are burned in each year
in India. Residue burning traditionally provides a fast way to clear the agricultural
field of residual biomass, facilitating further land preparation and planting. How-
ever, in addition to loss of valuable biomass and nutrients, biomass burning leads to
release of toxic gases including GHGs. In this context, biochar, a pyrolysis product
of plant biomass offers a significant, multidimensional opportunity to transform
large scale agricultural waste streams from a financial and environmental liability
to valuable assets. Use of biochar in agricultural systems is one viable option that
can enhance natural rates of carbon sequestration in the soil, reduce farm waste
and improve the soil quality.
Biochar has the potential to increase conventional agricultural productiv-
ity and mitigate GHG emissions from agricultural soils. This has led to renewed
interest of agricultural researchers to produce biochar from bioresidues and its use
as a soil amendment. Although many countries have prioritized the use of biochar
in agricultural systems, studies on biochar production and its utilization as a soil
amendment are at a nascent stage in India. In addition to public organizations,
many private institutes and NGOs have initiated work on these lines. This bulletin
documents the initial outcomes of biochar research being conducted in different
parts of the country, and potential benefits of biochar use in improving soil health,
crop productivity and in mitigating climate change through reduction in emission
of GHGs and carbon sequestration. We firmly believe that this publication will be
very useful for researchers, academicians, policy makers and students.
- Authors

CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What is biochar? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Preparation of biochar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Heap method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Drum method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Biochar stove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Characteristics of biochar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Physical characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chemical characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Biochar for climate change mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Biochar as soil amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Method of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Rate of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Soil quality and fertility improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Carrier for inoculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Crop productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Critical factors for maximizing the benefits from biochar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Quality of feedstock biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Optimum temperature for biochar production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Soil carbon level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Soil types and soil moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Soil pH and soil contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Implications of biochar use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Economic implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Environmental implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Potential of biochar use in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Constraints of biochar use in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Future research, development and policy needs for promoting use of biochar . . . . . 39
Research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Development needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Policy needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

1
Use of Biochar for Soil Health Enhancement
and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in India:
Potential and Constraints
Introduction
Agricultural waste is usually handled as a liability, often because the means to transform
it into an asset is lacking. Crop residues in fields can cause considerable crop management
problems as they accumulate. The major crop residues produced in India are straws of
paddy, wheat, millet, sorghum, pulses (pigeonpea), oilseed crops (castor, mustrad),
maize stover and cobs, cotton and jute sticks, sugarcane trash, leaves, fibrous materials,
roots, branches and twigs of varying sizes, shapes, forms and densities. Similarly, the
agro-industrial residues are rice husk, groundnut shell, cotton waste, coconut shell, coir
pith, tamarind shell, mustard husk, coffee husk, cassava peels etc. Some of the common
agricultural by-products available in large quantities include bagasse, rice husk, groundnut
shell, tea waste, casuarina leaf litter, silk cotton shell, cotton waste, oil palm fibre and shells,
cashew nut shell, coconut shell, coir pith etc. (Sugumaran and Sheshadri, 2009).
In India, about 435.98 million tons of agro-residues are produced every year, out of which
313.62 million tons are surplus. These residues are either partially utilized or un-utilized
due to various constraints (Murali et al., 2010). Similarly, using different residue to produce
ratio values, Koopmans and Koppejan (1997) estimated that about 507,837 thousand tons
of field crop residues were generated in India during 1997 of which 43% was rice and 23%
wheat. The estimates from Streets et al. (2003) reveal that 16% of total crop residues were
burnt. The results from Venkataraman et al. (2006) suggest that 116 million tons of crop
residues were burnt in India in 2001, but with a strong regional variation (Gupta, 2010).
The current availability of biomass in India (2010-2011) is estimated at about 500 million
tons/year. Studies sponsored by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE),
Govt. of India have estimated surplus biomass availability at about 120–150 million tons/
annum (Table 1; MNRE, 2009). Of this, about 93 million tons of crop residues are burned in
each year (Table 1; IARI 2012).
Generation of crop residues is highest in Uttar Pradesh (60 million t) followed by Punjab
(51 million t) and Maharashtra (46 million t). Maharashtra contributes maximum to the
generation of residues of pulses (3 million t) while residues from fibre crop is dominant
in Andhra Pradesh (14 million t). Gujarat and Rajasthan generate about 6 million t each of
residues from oilseed crops.
Table 1. Generation and surplus of crop residues in different states of India
State
Residue
generation
(MNRE, 2009)
Residue surplus
(MNRE, 2009)
Residue burned
(IPCC coeff.)
Residue burned
(Pathak et al.,
2010)
Million t/yr
Andhra Pradesh 43.89 6.96 5.73 2.73
Arunachal Pradesh 0.4 0.07 0.06 0.04
Assam 11.43 2.34 1.42 0.73

2
State
Residue
generation
(MNRE, 2009)
Residue surplus
(MNRE, 2009)
Residue burned
(IPCC coeff.)
Residue burned
(Pathak et al.,
2010)
Million t/yr
Bihar 25.29 5.08 3.77 3.19
Chhattisgarh 11.25 2.12 1.84 0.83
Goa 0.57 0.14 0.08 0.04
Gujarat 28.73 8.9 6.69 3.81
Haryana 27.83 11.22 5.45 9.06
Himachal Pradesh 2.85 1.03 0.20 0.41
Jammu and Kashmir 1.59 0.28 0.35 0.89
Jharkhand 3.61 0.89 1.11 1.10
Karnataka 33.94 8.98 2.85 5.66
Kerala 9.74 5.07 0.40 0.22
Madhya Pradesh 33.18 10.22 3.46 1.91
Maharashtra 46.45 14.67 6.27 7.41
Manipur 0.9 0.11 0.14 0.07
Meghalaya 0.51 0.09 0.10 0.05
Mizoram 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01
Nagaland 0.49 0.09 0.11 0.08
Orissa 20.07 3.68 2.57 1.34
Punjab 50.75 24.83 8.94 19.62
Rajasthan 29.32 8.52 3.58 1.78
Sikkim 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.01
Tamil Nadu 19.93 7.05 3.55 4.08
Tripura 0.04 0.02 0.22 0.11
Uttarakhand 2.86 0.63 13.34 21.92
Uttar Pradesh 59.97 13.53 0.58 0.78
West Bengal 35.93 4.29 10.82 4.96
India 501.76 140.84 83.66 92.81
Source: IARI (2012)
Among different crops, cereals generate maximum residues (352 Mt), followed by fibres (66
Mt), oilseeds (29 Mt), pulses (13 Mt) and sugarcane (12 Mt). The cereal crops (rice, wheat,
maize, millets) contribute 70% while rice crop alone contributes 34% to the crop residues
(Fig 1).
The surplus residues i.e., total residues generated minus residues used for various purposes,
are typically burnt on-farm. Estimated total amount of crop residues surplus in India is
91-141 Mt (IARI, 2012). Cereals and fibre crops contribute 58% and 23%, respectively (Fig
2) and remaining 19% is from sugarcane, pulses, oilseeds and other crops. Out of 82 Mt
surplus residues from the cereal crops, 44 Mt is from rice followed by 24.5 Mt from wheat,

3
which is mostly burnt on-farm (Table 1). In case of fibre crops (33 Mt of surplus residue),
approximately 80% of the residues are from cotton and are subjected to on-farm burning.
In northeast (NE) Himalayan region, rice and maize are the major cereal crops. Paddy straw
is widely used as fodder in this region and hence, burning of paddy straw is uncommon
except in few locations in Assam. Maize covers the second largest area after rice and the
residue of this crop is burnt in both upland condition and under shifting cultivation. About
9.7 million tons of crop residues are produced annually in this region (Table 2).
Table 2. Estimate of crop residue production in NE India (2009-10)
Crop Production
(000’ tons)
Residue:
grain ratio
Residue production
(000’ tons)
Rice 6024 1.5 9036
Maize 263 1.0 263
Pulses 144 1.0 144
Oilseeds 260 1.0 260
Total 6691 - 9703
Source: NEDFI (2013) and Hajarika et al. (2006)
Further, forest covers more than 60% of the land in the hill ecosystem of NE and lot of forest
waste biomass is readily available for use in agriculture. In addition, a lot of forest biomass
is burnt in shifting cultivation (slash-and-burn method).
Residue burning traditionally provides a fast way to clear the agricultural field of residual
biomass and facilitating further land preparation and planting. Other reasons for
intentional burning include clearing of fields, fertility enhancement, and pest and pasture
management. It also provides a fast way of controlling weeds, insects and diseases, by both
eliminating them directly or by altering their natural habitat. Further, the time gap between
rice harvesting and wheat sowing in northwest India is only 15-20 days. Hence, farmers
Fig 1. Contribution of various crops to residue generation
in India (Calculated from MNRE report, 2009)
Fig 2. Surplus of various crop residues in India
(IARI, 2012)

4
prefer burning the rice stalk in the field instead of harvesting it for other uses. Burning
is also perceived to boost soil fertility, although burning actually has a differential impact
on soil fertility. It increases the short-term availability of some nutrients (e.g. P and K) and
reduces soil acidity, but leads to a loss of other nutrients (e.g. N and S), organic matter and
microbial activity required for maintaining better soil health.
Among the cereal residues, rice and wheat straws are the dominant and the easiest
way to clear the field is burning these in the field itself. For example, 23% of rice straw
residue produced is surplus and is either left in the field as uncollected or to a large extent
open-field burnt. In Punjab alone, some 70 to 80 million tons of rice and wheat straw are
burned annually (Punia et al., 2008), releasing approximately 140 million tons of CO2 to
the atmosphere, in addition to methane, nitrous oxide and air pollutants. About three-
fourths of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agro-residues burning were CH4 and the
remaining one-fourth was N2O. Burning of wheat and paddy straws alone contributes to
about 42% of GHGs.
On the other hand, maintenance of a threshold level of organic matter in the soil is crucial
for maintaining physical, chemical and biological integrity of the soil and also for the soil
Loss of biomass through forest fires (photo by Singh, 2010) and
crop residue burning in agricultural fields

5
to perform its agricultural production and environmental functions (Izaurralde et al., 2001;
Srinivasarao et al., 2012, 2013). Hence, conversion of organic waste to produce biochar
using the pyrolysis process is one viable option that can enhance natural rates of carbon
sequestration in the soil, reduce farm waste and improve the soil quality (Srinivasarao
et al., 2012, 2013). Biochar has the potential to increase conventional agricultural
productivity and enhance the ability of farmers to participate in carbon markets beyond
the traditional approach by directly applying carbon into the soil (McHenry, 2009). This
has led to renewed interest of agricultural researchers to use charcoal/black carbon/
biochar as a soil amendment for stabilizing soil organic matter (SOM). Converting waste
biomass into biochar would transfer very significant amounts of carbon from the active
to inactive carbon pool, presenting a compelling opportunity to intervene in the carbon
cycle. The use of biochar as soil amendment is proposed as a new approach to mitigate
man-induced climate change along with improving soil productivity. The use of biochar
in agriculture is not new; in ancient times farmers used it to enhance the production of
agricultural crops. One such example is the slash and burn cultivation, which is still being
practiced in some parts of North East India. In order to sequester carbon, a material must
have long residence time and should be resistant to chemical processes such as oxidation
to CO2 or reduction to methane. It has been suggested by many authors ((Izaurralde
et al., 2001; McHenry, 2009) that the use of biochar as soil amendment meets the above
requirements; since the biomass is protected from further oxidation from the material that
would otherwise have degraded to release CO2 into the atmosphere. Such partially burnt
products, more commonly called pyrogenic carbon or black carbon, may act as an important
long-term carbon sink because their microbial decomposition and chemical transformation
are probably slow.
1. What is biochar?
Biochar is a fine-grained, carbon-rich, porous product remaining after plant biomass has
been subjected to thermo-chemical conversion process (pyrolysis) at low temperatures
(~350–600°C) in an environment with little or no oxygen (Amonette and Joseph, 2009).
Biochar is not a pure carbon, but rather mix of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O),
nitrogen (N), sulphur (S) and ash in different proportions (Masek, 2009). The central
quality of biochar and char that makes it attractive as a soil amendment is its highly porous
structure, potentially responsible for improved water retention and increased soil surface
area.
It is important to note that there is a wide variety of char products produced industrially. For
applications such as activated carbon, char may be produced at high temperature, under
long heating times and with controlled supply of oxygen. In contrast, basic techniques
for manufacture of charcoal (such as clay kilns) tend to function at a lower temperature,
and reaction does not proceed under tightly controlled conditions. Traditional charcoal
production should be more accurately described as ‘carbonization’, which involves
smothering of biomass with soil prior to ignition or combustion of biomass whilst wet.
Drying and roasting of biomass at even lower temperatures is known as ‘torrefaction’
(Arias et al., 2008). Biochar from pyrolysis, and conventional charcoal and char share
key characteristics which are related to carbon sequestration (long residence time) and
soil fertility (soil conditioning effect). Intensive study of biochar-rich dark earths in the
Amazon (terra preta), has led to a wider appreciation of biochar’s unique properties as a
soil enhancer.

6
2. Preparation of Biochar
For as long as human history has been recorded, heating or carbonizing wood for the
purp0se of manufacturing biochar has been practiced (Emrich, 1985). Carbonization is as
old as civilization itself (Brown, 1917). There are different ways to make biochar, but all of
them involve heating biomass with little or no oxygen to drive off volatile gasses, leaving
carbon behind. This simple process is called thermal decomposition usually achieved from
pyrolysis or gasification. Pyrolysis is the temperature driven chemical decomposition of
biomass without combustion (Demirbas, 2004). In commercial biochar pyrolysis systems,
the process occurs in three steps: first, moisture and some volatiles are lost; second,
unreacted residues are converted to volatiles, gasses and biochar, and third, there is a slow
chemical rearrangement of the biochar (Demirbas, 2004). A summary of biomass conversion
processes is presented in Fig 3.
Fig 3. Summary of pyrolysis processes in relation to their common feed stocks, typical products, and
the applications and uses of these products (Sohi et al., 2009)
At the instant of burning, the biomass carbon exposed to fire has three possible fates. The
first, and least possible fate of biomass exposed to fire is that it remains un-burnt. The other
two possible fates are that it is either volatized to carbon dioxide or numerous other minor
gas species, or it is pyrolised to biochar (Graetz and Skjemstad, 2003). These methods can
produce clean energy in the form of gas or oil along with biochar. This energy may be
recoverable for another use, or it may simply be burned and released as heat. It is one of
the few technologies that are relatively inexpensive, widely applicable and quickly scalable.
To differentiate between the different pyrolysis reactors, nomenclature recommended by
Emrich (1985) is given below.

7
Kiln: Kilns are used in traditional biochar making, solely to produce biochar
Retorts and converters: industrial reactors that are capable of recovering and refining not
only the biochar but also products from volatile fractions (liquid condensates and syngases)
are referred to as retorts or converters
Retort: The term retort refers to a reactor that has the ability to pyrolyzepile-wood, or wood
log over 30 cm long and over 18 cm in diameter (Emrich, 1985).
Converters: produce biochar by carbonizing small particles of biomass such as chipped or
pelletized wood.
Slow pyrolysis: refers to a process in which large biomass particles are heated slowly in the
absence of oxygen to produce biochar.
Fast pyrolysis: refers to reactors designed to maximise the yields of bio-oil and typically use
powdery biomass as feedstock.
The major criteria to consider are the targeted final products: (1) biochar and heat, (2) biochar,
bio-oil and gases, (3) biochar, carbon black, and syngas (gas mixtures that contain varying
amounts of CO and H), and (4) syngas (Pelez-Samaniego et al., 2008). Depending upon the
requirement, suitable procedure is followed for production of biochar alone or combination
with other useful co-products. But biochar production technology is more than just the
equipment needed to produce biochar. It necessarily includes entire integrated systems
that can contain various components that may or may not be part of any particular system.
Brazil is by far the largest biochar producer in the world producing 9.9 million tons/year.
Other important biochar producing countries are: Thiland (3.9 million tons/year), Ethiopia
(3.2 million tons/year), Tanzania (2.5 million tons/year), India (1.7 million tons/year) and
Democratic Republic of Congo (1.7 million tons/year).
Biochar can be produced at scales ranging from large industrial facilities down to the
individual farm (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009), and even at the domestic level (Whitman
and Lehmann, 2009), making it applicable to a variety of socioeconomic situations. Various
pyrolysis technologies are commercially available that yield different proportions of biochar
and bio-energy products, such as bio-oil and syngas. The gaseous bio-energy products are
typically used to generate electricity; the bio-oil may be used directly for low-grade heating
applications and, potentially, as a diesel substitute after suitable treatment (Elliott, 2007).
To make biochar technology popular among the farmers, it is imperative to develop low
cost biochar kiln at community level or low cost biochar stove at individual farmer’s family
level.
2.1 Heap Method
Charcoal making is one of the traditional practices to generate income in various parts of
India. In traditional method, a heap of pyramid like structure (earth kiln) is prepared by
keeping wood logs and roots of plants for making charcoal (Fig 4). To allow the combustion
products to escape, vents are opened starting from the top and working downwards. When
smoke production is stopped, the cooling process is started by covering stack with a layer
of moist earth. The cooling process takes several days before the earth is removed and the
biochar produced is separated from the surrounding carbonized portions. Earth-mound
kilns equipped with a chimney are most advanced among earth kilns. The ability to alter
the chimney diameter according to the oxygen demand, and precise control of the draft of

8
the chimney, which is dependent on height, results in better control of the pyrolysis process
(Emrich, 1985).
Biochar making from Prosopis julifera is practiced in the rain-fed tracts of Ramanathapuram
district of Tamil Nadu during off-season. Generally, people use the heap method of charcoal
production as it is easy and cost involved in char production is very low. Mostly fibre wastes
of coconut, paddy straw or any available agriculture waste are used to prepare paste mixed
with clay soil to cover the heap structure containing wood logs. Finally, it is covered with
sand from outside and water is applied over it. Entire wood logs are converted into charcoal
after burning inside the heap for 3-4 days. The charcoal is transported to various districts
of Tamil Nadu and also certain states like Maharashtra and Gujarat for industrial purpose.
Similarly, a very simple biochar kiln ‘Holy Mother Biochar Kiln’ has been designed by
Sarada Matt (Holy Mother) at Almora, Uttarakhand, India (Fig 5). Bricks and clay are used
in the construction. The biomass is added continuously as the fire continuous. The primary
air source at the bottom will be kept open as long as biomass is added. It is convenient to
operate the kiln during less windy days. As the biomass reaches the level just below the
secondary air vents, further addition of biomass should be stopped and the primary air
inlet is closed. After some time, water is sprinkled to extinguish the embers (quench). The
biochar can be collected immediately or after some time.
Fig 4. Traditional earth kiln (Source: http://en.howtopedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(Technical_Brief)
Fig 5. Holy Mother Biochar Kiln (Source: http://biocharklin.blogspot.in/)

9
2.2 Drum Method
Kilns that are built in place, typically are constructed from soil or other local materials,
are located close to biomass resources and are small. They are economically viable if the
cost of construction and transportation of biochar is lower than the cost of transporting
and processing of biomass. In a modified
method, char production is done by pyrolysis
kiln. Venkatesh et al. (2010) developed a low-cost
charring kiln by modifying oil drums at CRIDA,
Hyderabad. A cylindrical metal oil drum (200 L
capacity) with both sides intact was procured
from local market and was modified for use as
charring kiln. A square shaped hole of 16 cm
x 16 cm was made on the centre of top side of
the drum for loading the crop residues. On the
opposite side (bottom) of the oil drum, a total
of 36 holes each measuring 4 cm2 were made
in concentric circles with a 5 cm2 hole at the
center covering 20% of the total surface area of
the bottom portion of the oil drum to facilitate
uniform circulation of air from below.
After making sufficient modifications, inner sides of the charring kiln were cleaned by
burning some waste jute bags so as to make free from residual hydrocarbon. Another metal
sheet measuring 20 cm x 20 cm was made ready to cover the top square hole at the end of
burning process to stop the circulation of air. Sufficient amount of clay soil was collected
for sealing purpose. Later, preliminary trials were conducted by using the charring kiln to
study the conversion efficiency of maize stalks into biochar at different loading rates and
partial combustion time. The details of the study and major findings are presented below.
Loading the charring kiln: Before loading the modified kiln with the maize stalks, initial
weight of the charring kiln was recorded using a platform balance. The dried maize stalks
were loaded through top square hole, by holding a big wooden stick of 5-8 cm diameter at
the center of the kiln to create a central vent. While loading, few stalks were smeared with
diesel and placed at the bottom to aid initial ignition. Maize stalks were loaded in the kiln
at five different quantities viz. 6.7, 8.2, 8.7, 9.7 and 10 kg. After loading the maize stalks,
Heap method of biochar preparation in Tamil Nadu (Source: Jeyaraman, TNAU)
A view of bottom side of the charring kiln

10
the wooden stick was carefully removed leaving a central vent in the drum. Weight of the
loaded kiln was recorded using platform balance.
Firing and sealing of the charring kiln: Before initiating the burning process, the loaded kiln
was placed on three stones (about 15 cm height) to facilitate air flow through the holes
at the bottom. The stalks were ignited through the bottom holes. After the reduction in
thickness of smoke, the metal sheet was placed partially on the top hole of the kiln to slow
down the flow of air into the drum. This was to reduce the flow of oxygen so that the stalks
were not burnt to ashes. Whenever the amount of smoke increased, the cover was opened
to allow more air flow. The maize stalks were subjected to three different periods of partial
combustion viz. 13, 15 and 16 minutes. The kiln was allowed to burn until the fire became
clear and produced a very thin blue smoke. At this stage, the kiln was ready to be sealed
with clay. The metal sheet was placed over the top hole. Later, the kiln was transferred to
a leveled surface. Clay was used to seal the bottom edges of the drum and also along the
edges of the metal sheet used for covering the top hole. It was ensured that no smoke was
escaping from the drum. The drum was left for cooling. After cooling, the sealed clay was
removed and the biochar was taken out from the kiln and weighed.
The initial weight of the modified oil drum (charring kiln) was 18.8 Kg. The average length
and girth of the chopped maize stalks were 15.93 cm and 5.8 cm, respectively and the moisture
content after air drying for 20 days was 14%. The results revealed that at a loading rate of
6.7 kg and partial combustion time of 13 minutes, about 50% of maize stalks remained un-
burnt. Upon extending the partial
combustion time to 15 minutes,
the conversion rate was 29.3 and
23.7% for loading rates of 8.2 and
9.7 kg, respectively. At a partial
combustion time of 16 minutes,
the conversion rate was 27.6,
23.7 and 23.0% for loading rates
of 8.7, 9.7 and 10 kg maize stalk,
respectively. The preliminary
results of the study indicate that
a partial combustion time of 15
minutes was found optimum for production of biochar from chopped maize stalks. It was
also found that the biochar conversion efficiency did not differ significantly due to different
loading rates of maize stalks (8.7-10 kg/kiln). However, the highest conversion efficiency
was obtained at a loading rate of 8.2 kg and a partial combustion time of 15 minutes. Biochar
yield decreased with increase in time of partial combustion. This may be due increased
exposure to oxygen supply which might have contributed to volatilization of carbon.
Similarly, Purakayastha et al. (2012) developed a cylindrical low-cost pyrolysis kiln made
from fire brick at IARI, New Delhi. The gap between the two fire brick wall is filled with
perlite which acts as insulator to check the heat loss through dissipation. The used oil drum
was placed on a stand inside the brick kiln for heating. The drum is filled with agricultural
residues with not too tight packing and the drum is closed from the top with a metal lid
having provision for escape of syngas. Heating is provided by wood log externally at the
bottom of the drum until the desired temperature (300 – 400oC) is reached. This method
requires two hours for complete preparation of good quality biochar with biochar yield
Biochar of maize stalks

11
of approximately 50%. The cost of fabrication of pyrolysis kiln is approximately Rs. 50,000.
Biochar could also be prepared in oil drum without construction of fire brick kiln.
Researchers at CIAE, Bhopal have developed a ‘CIAE Portable Charring Kiln’. It
converts crop-residues into char through pyrolysis process for smokeless kitchen fuel
(briquettes) production. It can be used for different bioresidues including soybean straw,
pigeonpea and cotton stalks etc as input material. It consists of M.S. drum, handle and a
door (Table 3).
Table 3. Specifications and working features of CIAE charring kiln
Overall dimension (mm)
Weight (kg)
Input ( crop
residues)
(kg/day)
Output
(char) (kg/
day)
Labour
requirement
(man-h/q)
Operating
cost (Rs/q)
Length Diameter
1100 800 45 200 80 16 225
Biochar preparation at IARI: Drum used for preparation of biochar (A); Drum filled with maize
stover (B); Drum covered with lid (C); Drum placed inside the firebrick kiln heating provide
at the base of drum externally (D); Biochar removed from drum (F); and
Biochar the final product with little percentage of ash (F)
A
D
B
E
C
F

12
Similarly, a modified portable metallic kiln was used at ICAR Research Complex for NEH
Region to make biochar from waste of plywood factory and weed biomass. The kiln was
made from 200 litre used oil-drum. It had a conical grate at the bottom extended to the
top of the drum by a cylinder of 120 mm diameter. The cylinder was further extended
CIAE Charring Kiln
Portable metallic kiln (a) charring drum, (b) charring drum with lid and chimney,
(c) burning of biomass during charring and (d) charred biomass after cooling

13
to a chimney of same diameter up to a height of 1200 mm. A pipe of 60 mm diameter
was provided below the drum to supply air by a blower. After putting a small charge of
dry biomass, it is ignited at the top and air is blown from bottom of the drum. Once the
biomass catches sufficient fire, addition of charge in small quantities is continued till the
drum is filled. The chimney is put on the conical grate extension after ignition. Initially a
lot of black smoke comes out but it reduces after 20-30 minutes. When the colour of smoke
fades, the chimney is taken out and a lid is put over the drum which completely seals the
smoke. Blower is taken out and the bottom pipe is closed by using mud. Where an electric
blower is not available, a hand operated blower can be used similar to one used in foundry
artisans. In one batch, 30-40 kg biomass can be converted to biochar within two hours with
a conversion efficiency of 25-35% depending on the type of biomass (Fig 6). The cost of the
kiln excluding the blower is approximately Rs. 4000.
Biochar was also made from pine needles, maize stalk and weed biomass using a hot air
oven at 350°C for 4 hours. The weed species were Lantana camara, Ageratum, Setaria, Gynura
sp. and Avena fatua. Each biomass was oven dried at a temperature of 65°C for 24 hours
before charring. Then the biomass was crushed to < 25 mm size and placed in stainless
steel containers of 100 mm diameter and 150 mm height and were further pyrolysed. The
yield of biochar varied from 23.2 to 47.7%. The highest biochar recovery was obtained from
pine needles compared to other types of biomass.
In Tamil Nadu the biochar is prepared from various crop residues. The dried leaves of
banana, chickpea stover, outer shells of the Jatropha pods, millet cones and dust, shells of
palm fruits, and sugarcane wastes are collected and tightly packed in a oil drum (this is
available from hardware shops) by placing a PVC tube of 6 inch diameter at the centre of
the drum. At the top of the drum agriculture wastes are loaded, loose packs of the same is
burnt and closed for a while to undergo pyrolysis process. During this process the drum
is closed completely until the pyrolysis process come to an end. Sugumaran and Seshadri
(2010) designed large-sized charring kiln or cylindrical drum like structure with top cut
Fig 6. Charring efciency of portable metallic kiln for different organic materials

14
out to place the chimney. Above the firing portion an iron perforated sheet with holes is
fixed. The bottom side of the drum is closed with iron sheets and provided with four legs.
For carbonization, the kiln is loosely packed with about 100 kg dry biomass. After loading
biomass, the kiln is closed with a metal lid attached to a conical chimney. Little amount
of biomass in the firing portion is ignited in the kiln and the door is closed tightly to start
the pyrolysis process. In the absence of air, the burning process is slow and the fire slowly
spreads to the biomass through the holes in the perforated sheets. This method takes 1-2 h
to prepare biochar with biochar yield of 30-45% depending on the biomass type. The cost
of charcoal kiln with chimney is approximately Rs. 20000.
Recently, IIT, Mumbai has developed a biochar unit for bamboo waste and it can be used for
charring of other biomass (non-powdery) with minor modifications. The uniqueness of this
biochar unit lies in the fact that otherwise called “polluting gases are all driven out from a
central channel, the bottom of the channel ends with a perforated chimney like structure
kept inside the drum. The drum is loosely packed with residues and these are ignited
and the smoke stars coming out through the chimney. Initially the residues are ignited in
presence of oxygen and later, the oxygen supply is cut-off slowly by covering the upper
side of the drum with a perforated lid. The cost of the whole set up is around Rs. 35000.
As part of the terra preta trials at Odam, Tiruchuli, Tamil Nadu a special oil drum kiln was
developed. Several holes are made at the back side of the drum and a large square hole was
cut in the other side to be used for filling the kiln (this is the top). Another piece of metal
was needed to cover the square hole. Before filling the agricultural biomass into the kiln,
oil residue in the drum is cleaned and further residue is removed by burning. The biomass
should not be packed too tightly as it would have poor flow of air, neither should it be
packed too loosely as it would allow too much air to flow. After filling the biomass, the 6
inch dia PVC tube is carefully removed to leave a hole up to the bottom of the drum. Before
burning the waste, the drum is placed on three bricks or stones, to allow air flow into the
holes at the bottom. The material at the bottom of the hole is ignited by lighting a piece
of paper or cloth and pushing it to the bottom of the drum with a stick. At first, the waste
burns with a thick, yellow smoke. The kiln is allowed to burn until the fire becomes clear
and produces a very thin blue smoke. The drum is ready to be sealed when it burns well
with almost no smoke and the drum is very hot. The cover is placed over the hole and the
stones are removed from under the drum by supporting the drum with a large stick. Mud
is used to seal the bottom edge of the drum and any gaps at the top. It should be ensured
that no holes are left for the smoke to escape. The drum is then left for cooling. After 2-4 h,
the mud is brushed off and the charcoal is removed.
Carbon Zero Experimental Biochar Kiln: It is simple closed retort kiln having an insulated
firebrick enclosure designed for a 200 litre steel barrel as a retort. A small hole in the centre
of barrel (12 mm diameter), vents the evolving gases to an afterburner positioned above the
barrel. Depending on the moisture content of the feedstock, a small support flame may be
needed to keep the gases ignited. A generous supply of air to the afterburner is important
in this kiln. A squirrel cage blower is mounted so that it injects a tangential stream of air into
the top of the afterburner and a stainless steel mesh or firebrick plate is positioned about
3/4th of the way up the afterburner barrel to deflect the gas stream so that it mixes well with
the air and keep it ignited. Thermocouple probes extend into the retort at top and bottom
to monitor the temperature. It can take as little as 15 minutes to bring temperatures to 300
°C to initiate pyrolysis if the feedstock is bone dry, and as much as 2 hours or more if it is
somewhat moist.

15
Continuous biochar production unit: ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region has procured
the unit for biochar production. The unit is capable of converting up to 300 kg/h of woody
biomass into biochar. Shredded biomass is introduced to the partial-oxidation reactor, a
controlled aerobic (O2 limited) environment that contains some limited atmospheric air,
where it is carbonized at 300-550°C for 2-30 minutes. Feedstock introduction rate and
residence time in the reactor are process dependent and can vary widely depending on
operating conditions. Air and gases are motivated by a suction blower, which controls rates
of production. Temperatures are controlled by managing the ratio of available air to biomass
and ensuring that it is well below the complete combustion ratio. This management of air
to biomass allows for the preservation of solid carbon through the process and drives off
nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and other biomass constituent components.
Carbonized material and pyrolysis gases are moved into the secondary reactor, or drop box.
In the secondary reactor, coarse particles of carbonized material are separated from the gas
stream and continue to be heated at 250-550°C for 2-10 minutes. The pyrolysis gas produced
during the first stage is used as sweep gas for the second stage, and is primarily composed
of N2, H2, CO, CH4, and other higher VOCs and trace gases. No oxygen should be available
in this stage of the process. Incorrect running procedures can introduce oxygen, which can
be very dangerous (i.e. unintentional combustion of process gases; explosion). The coarse
char particles that are removed from the gas stream by a baffle, into the secondary reactor,
are augured out of the secondary reactor into a clean 55-gal steel drum. Materials must
remain in the steel drum or other fire proof container until cooled. Cooling will take a
minimum of 2 days if cooling agents such as water are not used. Pyrolysis gases are burned
in a flare at a temperature between 500-1500°C. This flare can be lit with a “weed burner”
torch once wood gas is produced in reaction. Wood gas will be yellow once it can light, this
can take 15-35 minutes after starting the process.
Carbon Zero Experimental Biochar Kiln (http://biochar.info/biochar.CarbonZero-
Experimental-Biochar-Kiln.cfml)

16
2.3 Biochar Stove
More than two billion people in developing world still cook and heat their homes with
primitive stoves or open fires by burning wood, straw, dung, or coal. These inefficient
technologies cause air pollution that can harm respiratory and cardiac health, and exacerbate
global warming. New stove technologies can produce both heat for cooking and biochar
for carbon sequestration and soil building. Limited testing indicates that these stoves are
much more efficient and emit less gas. The UN Environment Program now recognizes
that Atmospheric Brown Clouds (ABCs) are a major contributor to climate change (UNEP,
2008). ABCs are caused by particulate emissions from inefficient combustion of biomass
Biochar preparation using continuous biochar production unit at ICAR RC NEH,
Barapani: wood chips collected in drums (A); continuous biochar production unit (B);
feeding the biochar unit with wood chips (C); Firing the smoke with a torch (D);
initial smoke from biochar unit (F); and wood chips burning inside main reactor (F)
A
C
E
B
D
F

17
and fossil fuels and they include both black particles (soot) that heat the atmosphere by
absorbing sunlight, and white particles that reflect sunlight and contribute to cooling. Black
carbon has a significant effect on global warming, second only to carbon dioxide (CO2)
(Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). Unfortunately, even some improved (non-biochar
making) cook stoves that are otherwise efficient users of wood still emit large amounts of
black carbon. One study comparing improved cook stoves showed that a common design,
the rocket stove, had black carbon emissions equal to those of an open fire (MacCarty et al.,
2008). The study found that gasifier stoves, both natural draft and fan-assisted, had very
low black carbon emissions. There are two basic types of stoves that can be used to produce
charcoal and heat, the Top-Lit Updraft Gasifier (TLUD) and the Anila stove. There are many
variations on the TLUD, but the biggest distinction is between natural draft TLUDs and fan-
forced TLUDs. The TLUD operates as a gasifier by creating a stratified pyrolysis/combustion
regime with four basic zones: raw biomass, flaming pyrolysis, gas combustion and charcoal
combustion (Anderson and Reed, 2004). The charcoal can be retained if it is removed at the
proper time and quenched. Biomass fuel is placed between the two cylinders and a fire is
ignited in the centre. Heat from the central fire pyrolyzes the concentric ring of fuel. The
gases escape to the centre where they add to the cooking flame as the ring of biomass turns
to char. The centre combustion chamber can be configured as either a rocket stove design
(with a side opening door) or as a TLUD with primary combustion air entering from the
bottom.
The modern Anila stove was developed by U.N. Ravikumar, an environmentalist and
engineer with the Centre for Appropriate Rural Technology (CART) at India’s National
Institute of Engineering. The key aims of the design are to reduce the indoor air pollution
that results from cooking and to take advantage of the abundance of bio-residues found
in rural areas in developing countries. The engineering principle the underlines the Anila
stove is top lit updraft gasification, which essentially means that the hardwood fuel burns
from the top down and simultaneously combusts the syngas that is released by the biomass
(Fig 7). The stove is made from steel and weighs about 10 kg (Iliffe, 2009).
Fig 7. Labelled diagram of the Anila stove (Source: Iliffe, 2009)

18
Reddy (2011) from Hyderabad has developed a fan-assisted and non-fan assisted
biochar cooking stove. In this process, energy liberated from residue during controlled
burning is used for cooking purpose and biochar is produced as left out material.
However, the yield of biochar is less in this method as compared to other methods of
biochar preparation.
3. Characteristics of biochar
Characterization of any amendment is the first step to understand the mechanism of
action. The properties of biochar are governed by its physical and chemical constituents.
The form and size of the feedstock and pyrolysis product may affect the quality and
potential uses of biochar (Sohi et al., 2010). The importance of biochar depends on its
physical and chemical characteristics, although the relationship of char properties to
these applications is not well understood. To understand the mechanism of action of
biochar in soil, its proper characterization is the first step towards unraveling the beneficial
effect of biochar. Sohi et al. (2010) reported that biogeochemical characterization of
biochar helps in determining the agronomic importance as well as impact on soil process.
It further helps in preparation of particular kind of biochar which may have higher
agronomic significance. It has been documented by several authors that biochar produced
from different feedstock and on different temperature and time scales has altogether
different characteristics.
Some workers have reported seven key properties for the evaluation of biochar i.e. pH,
content of volatile compounds, ash content, water-holding capacity, bulk density, pore
volume, and specific surface area (Okimori, et al., 2003, Sohi et al., 2010). All these properties
are governed by the quality of the feed stock that is used for the biochar production. In
addition, pyrolysis temperature and duration of pyrolysis are the other two most significant
processes that affect the physico-chemical quality of biochar.
Several techniques are used for characterization of biochar/black carbon. Physical structure
of biochar is generally characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Sohi et al.
(2010) reported that the macroporous structure (pores of approximately 1 mm diameter) of
biochar produced from cellulosic plant material inherits the architecture of the feedstock,
and is potentially important to water holding and adsorption capacity of soil (Day et al.,
2005; Ogawa et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006). The pore structure of biochar seen under SEM
provided physical refuge, resulting in increased abundances of beneficial microorganisms
(Purakayastha et al., 2013b). However, surface area measured by gas adsorption is influenced
by micropores that are not relevant to plant roots, microbes, or to the mobile soil solution.
Recently, with the technological advancement, the characterization of biochar is done more
precisely. Liang et al., (2006) demonstrated higher surface charge of biochar by mapping
cross sectional areas of biochar particles with diameters of 10 to 50 mm for C forms by
using Synchrotron-based near edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) spectroscopy
in combination with scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM) techniques. Spotted
and non-continuous distribution patterns of highly oxidized C functional groups with
distinctly different chemical signatures on biochar particle surfaces indicated that non-
biochar material may be adsorbed on the surfaces of biochar particles creating highly
oxidized surface. Elemental ratios of O: C,O:H and C:H have been found to provide a
reliable measure of both the extent of pyrolysis and the level of oxidative alteration of
biochar in the soil, and are relatively easier to determine (Sohi et al., 2010). Apart from

19
elemental composition other techniques such as diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier
transform spectroscopy (FTIR), X–ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), energy dispersive
X–ray spectroscopy (EDX), NEXAFS spectroscopy (Baldock and Smernik, 2002; Fernandes
and Brooks, 2003; Lehmann et al., 2006) have also been extensively used to examine surface
chemistry, functional groups and to obtain information on ageing mechanism of biochar.
FTIR analysis of biochar exhibited very weak absorbance in the IR spectrum with the major
occurring at about 1600 and 1430 cm-1 denoting aromatic ring carbon C=C stretching, and
a weaker band at about 1700 cm-1 indicative of aromatic carbonyl/carboxyl C=O stretching
(Purakayastha et al., 2013b).
Rosa et al. (2007) studied the amount and compositional characteristics of black carbon in
soils (Mollisol and Vertisol), formed due to forest fire. They used a combination of thermo-
gravimetry (TG), TG coupled with isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS), solid state 13C
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, and pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (Py-GC/ MS) for characterization of black carbon collected from different
sources. Similarly, Brewer et al., (2009) characterized the biochar, produced from fast
pyrolysis and gasification of switch grass and corn stover, by proximate analysis, CHNS
elemental analysis, Brunauer-Emmet-Teller (BET) surface area, particle density, higher
heating value (HHV), scanning electron microscopy, X-ray fluorescence ash content
analysis, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy using a photo-acoustic detector (FTIR-
PAS), and quantitative 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) using direct
polarization and magic angle spinning.
3.1 Physical characterization
Pyrolysis temperature is the main regulating factor which governs surface area of biochar.
It was reported that increase in temperature from 400 to 900oC increased surface area of
biochar from 120 to 460 m2/g (Day et al., 2005). The importance of temperature leads to the
suggestion that biochar created at low temperature may be suitable for controlling release
of nutrients (Day et al., 2005), while high temperatures would lead to a material analogous
to activated carbon (Ogawa et al., 2006). It is also noted that the surfaces of low temperature
biochar can be hydrophobic, and this may limit the capacity to store water in soil. Initially,
the ratio of exposed to total surface area of biochar will be affected by its particle size.
However, although low temperature biochar is stronger than high temperature products,
it is brittle and prone to abrade into fine fractions once incorporated into the mineral soil. It
may be proposed that the surface area over the long term, that is, of weathered biochar, is
not greatly affected by temperature (Sohi et al., 2010).
Increase in pyrolysis temperature from 400oC to 600oC decreased the volatile and N
component of biochar, while it increased ash and fixed carbon content (Purakayastha et
al., 2012). Thus biochar prepared at 60oC had wider C:N ratio making it more stable in
soil. Purakayastha et al. (2013a) reported that the bulk density of rice and wheat biochar
prepared at 400oC was comparatively lower than the maize and pearl millet biochar. The
water holding capacity of wheat biochar was highest (561%) followed by maize biochar
(456%).
3.2 Chemical characterization
General chemical properties of biochar samples prepared from different feed stocks are
given in Table 4 (Jha et al., 2010). Biochar produced from different feed stock had pH ranged
from 8.2-13.0. Invariably, total carbon content of biochar increased with the increase in

20
pyrolysis temperature (Fig 8). Total carbon content in biochar materials produced from
different feedstock varied from 33.0 to 82.4%. Maximum heating temperature and heating
rate have a strong influence on the retention of nutrients as does the original composition
of the feedstock. N and S compound tends to volatize at a temperature above 200 and
375°C, respectively. So, biochar produced at higher temperature shows depletion of N
(Fig 9) and S. Whereas, K and P volatilize between 700 and 800°C (DeLuca et al., 2009).
High-temperature biochars (800°C) tend to have a higher pH, electrical conductivity (EC),
and extractable NO3
-, while low-temperature biochars (350°C) have greater amounts of
extractable P, NH4 +, and phenols (DeLuca et al., 2009).
Table 5. Some properties of biochar used in different experiments
Materials used for
producing biochar pH Total C Total N C:N Ca Mg P K CEC Reference
(%) (cmol/kg)
Paper mill waste 1-
(waste wood chip)
9.4 50.0 0.48 104 6.2 1.20 - 0.22 9.00 Zwieten et al. (2010)
Paper mill waste 2-
(waste wood chip)
8.2 52.0 0.31 168 11.0 2.60 - 1.00 18.00 Zwieten et al. (2010)
Green waste (grass
clippings, cotton trash,
and plant prunings)
9.4 36.0 0.18 200 0.4 0.56 - 21.00 24.00 Chan et al. (2007)
Eucalyptus biochar - 82.4 0.57 145 - - 1.87 - 4.69 Noguera et al. (2010)
Cooking biochar - 72.9 0.76 96 - - 0.42 - 11.19 Noguera et al. (2010)
Poultry litter (450oC) 9.9 38.0 2.00 19 - - 37.42 - - Chan et al. (2008)
Poultry litter (550oC) 13 33.0 0.85 39 - - 5.81 - - Chan et al. (2008)
Wood biochar 9.2 72.9 0.76 120 0.83 0.20 0.10 1.19 11.90 Major et al. (2010)
Hardwood sawdust - 66.5 0.3 221 - - - - - Spokas et al. (2010)
Adapted from Jha et al. (2010)
The ratios of H/C and O/C decreased with increasing temperature and the lower ratio was
found good in terms of aromaticity and stability (Baldock and Smernik, 2002). There was
wide variation in nitrogen content of biochar material produced from different biomass.
Biochar in general had low nitrogen content (0.18-2.0%) and C:N ratio varied from as low
as 19 to 221. Except N, the concentration of other elements in biochar increased with the
increase in pyrolysis temperature (Fig 10 & 11). Biochar contains appreciable quantity of
Ca, Mg, K and P. Due to its high pH and appreciable amount of Ca and Mg, biochar acts as
liming material (amendment) in acid soils. Lakaria et al. (2012) also observed variations in
nutrient composition of biochars formed under varying pyrolitic temperature and duration.
Purakayastha et al. (2013a) characterized the chemical composition of biochar prepared
from various crop residues at 400oC. The biochar prepared from rice residues showed
highest CEC and pH of maize (10.7) and pearl millet (10.6) biochar was higher than that in
wheat (8.8) and rice (8.6) biochar. Total carbon content was highest in pearl millet biochar
(61%) followed by wheat (52%) and rice biochar (49%) whereas maize biochar had lowest
carbon content (37%). However, maize biochar was richer in major (N, P, K), secondary (Ca,
Mg) and micronutrient (Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu) contents. Wheat biochar ranked second with
respect to all the above nutrients except sulphur for which it ranked first.

21
Fig 8. Carbon recovery in subabool (Leucaena leucocephala) biochar
Fig 9. Nitrogen recovery in subabool (Leucaena leucocephala) biochar
Fig 10. Phosphorus recovery in subabool (Leucaena leucocephala) biochar

22
4. Biochar for climate change mitigation
4.1 C sequestration
Soil C sequestration is the removal of atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis to form
organic matter, which is ultimately stored in the soil as long-lived, stable forms of C. The
global carbon cycle is made up of flows and pools of carbon in the Earth’s system. The
important pools of carbon are terrestrial, atmospheric, ocean, and geological. The carbon
within these pools has varying lifetimes, and flows take place between them all. Carbon
in the active carbon pool moves rapidly between pools (Lehmann, 2007b). In order to
decrease carbon in the atmosphere, it is necessary to move it into a passive pool containing
stable or inert carbon. Biochar provides a facile flow of carbon from the active pool to the
passive pool. In comparison to burning, controlled carbonization converts even larger
quantities of biomass organic matter into stable C pools which are assumed to persist in
the environment over centuries (Glaser et al. 1998; Schmidt and Noack 2000; Glaser et al.
2001). The conversion of biomass carbon to biochar leads to sequestration of about 50% of
the initial carbon compared to the low amounts retained after burning (3%) and biological
decomposition (less than 10-20% after 5-10 years) (Lehmann et al. 2006). This efficiency of
carbon conversion of biomass to biochar is highly dependent on the type of feedstock, but
is not significantly affected by the pyrolysis temperature (within 350-500°C common for
pyrolysis).
According to Gaunt and Lehmann (2008), terra preta soils suggest that biochar can have
carbon storage permanence in the soil for many hundreds to thousands of years. Large
amounts of carbon in biochar may be sequestered in the soil for long periods estimated
to be hundreds to thousands of years (Lehmann et al. 2006; Ogawa et al. 2006; Woolf,
2008; Bracmort, 2010). While biochar mineralizes in soils, a fraction of it remains in a very
stable form (Schmidt and Noack, 2000); this property of biochar provides it the potential
to be a major carbon sink. Compared with other terrestrial sequestration strategies, such
as afforestation or re-forestation, carbon sequestration in biochar increases its storage
time (Ogawa et al. 2006 and Sohi et al. 2010). The existing slash-and-burn system causes
significant degradation of the soil and release of greenhouse gases. However, it also
provides opportunities for improvement by conversion of the slash-and-burn system to
Fig 11. Potassium recovery in subabool (Leucaena leucocephala) biochar

23
the slash-and-char system. About 12% of the total anthropogenic carbon emissions by land-
use change (0.21 Pg C) can be offset annually in the soil, if the slash-and-burn system is
replaced by the slash-and-char system.
The principal mechanisms operating in soils through which biochar entering the soil is
stabilized and significantly increase its residence time in soil are intrinsic recalcitrance, spatial
separation of decomposers and substrate, and formation of interactions between mineral
surfaces (Sollins et al., 1996). In a fifteen weeks biochar carbon stability study, Purakayastha
et al. (2013a) reported that the carbon loss ranged from 2.34% in maize biochar to 4.49%
in rice biochar. Among the biochars, maize biochar showed lowest carbon mineralization
suggesting its greater potential for long-term carbon sequestration. Application of biochar
showed highest amount of carbon in soil under wheat-pearl millet cropping system.
The findings of a recent modeling study (Woolf et al., 2010) reported that biochar
amendments to soil, when carried out sustainably, may annually sequester an amount of
C equal to 12% the current anthropogenic CO2 emissions. They estimate that the maximum
sustainable technical potential for carbon abatement from biochar is 1-1.8 giga ton (Gt) C
per year by 2050. Technical estimates of the potential for biomass pyrolysis coupled with
soil storage to sequester carbon suggest that several hundred gigatons of carbon emissions
could be sequestered or offset by 2100, which is a large fraction of the total needed to
mitigate global climate disruption. Furthermore, it is relatively simple to verify the benefits
that can be derived from the application of biochar as soil amendment. It is also easy to
monitor carbon sequestration as a climate change mitigation measure for national carbon
accounting (Glaser et al., 2002; Lehmann et al. 2006; Gaunt and Cowie, 2009; Yeboah et al.
2009). This can be done by using the income generated and the quantity of carbon that has
been sequestered (Gaunt and Cowie, 2009). Production and application of biochar to farm
soils can tackle many global and domestic policy issues. Nevertheless, the application of
biochar at the farm level is discouragingly slow, largely due to financial constraints.
4.2 Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
Burning of residues emits a significant amount GHGs. For example, 70, 7 and 0.66% of
C present in rice straw is emitted as CO2, CO and CH4, respectively, while 2.09% of N in
straw is emitted as N2O upon burning. One ton straw on burning releases 3 kg particulate
matter, 60 kg CO, 1460 kg CO2, 199 kg ash and 2 kg SO2. This change in composition of the
atmosphere may have a direct or indirect effect on the radiation balance. Besides other light
hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and SOx, NOx are also emitted. These gases are important for their global impact
and may lead to a regional increase in the levels of aerosols, acid deposition, increase in
tropospheric ozone and depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer.
Apart from carbon sequestration, there are other environmental benefits that can be
derived from the application of biochar in soils which include reduction in the emission of
non-CO2 GHGs by soils (Fig 12). Soil is a significant source of nitrous oxide (N2O) and both
a source and sink of methane (CH4). These gases are 23 and 298 times more potent than
carbon dioxide (CO2) as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Biochar is reported to reduce
N2O emission could be due to inhibition of either stage of nitrification and/or inhibition
of denitrification, or promotion of the reduction of N2O, and these impacts could occur
simultaneously in a soil (Berglund et al., 2004; DeLuca et al., 2006). Increased soil aeration

24
from biochar addition reduces denitrification and increases sink capacity for CH4. Biochar
addition induces microbial immobilization of available N in soil, thereby decreasing N2O
source capacity of soil. Increased pH from biochar addition drives N2 formation from N2O.
When applied to the soil, biochar can lower GHG emissions of cropland soils by substantially
reducing the release of N2O (Lehmann et al., 2003). Reduction of N2O and CH4 emission as
a result of biochar application is seen to attract considerable attention due to the much
higher global warming potentials of these gases compared to CO2 (Steiner, 2010). Rondon
et al. (2005) reported a 50% reduction in N2O emissions from soybean plots and almost
complete suppression of CH4 emissions from biochar amended acidic soils in the Eastern
Colombian Plains. Yanai et al. (2007), however, reported an 85% reduction in N2O emission
from re-wetted soils containing 10% biochar, compared to soils without biochar. Biochar
from municipal biowaste also caused a decrease in emissions of nitrous oxide in laboratory
soil chambers (Yanai et al. 2007). Spokas et al. (2009) also found a significant reduction in
N2O emission in agricultural soils in Minnesota; while Sohi et al. (2010) found an emission
suppression of only 15%. Additions of 15 g biochar/kg of soil to a grass and 30 g/kg of soil
to a soil cropped with soybeans completely suppressed methane emissions (Rondon et al.
2005).
An assumption of net carbon abatement of between 0.5 and 1 t CO2 abatement per ton of
feedstock used in pyrolysis biochar system (PBS) as reported by number of published life
cycle studies, then this could represent between 35 to 70 million tons of CO2 abatement
per year in India. This assumes however, that all feedstock would be used in PBS, where
as in reality there will be many competing uses for the same feedstock and use of biochar
might necessitate substitution of residues by a different source of biomass, potentially
with attendant greenhouse gas emission that would need to be accounted for. As per the
estimates in 2009, the greenhouse gas emission in India was 1,900 million t CO2 per annum,
hence it can be seen that biochar could contribute between 2-4% reduction (Priyadarshini
and Prabhune, 2009). More research is needed to understand the interactions between
biochar, site specific soil, climatic conditions, and management practices that alter the sink
capacity of soils.
Fig 12. Net impact of biochar applications in soil on greenhouse gas emissions.
(Adapted with changes from Rogovska et al., 2008).

25
5. Biochar as soil amendment
5.1 Method of application
Like any other organic amendments, Biochar can be applied to soil by different methods
including broadcasting, band application, spot placement, deep banding etc. However, the
method of biochar application in soil depends on the farming system, available machinery
and labor. Application of biochar by hand is well known, but is not viable on large-scale
because of labor intensity and human health concerns due to prolonged contact with
airborne biochar particulates. In developed countries, several large scale biochar trials have
been conducted using a tractor propelled lime spreader. While the technology lends itself
to careful calibration of output and uniform application, there are significant concerns
surrounding environmental air quality and product loss due to wind and water erosion.
Similarly, deep banding of biochar has been successfully implemented in several wheat
fields in Western Australia. This low-impact application method deposits biochar directly
into the rhizosphere, and may be viable for previously established crops, and perennial
cropping systems. However, relatively low rates of application are technically possible with
one pass (3 t/ha), and the process is relatively labour intensive. Additionally, issues with
pneumatic clogging due to biochar particle size distribution and air quality remain.
Broadcast application of biochar (Source: Jeyaraman, TNAU)
Mixing of biochar with composts and manures may reduce odors, and improve nutrient
performance over time due to slower leaching rates. Mixtures may be applied for uniform
topsoil mixing, or top-dressed in tree plantations without incorporation. Although the
airborne dust fraction would be minimized, the tonnages of biochar application may be
relatively low per ha, and additional equipment would be needed to incorporate applied
compost into top soils thereby increasing costs and carbon footprint. Line trenching and
backfilling may lend itself to high biochar application rates in soil for carbon sequestration
while still increasing the agronomic performance of soils. Though labor and carbon
intensive, the combination of high saturation rates and improved agronomic productivity
may make the practice viable. However, like deep banding, it is unknown how well biochar
migrates vertically through the soil profile.
5.2 Rate of application
It depends on many factors including the type of biomass used, the degree of metal
contamination in the biomass, the types and proportions of various nutrients (N, P, etc.),

26
and also on edaphic, climatic and topographic factors of the land where the biochar is to
be applied. Given the variability in biochar materials, nature of crop and soils, users of
biochar should consider testing several rates of biochar application on a small scale before
setting out to apply it on large areas. Experiments have found that rates between 5-50 t/ha
(0.5-5 kg/m2) have often been used successfully. While no recommended application rates
for biochar can be given, biochar should be applied in moderate amounts to soil. Rates
around 1% by weight or less have been used successfully so far in field crops (Major, 2013).
Research suggests that even low rates of biochar application can significantly increase crop
productivity assuming that the biochar is rich in nutrients which that soil lacks (Winsley,
2007). In the case of piggery and poultry manure biochar, the biochar works both as an
organic fertilizer and soil conditioner with agronomic benefits observed at low application
rates (10 t/ha) (Chan et al. 2007). Application to soils of higher amounts of biochar may
increase the carbon credit benefit; but, in nitrogen-limiting soils it could fail to assist crop
productivity as a high C/N ratio leads to low N availability (Lehmann and Rondon, 2006).
Crop productivity benefits of higher biochar application rates can be maximized only if the
soil is rich in nitrogen, or if the crops are nitrogen-fixing legumes. Therefore, application
of biochar to soils in a legume-based (e.g. peanut and maize) rotational cropping system,
clovers and lucernes is more beneficial. Biochar application rates also depend on the amount
of dangerous metals present in the original biomass. The chance of bio-magnification also
depends on the amount of a given metal in the soil.
5.3 Soil quality and fertility improvement
Biochar is a high carbon containing material (more than 50%) produced by heating of
biomass in absence of oxygen. Biochar application to soil leads to several interactions
mainly with soil matrix, soil microbes, and plant roots (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009).
The types and rates of interactions depend on different factors like composition of
biomass as well as biochar, methods of biochar preparation, physical aspect of biochar
and soil environmental condition mainly soil temperature and moisture. Biochar can act
as a soil conditioner by improving the physical and biological properties of soils such
as water holding capacity and soil nutrients retention, and also enhancing plant growth
(Sohi et al., 2010).
The application of biochar in soils is based on its properties such as: (i) agricultural value
from enhanced soils nutrient retention and water holding capacity, (ii) permanent carbon
sequestration, and (iii) reduced GHG emissions, particularly nitrous oxide (N2O) and
methane (CH4) release (Bracmort, 2010; Brown, 2009; Glaser et al. 2002; Kammen and Lew,
2005; Lehmann et al. 2006; Steiner, 2010; Steiner et al., 2008). Farmers will be motivated to
apply biochar on their farms if these benefits can be demonstrated explicitly. At the local
scale, soil organic carbon levels shape agro-ecosystem function and influence soil fertility
and physical properties, such as aggregate stability, water holding capacity and cation
exchange capacity (CEC) (Milne et al., 2007). The ability of soils to retain nutrients in cation
form that are available to plants can be increased using biochar. The addition of biochar
to agricultural soils is receiving considerable interest due to the agronomic benefits it may
provide (Quayle, 2010).
Several authors have reported that biochar has the potential to: (i) increase soil pH, (ii)
decrease aluminum toxicity, (iii) decrease soil tensile strength, (iv) improve soil conditions
for earthworm populations, and (v) improve fertilizer use efficiency (Table 6).

27
Table 6. Effect of biochar on different soil properties
Factor Impact Source
Cation exchange capacity 50% increase (Glaser et al., 2002)
Fertilizer use efficiency 10-30 % increase (Gaunt and Cowie, 2009)
Liming agent 1 point pH increase (Lehman and Rondon, 2006)
Soil moisture retention Up to 18 % increase (Tryon, 1948)
Crop productivity 20-120% increase (Lehman and Rondon, 2006)
Methane emission 100% decrease (Rondon et al, 2005)
Nitrous oxide emissions 50 % decrease (Yanai et al., 2007)
Bulk density Soil dependent (Laird, 2008)
Mycorrhizal fungi 40 % increase (Warnock et al., 2007)
Biological nitrogen fixation 50-72% increase (Lehman and Rondon, 2006)
Black carbon may significantly affect nutrient retention and play a key role in a wide
range of biogeochemical processes in the soil, especially for nutrient cycling. Chan et
al. (2007) studied the influence of rate and type of biochar produced from poultry litter
under different conditions on soil quality parameters. Biochar addition to the hard-setting
soil resulted in significant but different changes in soil chemical and physical properties,
including increase in C, N, pH and available P, and reduction in soil strength. The different
effects of the two biochars (one produced at 450°C and the other at 550°C) could be related
to their different characteristics. Significantly different changes in soil biology in terms of
microbial biomass and earthworm preference properties were observed between the two
biochars. Similarly, Asai et al. (2009) studied the effect of biochar application on soil physical
properties and grain yield of upland rice (O. sativa L.) in northern Laos. Biochar application
improved the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the top soil and xylem sap flow of the
rice plant.
Mankasingh et al. (2011) conducted a plot-scale evaluation of biochar application to
agricultural soils in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India, to investigate the potential of biochar to
improve soil fertility and moisture content. Several locally available feedstocks (rice husk,
cassia stems, palm leaves and sawdust) were analysed as proposed soil amendments so
that no single biomass material is depleted. The biochars from different biomass feedstock
contained >20% C and were high in macro- and micronutrients. The results suggest that an
application rate of 6.6 metric tons cassia biochar/ha was enough to initiate C-accumulation,
which is reflected in an increase in organic matter and a net reduction in soil bulk density.
Significant changes in soil quality, including increase in pH, organic carbon and
exchangeable cations as well as reduction in tensile strength were observed at higher rates
of biochar application, i.e. > 50 t/ha. Reduction in tensile strength and increase in field
capacity of hard-setting soil were the most significant findings (Chan et al., 2007). Biochars
can potentially increase the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of soils especially for highly
weathered, nutrient-poor sandy soils; however, this is dependent on biochar properties
and aging of applied biochar in the soil. The published data suggest that biochars from
woody materials tend to provide low CEC values, while non-woody plant materials such
as sugarcane trash (leaf) or tree bark tend to have higher CEC values (Yamamoto et al., 2006;
Chan et al., 2007; Major et al., 2009; Singh and Gu, 2010; Van Zwieten et al., 2010).

28
Biochar can be used by farmers to control the pH of soil and also to reduce lime applications
(Rodriguez et al., 2002). Rodriguez et al. (2009) used biochar produced from sugarcane
bagasse to increase the pH of soil from 4.0-4.5 to 6.0-6.5 in a maize trial in Colombia. The
pH increase in sandy and loamy soils has been reported to be larger than in clayey soils
(De Gryze et al., 2010). In a study on the effects of charcoal production on soil physical
and hydrological properties in Ghana, Oguntunde et al. (2008) reported that the saturated
hydraulic conductivity of soils under charcoal kilns increased significantly. When mixed
with organic matter, biochar can result in enhanced retention of soil water as a result of its
pore structure which contributes to nutrient retention because of its ability to trap nutrient-
rich water within the pores (Oguntunde et al., 2008; Major et al., 2009; De Gryze et al., 2010).
Biochar has an even greater ability than other soil organic matter to adsorb cations per
unit carbon (Sombroek et al., 1993), due to its greater surface area, greater negative surface
charge, and greater charge density (Liang et al., 2006). In contrast to other organic matter
in soil, biochar also appears to be able to strongly adsorb phosphate, even though it is an
anion, although the mechanism for this process is not fully understood.
After reviewing the experimental evidence for symbiotic association between biochar and
mycorrhizal association, Warnock et al. (2007) critically examined the hypotheses pertaining
to four mechanisms by which biochar could influence mycorrhizal abundance and/or
functioning. These are (in decreasing order of currently available evidence supporting
them): (i) alteration of soil physico-chemical properties; (ii) indirect effects on mycorrhizae
through effects on other soil microbes; (iii) plant–fungus signaling interference, and (iv)
detoxification of allelechemicals on biochar. Purakayastha et al. (2012) also reported that
microbial activities measured in terms of dehydrogenase activity and microbial biomass
carbon were enhanced due to biochar application in soils; rice biochar showed greater
microbial activities than other biochar because of its higher lability than the others.
Rondon et al. (2007) studied the potential, magnitude and causes of enhanced biological N2
fixation (BNF) by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) through biochar additions. Biochar
was added at 0, 30, 60, and 90 g/kg soil, and BNF was determined using the isotope dilution
method after adding 15N-enriched ammonium sulphate to a Typic Haplustox cropped to
a potentially nodulating bean variety in comparison to its non-nodulating isoline, both
inoculated with effective Rhizobium strains. The proportion of fixed N increased from 50%
without biochar additions to 72% with 90 g/kg biochar added. Although total N derived
from the atmosphere (NdfA) was significantly increased by 49% and 78% with 30 and 60 g/
kg biochar added to soil respectively, NdfA decreased to 30% above the control with 90 g/
kg due to low total biomass production and N uptake. It was reported that the higher BNF
with biochar additions was due to greater B and Mo availability. Increase in K, Ca and P
availability, as well as higher pH and lower N availability and Al saturation, might also have
contributed to a lesser extent. Enhanced mycorrhizal infections of roots did not contribute
to better nutrient uptake and BNF. Bean yield increased by 46% and biomass production by
39% over the control at 30 and 60 g/kg biochar respectively. However, biomass production
and total N uptake decreased when the biochar applications were increased to 90 g/kg.
Results demonstrate the potential of biochar applications to improve N input into agro-
ecosystems while pointing out the need for long-term field studies to better understand the
effects of biochar on BNF.
These properties make biochar a unique substance, retaining exchangeable and therefore
plant available nutrients in the soil, and offering the possibility of improving crop yields

29
while decreasing environmental pollution by nutrients. Thus, biochar application could
provide a new technology for both soil fertility and crop productivity improvement,
with potential positive and quantifiable environmental benefits, such as carbon trading
(Bracmort, 2010 and Yeboah et al. 2009).
5.4 Remediation
Carbonaceous materials such as char and activated carbon have received considerable
attention in recent years as soil amendment for both sequestering heavy metal contaminants
and releasing essential nutrients like sulfur. Information is currently lacking in how aging
impacts the integrity of biochars as soil amendment for both agricultural and environmental
remediation purposes. Biochar has a relatively structured carbon matrix with a medium-to
high surface area, suggesting that it may act as a surface sorbent which is similar in some
aspects to AC. Black carbon surfaces are porous with apolar and aromatic surfaces. They
have a high surface to volume ratio and a strong affinity to non-polar substances such as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, furans (PCDD/Fs), PCBs, and PBDEs.
Biochar can be used by farmers to control the pH of soil and also to reduce lime applications
(Rodriguez et al., 2002). Rodriguez et al. (2009) used biochar produced from sugarcane
bagasse to increase the pH of soil from 4.0-4.5 to 6.0-6.5 in a maize trial in Colombia. The
pH increase in sandy and loamy soils has been reported to be larger than in clayey soils (De
Gryze et al., 2010).
5.5 Carrier for inoculum
Saranya et al. (2011) developed carrier based preparations of Azospirillum lipoferum (AZ
204) inoculant, using two different sources of biochar (acacia wood and coconut shell)
and were evaluated for their suitability as a best alternate to lignite for commercial
biofertilizer production. The survival of the microbial inoculant was estimated over a
period of 180 days. Among the different carriers, coconut shell based biochar recorded
a maximum population of log 10.79 cfu/g of carrier 180 days after inoculation with a
maximum moisture content of 25.2%. It was also found that seedling vigour index of green
gram was paramount in response to coconut shell based biochar. In addition, coconut
shell based biochar was found to increase the survival of Azospirillum lipoferum up to 180
days (6 months) of storage period at a required population compared to acacia wood based
biochar and lignite.
5.6 Crop productivity
The application of biochar (biomass-derived black carbon) to soil has been shown to
improve crop yields which could be due to direct or indirect effect. The direct effect is
explained by the fact that biochar being concentrated during pyrolysis contains higher
amount of nutrients than the biomass from which they are prepared. The indirect effect
is due to improvement in soil physical, chemical and biological properties due to biochar
application.
Several workers have reported that biochar applications to soils have shown positive
responses for net primary crop production, grain yield and dry matter (Chan et al. 2008;
Chan and Xu,2009; Major et al. 2009 and Spokas et al. 2009). Purakayastha (2010) reported
that application of biochar prepared from wheat straw @ 1.9 t/ha along with recommended
doses of NPK (NPK::180:80:80) significantly increased the yield of maize in Inceptisol of
IARI farm and this treatment was superior to either crop residue incorporation (CRI) or

30
crop residue burning (CRB). In the case of pearl millet and rice, the yields with biochar
were on par with those obtained either with CRI or CRB fertilizer.
Biochar prepared from different feedstocks (pigeonpea, castor and cotton) was evaluated
for its effect on pigeonpea yield at CRIDA, Hyderabad. Biochar was applied at different
rates (3 and 6 t/ha) along with recommended NPK. Highest grain yield (1685 kg/ha) of
pigeonpea was recorded with alternate year application of cotton stalk biochar @ 3 t/ha
supplemented with NPK. In case of castor stalk biochar experiment, application of biochar
at 6.0 t/ha either every year or alternate year+NPK gave marginally higher yield than other
treatments. However, in another experiment, application of pigeon pea stalk biochar+RDF
and RDF alone in every year gave similar but significantly higher yield compared to all
other treatments (CRIDA, 2012). Similarly, application of biochar at different rates had
no appreciable negative effect on crop yield. The grain yield in biochar treated plots was
significantly higher than in unamended control plots, but no differences were observed
between biochar application rates at 3.0 and 6.0 t/ha+RDF. Further, higher agronomic
nitrogen use efficiency (91.0 kg grain/kg N) was recorded with application of biochar at 6.0
t/ha+NPK followed by biochar at 3.0 t/ha+NPK (52 kg grain/kg N) (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
In another experiment at CRIDA, effect of biochar produced from maize, castor, cotton and
pigeonpea stalks was evaluated on maize yield. Different sources of biochar were applied
at 2 and 4 t/ha alone and in combination with mineral fertilizers and organic manures.
Maize performed better in the plots under application of castor stalk biochar at 4 t/ha in
combination with RDF (120:60:60) + FYM (5 t/ha) and recorded 34% higher grain yield
than that of RDF (CRIDA, 2012). Similarly, application of maize stalk biochar at 2 t/ha +
RDF + FYM gave 23% higher yield whereas pigeonpea and cotton stalk biochar gave 14%
higher yield compared to RDF (Fig 13).
Effect of pigeonpea stalk biochar application on growth of pigeonpea
Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)
Pigeonpea stalk at 6 t/ha + RDF Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)
Unamended control

31
In Tamil Nadu, biochars produced from different feed stocks (Prosopis, maize stover, cotton
stalk, pigeonpea stalk and rice husk) were evaluated for their effect on soil properties and
yields of field crops including maize, cotton, groundnut and green gram. Field experiments
were conducted at different locations in Tamil Nadu to evaluate biochar prepared from
prosopis, rice husk, cotton, maize and pigeonpea stalks at different application rates on
field crops.
At Vagarai (Dindigul district), application of FYM @ 12.5 t/ha produced significantly higher
maize yield (8.11 t/ha) than prosopis biochar treatments. Among the biochar treatments,
application of prosopis biochar @ 5 t/ha gave significantly higher maize yield (7.34 t/ha)
but further increase in application rate of biochar (10 and 15 t/ha) resulted in lower maize
yields. Similarly, in another experiment at the same location, maize straw biochar produced
marginally higher yield of maize than the pigeonpea biochar at all application rates. Similar
to prosopis biochar, higher application rates of both maize straw biochar and pigeonpea
biochar had advers effect on maize grain yields (Fig 14).
In a similar experiment on maize at Kovilpatti (Tuticorin district), however, different
application rates (5, 10 and 15 t/ha) of prosopis biochar and rice husk biochar produced
similar yields (3.34-3.48 t/ha) of maize and all the treatments were at par with application of
FYM @ 12.5 t/ha (3.45 t/ha). Similarly, in another experiment at Kovilpatti, different biochars
(maize, cotton and pigeonpea) and their application rates (5, 10 and 15 t/ha) produced
similar yields (3.13-3.34 t/ha) of maize.
On contrary, higher application rate of prosopis biochar (15 t/ha) gave higher grain yield
of black gram compared to its application at lower doses at Kumulur (Trichy district).
Further, prosopis biochar was found better than rice husk biochar at all application rates in
improving black gram yield. In another experiment, application of cotton-stalk biochar @
10 t/ha produced significantly higher yield of black gram closely followed by pigeonpea-
stalk biochar @ 10 t/ha. However, further increase in application rate of these biochars
marginally reduced the black gram yield (Fig 15).
Fig 13. Effect of different sources and rates of biochar application on maize yield

32
In cotton, prosopis biochar and rice-husk biochar applied at different doses (5, 10 and 15 t/ha)
produced similar seed cotton yield (918-929 kg/ha) as that of FYM @ 12.5 t/ha (936 kg/ha) at
Kovilpatti. Similarly, in another experiment at the same location, different biochars (maize,
cotton and pigeonpea) and their application rates (5, 10 and 15 t/ha) had no significant
effect on seed cotton yield (904-937 kg/ha). Among the three biochars, pigeonpea biochar
gave marginally higher seed cotton yield followed by cotton biochar at all application rates.
Similar results were reported from a field experiment on rainfed cotton at Aruppukottai
(Virudhunagar district).
The combined application of biochar and inorganic fertilizer has the potential to increase
crop productivity, thus providing additional incomes, and reducing the quantity of
inorganic fertilizer use and importation (De Gryze et al., 2010; Quayle, 2010). Steiner et
al. (2008) reported that application rate of biochar @ 5 t/ha decreased fertilizer needs by
7%. The impact of biochar application is seen most in highly degraded acidic or nutrient
Fig 14. Effect of different biochars and their application rates on maize yield
Fig 15. Effect of different biochars and their application rates on black gram yield

33
depleted soils. Low charcoal additions (0.5 t/ha) have shown marked impact on various
plant species, whereas higher rates seemed to inhibit plant growth (Glaser et al., 2001;
Ogawa et al., 2006). Crop yields, particularly on tropical soils can be increased if biochar
is applied in combination with inorganic or organic fertilizers (Schmidt and Noack, 2000;
Glaser et al., 2002; Woolf, 2008). Oguntunde et al. (2004) reported that grain and biomass
yield of maize increased by 91 and 44%, respectively on charcoal site soils compared to
adjacent field soils.
Glaser et al. (2001) reviewed a number of early studies conducted during the 1980s and 1990s.
These tended to show marked impacts of low charcoal additions (0.5 t/ha) on various plant
species. Higher rates seemed to inhibit plant growth. In later experiments, combination of
higher biochar application rates alongside NPK fertilizer increased crop yield on tropical
Amazonian soils (Steiner et al., 2007) and semi-arid soils in Australia (Ogawa et al., 2006).
Table 7 shows yield responses of different crops to biochar.
Table 7. Summary of experiments assessing the impact
of biochar addition on crop yield
Authors Study outline Results summary
Iswaran et al.
(1980)
Pea, India Char at 0.5 t/ha increased biomass
by 160%
Iswaran et al.
(1980)
Mungbean, India Char at 0.5 t/ha increased biomass
by 122%
Kishimoto &
Sugiura (1985)
Soybean on volcanic ash loam,
Japan
Char at 0.5 t/ha increased yield by
151%, Char at 5 t/ha decreased
yield by 63%, and Char at 15 t/ha
decreased yield by 29%
Kishimoto &
Sugiura (1985)
Sugi trees on clay loam, Japan Wood charcoal, bark charcoal
and activated charcoal at 0.5 t/ha
increased biomass by 249, 324 and
244%, respectively
Chidumayo,
(1994)
Bauhinia trees on Alfisol/Ultisol Charcoal application increased
biomass yield by 13% and height by
24%
Glaser et al.
(2002)
Cowpea on xanthic ferralsol Char at 67 t/ha increased biomass by
150%
Char at 135 t/ha increased biomass
by 200%
Lehmann et al.
(2003)
Soil fertility and nutrient retention.
Cowpea was planted in pots and rice
crops in lysimeters, Brazil
Biochar additions significantly
increased biomass production by 38
to 45% (no yield reported)
Oguntunde et al.
(2004)
Comparison of maize yields between
disused charcoal production sites
and adjacent fields, Ghana
Grain and biomass yield was 91 and
44% higher on charcoal site than
control.
Yamamoto et al.
(2006)
Maize, cowpea and peanut trial in
area of low soil fertility
Acacia bark charcoal plus fertilizer
increased maize and peanut yields
(but not cowpea)
Chan et al. (2007) Pot trial on radish yield in heavy soil
using commercial green waste biochar
(three rates) with and without N
Biochar at 100 t/ha increased yield
x3; linear increase 10 to 50 t/ha, but
no effect without added N

34
Authors Study outline Results summary
Rondon et al.
(2007)
Enhanced biological N2 fixation (BNF)
by common beans through biochar
additions, Colombia
Bean yield increased by 46%
and biomass production by 39%
compared to control at 90 and 60 g
biochar/kg, respectively
Steiner et al.
(2007)
Four cropping cycles with rice (Oryza
sativa L.) and sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor L.)
Charcoal amended with chicken
manure amendments resulted in the
highest cumulative crop yield (12.4 t/
ha)
Kimetu et al.
(2008)
Mitigation of soil degradation with
biochar. Comparison of maize yields
in degradation gradient cultivated
soils in Kenya.
doubling of maize grain yield in the
highly degraded soils from about 3 to
6 t/ha
On the other hand, large additions of charcoal or coal-derived humic acids may also have
detrimental effects on crop growth. Yield declines of soybeans and maize were observed
with an addition of 5 Mg charcoal/ha and 15 Mg charcoal/ha (Kishimoto and Sugiura, 1985)
The reason for these reductions can be attributed to an increase in pH for pH-sensitive
plants, such as observed for pine (Tryon 1948) or due to pH-induced micro-nutrient
deficiencies (Kishimoto and Sugiura, 1985). However, crop yields did not generally decline
after additions of large amounts of charcoal. From the few data available, no general
optimum range can be deduced. Instead, for optimum plant growth, the amount of added
charcoal may have to be determined for each type of soil and plant. Additionally, some
investigations showed that crop yields can be enhanced even more compared to control
soils if charcoal amendments are applied together with inorganic or organic fertilizers
(Glaser et al., 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003).
Most of the currently published studies assessing the effect of biochar on crop yield are
generally small scale, almost all short-term, and sometimes conducted in pots where
environmental fluctuation is removed. These limitations are compounded by a lack
of methodological consistency in nutrient management and pH control, biochar type
and origin. It is not therefore possible at this stage to draw any quantitative conclusion,
certainly not to project or compare the impact of a particular one-time addition of biochar
on long-term crop yield. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that at least for some crop and soil
combinations, moderate additions of biochar are usually beneficial, and in very few cases
negative.
6. Critical factors for maximizing the benefits from biochar
6.1 Quality of feedstock biomass
Different types of biomass can be used for producing biochar: crops and forest residues,
municipal green waste, paper mill waste, saw-mill waste, piggery waste, poultry waste and
even human waste. All biochar types are reported to be beneficial. In situations such as
desertified land, or even the degraded agricultural lands of India, South Africa and Australia,
the benefits of biochar application in soils can be transforming. But, all types of feedstock
biomasses are not equally good for various types of soils. Nutrient types and amounts vary
with the biomass used. For instance, when wood based feedstocks are pyrolyzed, coarse
and resistant biochars are generated with high carbon contents (up to 80%), as the rigid

35
ligninolytic nature of the source material is retained in the biochar residue (Winsley, 2007).
The higher the amounts of nutrients in a feedstock biomass, the richer in nutrients are the
biochar. A study conducted in Australia by Chan et al. (2007) shows that biochar produced
from poultry manure had higher electrical conductivity, N, P and pH values than that from
garden organic waste (Table 8). These analyses highlight the fact that the more nutrient-rich
the organic waste, the greater the benefits from the biochar.
Table 8. Impacts of different biochar on soil properties
Feedstock Acti-
vated pH EC
(dS/m)
C
(%)
Total
(N%)
Total
(P%)
Mineral (N)
(mg/kg)
Extractable P
(mg/kg)
Garden organic Ye s 9.4 3.2 36 0.18 0.07 <0.5 400
Poultry manure Yes 13 14 33 0.9 3.6 2.5 1800
Poultry manure No 9.9 5.6 38 2.0 2.5 2.4 11600
Source: Chan et al. (2007)
6.2 Optimum temperature for biochar production
High cation exchange capacity (CEC), carbon levels and higher soil surface areas are some
of the properties of better quality biochar. The higher the temperatures of the pyrolysis,
the greater are the CEC and surface area of biochar. But, this outcome is compromised in
two ways: 1) low carbon levels; and 2) additional handling costs of small-sized biochar
(Lehmann, 2007a; Desmond and Kingston, 2007). High-temperature pyrolysis reduces the
carbon percentage of biochar, which results in lower carbon sequestration and the other
benefits of biochar are also reduced. Similarly, small-sized biochar (<1 mm size), produced
by high temperature pyrolysis, is difficult to handle as either pelletisation or slurrying
is necessary, which incurs additional costs. Consequently, the optimum temperature for
biochar production is around 500°C (Lehmann, 2007a).
6.3 Soil carbon level
The soil carbon level of the area where biochar is to be applied is another serious concern.
A 10-year study where charcoal was prepared, mixed into the soil and left undisturbed
under three contrasting forest stands in northern Sweden, found a substantial increase in
soil bacteria and fungi. As a result, there was mineralization (decomposition) of native soil
organic matter with accelerated emissions of CO2 (Wardle et al., 1998). This revealed that
biochar application in carbon-rich soils could partially offset the GHG benefits. Therefore,
to maximize the overall benefits of biochar, it should be applied to carbon-poor soils. Biochar
application on Indian and South African agricultural soils could be more promising as 25%
of South Africa and 45% of India’s cultivated lands are degraded (FAO, 2008; Hatrack, 2008).
6.4 Soil types and soil moisture
A major attraction of biochar is that it increases water quality and plant available water
capacity (PAWC). In dry countries such as Australia and India, where water quantity and
quality is extremely variable, this would be a significant benefit. The soil type, anyway, will
ultimately determine the soil water benefits of biochar. Soil type has a significant influence
on PAWC. Although biochar addition increases the water holding capacity and plant
available moisture in sandy soils, there is no guarantee that it will increase the available
water in loam and clay soils (Table 9). Because it is so porous, charcoal has a high surface

36
area with increased micro-pores and improves the water holding properties of sandy soils.
But, in loamy soils, no changes were observed; and in clayey soil, the available soil moisture
decreased with increasing charcoal additions, probably through the hydrophobicity of
the charcoal (Glaser et al., 2002). Therefore, biochar soil water benefits are maximized in
sandy soils and thus there are enormous benefits of biochar in cropping areas where the
opportunity cost of water is very high such as the sandy soils of the Western Australian
wheat belt and water scarce soils of India.
Table.9. Effects of biomass derived char on percentage of
available moisture in soils on a volume basis
Soil 0% biochar 15% biochar 30% biochar 45% biochar
Sand 6.7 7.1 7.5 7.9
Loam 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6
Clay 17.8 16.6 15.4 14.2
Source: Glaser et al. (2002)
6.5 Soil pH and soil contamination
Soil pH is an important factor for plant growth for various reasons: some plants and soil
micro-biota prefer either alkaline or acidic conditions; some soil-borne diseases are more
common when the soil is alkaline or acidic; and, nutrient availability in soils depends
on soil pH. Most macronutrients are available in neutral soils. But, inappropriate use of
nitrogenous fertilizers, removal of crop residues, leaching of N and the presence of calcium
sulphate (CaSO4) parent material, has resulted in soil acidity being a major soil problem
worldwide. Acid soils enhance soil contamination, as they increase concentrations of Al
and Fe cations in the soil, which decrease the available symbiotic micro-organisms needed
for effective tree growth (Shuj et al. 2007). In order to neutralize acidic soils, farmers apply
thousands of tons of lime to farm soils at great expense. In addition to this direct cost, the
production, packaging, transportation and application of lime emits significant amounts of
GHGs (Maraseni, 2008). Application of biochar to acidic soils can avoid significant amounts
of direct and indirect (such as avoiding GHG emissions) costs.
7. Implications of biochar use
7.1 Economic implications
The economic cost of implementing biochar production and use is important not
just because it determines how readily and rapidly we might deploy the technology,
but also because it must compete for finance and resources with other technologies
that may likewise be aimed at climate change abatement and soil quality improvement
(Woolf, 2008).
Using the highest carbon content of the wood-based biochar (i.e. 80%) and the CO2
offset price range, the approximate value of biochar C sequestration is $2.93-$90.83 per
metric ton of biochar. The potential economic returns to farmers if they utilize biochar
as a substitute for agricultural lime under three price scenarios: (a) $114.05 per metric
ton based on the energy content of a wood-based biochar; (b) $87 per metric ton; and (c)
$350.74 per metric ton. The first value represents the opportunity cost of the foregone
use of biochar as energy source. A wood-based biochar has an average energy content

37
of 12,500-12,500 BTU/lb (Dynamotive Energy Systems, 2007). The energy content of the
Central Appalachian coal is 12,500 BTU/lb and its price is $116.38 per metric ton as of
2008 (EIA, 2009). Using the energy content as basis, the combustion value of biochar is
98% that of Central Appalachian coal, or $114.05/metric ton. The latter two prices are
adopted from the estimated break-even prices of biochar in Granatstein et al. (2009).
If the market price of biochar is low enough so that a farmer will earn a profit after
applying biochar to the crop field (i.e. in one case study, lower than $12.05/MT and
$100.52/MT when the price of carbon offset if $1/MT CO2 and $31/MT CO2, respectively)
(Galianto et al. 2010).
Transportation distance has significant effects on costs, whereas ramifications for GHG
emissions are low. Even transporting the feedstock and biochar each 200 km, the net CO2
emission reductions decrease by only 5% of the baseline (15 km). At 1000 km, the net GHG
emission reductions decrease by 28% to -626 kg CO2e. The net energy is more sensitive
than the GHG emissions to the transport distance. At 200 km the net energy decreases
by 15%, and at 1000 km, the net energy decreases by 79% to 863 MJ. Costs are the most
sensitive to transportation distance, where costs increase by $0.80 to 1 for every 10 km.
Therefore, biochar systems are most economically viable as distributed systems with low
transportation requirements (Roberts et al., 2010).
7.2 Environmental implications
The temperature rise is predominantly because of increases in atmospheric greenhouse
gas emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide (CO2). Eleven of the last 12 years rank
among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature
(since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906–2005) is 0.74°C (0.56–0.92). Globally, soils
contain about 1500 Pg (1 Pg =1 Gt) of organic carbon (Batjes, 1996), about three times
the amount of carbon in vegetation and twice the amount in the atmosphere (IPCC
WGI, 2001). Smith et al. (2008) suggested that technologies, which promote soil carbon
sequestration, will also help to mitigate climate change itself (by reducing atmospheric
CO2 concentrations) and are cost competitive with mitigation options available in other
sectors.
Sohi et al. (2009) raised certain pertinent questions regarding biochar application to the
soil. According to them, in short-term experiments ranging from months to a few years,
biochar addition seems to generally enhance plant growth and soil nutrient status and
decrease nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Surprisingly, little is yet published concerning
how these benefits occur, or particularly why the effects are quantitatively so variable
according to crop, soil and application rate. Therefore, despite the recent interest in
biochar as soil amendment for improving soil quality and soil carbon sequestration,
implications of long-term biochar application on environmental conditions need to be
assessed (Jha et al., 2010).
8. Potentials of biochar use in India
With a production of 93.9 million tons (Mt) of wheat, 104.6 Mt of rice, 21.6 Mt of maize, 20.7
Mt of millets, 357.7 Mt of sugarcane, 8.1 Mt of fibre crops (jute, mesta, cotton), 17.2 Mt of
pulses and 30.0 Mt of oilseeds crops, in the year 2011-12 (MoA, 2012), it is but natural that
a huge volume of crop residues are produced both on-farm and off-farm. It is estimated
that approximately 500-550 Mt of crop residues are produced per year in the country (IARI,

38
2012). Efficient and sustainable disposal of organic waste remains a key issue in rural farm
areas and in urban societies. Most wastes are either burnt or end up in landfill, which
degrade the environment and also produce large amounts of GHGs. The production of
biochar from farm wastes and their application in farm soils offer multiple environmental
and financial benefits. Biochar use has a very promising potential for the development of
sustainable agricultural systems in India, and also for global climate change mitigation.
There is significant availability of non-feed biomass resources in the country as potential
feedstock for biochar production. The current availability of biomass in India (2010-2011) is
estimated at about 500 million metric tons/year. Studies sponsored by the Ministry of New
and Renewable Energy, Govt. of India have estimated surplus biomass availability at about
120–150 million metric tons/annum. Biochar having high pH value can be a good remedy
for acid soil amelioration. North-East India has the potentiality of producing 37 million
tons of agricultural waste biomass. If only 1% of this biomass is converted to biochar, about
74 thousand tons of carbon can be sequestered annually. Out of this, if 1% of the process
of producing biochar is carried out through modern equipments, about 1300 and 900 tons
of bio-oil and biogas can be produced, respectively which is equivalent to 31 terra joule of
energy.
Moreover, in rural India, women cook their food with biomass (mostly wood and
charcoal) in highly polluting stoves, which represent a number of problems including
deforestation, lots of time spent on wood collection and on cooking, back pains and other
life-threatening risks. Furthermore, charcoal is inefficiently produced in the earth-mound
kiln releasing a considerable amount of methane emissions. Therefore, the establishment
of the commercialization chain of highly-efficient biochar-making cook stoves, diffusion of
improved small-scale kilns, pyrolysis of agricultural residues that are burnt otherwise, offer
an opportunity to enhance the living conditions of rural families, counteract deforestation,
protect biodiversity, increase crop production, improve agricultural waste management
and remove carbon from the atmosphere as a carbon-negative strategy to fight global
warming (Anon, 2012).
9. Constraints of biochar use in India
One factor determining how much biochar may be produced is the existence of competing
demands for biomass feedstock. Production of biochar is, of course, not the only use that can
be made of biomass. Numerous other applications for various types of biomass have been
used in the past, are in current demand, and may become popular in the future. The crop
residues and other biomass are used for animal feeding, soil mulching, biomanure making,
thatching for rural homes and fuel for domestic and industrial use. Once environmental
costs of carbon-based greenhouse gas emissions have been suitably internalised, we can
expect market forces and the price mechanism to be the dominant factor in apportioning
use of biomass resources between competing demands (Woolf, 2008). Other constraints on
biochar production methods arise because emissions of CH4, N2O, soot or volatile organic
compounds combined with low biochar yields (for example, from traditional charcoal
kilns or smouldering slash piles) may negate some or all of the carbon-sequestration
benefits, cause excessive carbon-payback times or be detrimental to health (Woolf et al.,
2010). However, to promote the application of biochar as a soil amendment, and also as a
climate change abatement option, research, development and demonstration on biochar
production and application is very vital.

39
10. Future research, development and
policy needs for promoting use of biochar
10.1 Research needs
Research information on biochar in agricultural use in India is scanty. Very few reports are
available on production, characterization and use of biochar as soil amendment. Biochar
research in the world as a whole is decade old and lot of advancement has already been
made in this direction. A baseline study comprising compilation of data on non-feed biomass
resources in India needs to be conducted. Similarly, a review of current non-feed biomass
utilization and thermo-chemical conversion technologies, particularly slow pyrolysis also
has to be carried out. Further, we must answer certain questions before recommending
large-scale use of biochar for agriculture purposes (Jha et al., 2010).
• Doesproducingbiocharinvolvelarge-scalefossil-fuelburning?
The amount of carbon sequestered in the biochar biomass must take into account of
net carbon balance, i.e. the amount of CO2 evolved for producing biochar must be
considerably less than the amount of carbon sequestered in charcoal. There must be
positive carbon balance for producing biochar biomass.
• How will the soil microbial community, particularly the soil heterotrophs,
behave under the presence of a non-degrading carbon source?
As we know the decomposers present in the soils derive energy from the breakdown
of SOM, particularly the soil heterotrophs. Thus their dynamics under the presence
of non-degrading carbon source must be fully understood. Otherwise it may have
some adverse effect on the soil ecological settings.
• Sincethedecompositionofbiocharis extremelyslow,whatis the mechanism that
operates for nutrients release/availability?
• Whatwillbetheenzymaticactivityundertheinuenceofanon-degradingsubstrate?
• Whatshouldbetheoptimumrateofbiocharapplication?
• Whatwill be the impactoflong-term application ofbiocharoncropyieldandsoil
quality?
Although biochar as soil amendment for improving soil quality and soil-carbon
sequestration has attracted global attention, there is inadequate knowledge on the
long-term application of soil amendment properties of these materials produced
from different feedstocks and under different pyrolysis conditions.
• Isthereanyproventechnologyforlarge-scaleproductionofbiocharonasmallfarm
scale?
• Arethereanyenvironmentalimplicationsrelatedwithbiocharapplication?
• Whatwillbetheeffectofbiocharonproblematicsoils?
10.2 Development needs
• Installation of Biochar production units in places where bio-waste generation is
abundant.

40
• Createawarenessamongthevariousbiocharstakeholderssuchasfarmers,agricultural
extension officers, researchers etc and to build their capacities in biochar production
and application technologies through the development and implementation of
training programmes.
• Familiarizing biochar production and application technologies at KVKs and state
agricultural departments for awareness generation among the farmers.
• Establishing self-help groups and encouraging unemployed youths to take up
biochar production as a profession
• Eachuniversity,researchinstituteandNGOcommittedtosustainabledevelopment
of agriculture should start working with some selected farmers. Their experience
should be used for improving the biochar production and application technology.
10.3 Policy needs
The way crop residues are used and managed by millions of farmers depends on their
individual perceptions about the benefits, largely economic, both short- and long-term
and the opportunities available (IARI, 2012). The current policy instruments, if any, draw
from the need to control air pollution resulting from the negative impacts of burning of
crop residues and not from the benefits of biochar use in achieving goals of sustainable
agriculture. The benefits of biochar use in agriculture relate to soil health improvement,
C sequestration, reduced GHGs emissions and improved use-efficiency of inputs. There
is a need to undertake policy-related research to quantify the benefits under a range of
situations to aid policy level decisions. Some of the policy needs to promote biochar use in
agriculture are:
• Developing a crop residues/biomass management policy for each state dening
clearly various competing uses.
• Developingandimplementingappropriatelegislationonpreventionandmonitoring
of on-farm crop residues burnings through incentives and punishment.

41
Conclusions
Crop residues in fields can cause considerable crop management problems as they
accumulate. In India, about 435.98 million tons of agro-residues are produced every year,
out of which 313.62 million tons are surplus. These residues are either partially utilized or
un-utilized due to various constraints. Efficient use of biomass by converting it as a useful
source of soil amendment/nutrients is one way to manage soil health and fertility. One
of the approaches for efficient utilization of biomass involves carbonization of biomass to
highly stable carbon compound known as biochar and its use as a soil amendment. Use of
biochar in agricultural systems is one viable option that can enhance natural rates of carbon
sequestration in the soil, reduce farm waste and improve the soil quality. Further, several
studies across the world have established that biochar application increases conventional
agricultural productivity and mitigate GHG emissions from agricultural soils. This has led
to renewed interest of agricultural researchers particularly in India to produce biochar
and its use as a soil amendment. Recently, many ICAR institutes and SAUs have initiated
work on biochar production from different bio-residues and its use as a soil amendment.
The initial outcomes reveal that biochar application helps in improving soil health and
crop productivity. However, to promote the application of biochar as a soil amendment
and also as a climate change abatement option, research, development and demonstration
on biochar production and application is very vital. It is necessary to develop low-cost
biochar kilns to make the technology affordable to small and marginal farmers. Further,
inter-disciplinary and location-specific research has to be taken up for studying the long-
term impact of biochar application on soil physical properties, nutrient availability, soil
microbial activities, carbon sequestration potential, crop productivity, and greenhouse gas
mitigation.

42
References
Amonette, J. and Joseph, S. 2009. Characteristics of biochar: Micro-chemical properties. In:
Biochar for environmental management: Science and technology (J. Lehmann and S.
Joseph, eds.). Earth Scan, London. pp 33-52.
Anderson, P. and Reed, T.B. 2004. Biomass gasification: clean residential stoves, commercial
power generation, and global impacts, prepared for the LAMNET Project
International Workshop on “Bioenergy for a Sustainable Development,” 8-10 Nov
2004, Viña del Mar, Chile.
Anonymous, 2012. Good stoves and biochar community project. http://www.biocharindia.
com/Home/good-stoves-and-biochar-community-project accessed on 22 November,
2012.
Arias, B., Pevida, C., Fermoso, J., Plaza, M.G., Rubiera, F. and Pis, J.J. 2008. Influence of
torrefaction on the grind ability and reactivity of woody biomass. Fuel Processing
Technology, 89: 169-175.
Asai, H., Samson, B.K., Stephan, H.M., Songyikhangsuthor, K., Homma, K., Kiyono, Y.,
Inoue, Y., Shiraiwa, T. and 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.
Baldock, J.A. and Smernik, R.J. 2002. Chemical composition and bioavailability of thermally
altered Pinus resinosa (Red pine) wood. Organic Geochemistry, 33: 1093-1109.
Batjes, N.H. 1996. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European Journal of Soil
Science, 47: 151-163.
Berglund, L.M., DeLuca, T.H. and Zackrisson, O. 2004. Activated carbon amendments to soil
alters nitrification rates in Scots pine forests. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 36: 2067-2073.
Bracmort, K. 2010. Biochar: examination of an emerging concept to mitigate climate change,
February 1, 2010. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, R40186, Congressional
Research Service (CRS), Report for congress, prepared for members and committees
of congress.
Brewer, C.E., Schmidt-Rohr, K., Satrio, J.A. and Brown, R.C. 2009. Characterization of biochar
from fast pyrolysis and gasification systems, Environmental Progress & Sustainable
Energy, 28(3): 386-396.
Brown, N.C. 1917. The hardwood distillation industry in New York. The New York State
College of Forestry at Syracuse University.
Brown, R. 2009. Biochar production technology. In: Biochar for environmental management
(J. Lehmann and S. Joseph eds.), Science and Technology, Earthscan, London. pp
127–147.
Chan, K.Y. and Xu, Z. 2009. Biochar: nutrient properties and their enhancement. In:
Biochar for environmental management (J. Lehmann and S. Joseph eds.), Science and
Technology, Earthscan, London. pp 67-84.
Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A. and Joseph, S. 2007. Assessing the
agronomic values of contrasting char materials on an Australian hard setting soil.
Paper presented in International Agrichar Initiative (IAI) 2007 Conference, 27 April–2
May 2007, Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia.

43
Chan, Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A. and Joseph, S. 2008. Using poultry litter
biochars as soil amendments. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 46: 437-444.
Chidumayo, E.N. 1994. Effects of wood carbonization on soil and initial development of
seedlings in miombo woodland, Zambia. Forest Ecology and Management, 70: 353-357.
CRIDA, 2012. Annual Report 2011-12, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture,
Hyderabad, India. 178 p.
Day, D., Evans, R.J., Lee, J.W. and Reicosky, D. 2005. Economical CO2, SOx, and NOx
capture from fossil–fuel utilization with combined renewable hydrogen production
and large-scale carbon sequestration. Energy, 30: 2558-2579.
De Gryze, S., Cullen, M., Durschinger, L., Lehmann, J., Bluhm, D. and Six, J. 2010. Evaluation
of opportunities for generating carbon offsets from soil sequestration of biochar. In:
An issues paper commissioned by the Climate Action Reserve, final version. http://
www.terraglobalcapital.com/press/Soil_Sequestration_Biochar_Issue_Paper1.pdf.
DeLuca, T.H., MacKenzie, M.D., Gundale, M.J. and Holben,W.E. 2006. Wildfire-produced
charcoal directly influences nitrogen cycling in forest ecosystems. Soil Science Society
America Journal, 70: 448-453.
Demirbas, A. 2004. Effects of temperature and particle size on biochar yield from pyrolysis
of agricultural residues. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 72: 243-248.
Desmond, R. and Kingston, A. 2007. The role of agrichar in the commercialisation of
dynamotive’s fast pyrolysis process. Proceedings of the International Agrichar
Initiative (IAI) 2007 Conference, 27 April–2 May 2007.
Elliott, D.C. 2007. Historical developments in hydroprocessing bio-oils. Energy Fuels, 21:
1792-1815.
Emrich, W. 1985. Handbook of biochar Making. The Traditional and Industrial Methods. D.
Reidel Publishing Company.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2009. Coal news and market reports, average
weekly coal commodity spot prices, January to December 2008. http://www.eia.doe.
gov/cneaf/coal.
FAO, 2008. Preliminary map of land degradation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 2008.
Fernandes, M.B. and Brooks, P. 2003. Characterization of carbonaceous combustion residues:
II. Nonpolar organic compounds. Chemosphere, 53: 447-458.
Galinato, S.P., Yoder, J.K. and Granatstein, D. 2010. The economic value of biochar in crop
production and carbon sequestration. Working Paper Series 2010-3, Washington
State University. 26 p.
Gaskin, J.W., Speir, R.A., Morris, L.M., Ogden, L., Harris, K. and Lee, D. 2007. Potential for
pyrolysis char to affect soil moisture and nutrient status of a loamy sand soil. In:
Proceedings of the Georgia water resources conference. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Gaunt, J. and Cowie, A. 2009. Biochar greenhouse gas accounting and emission trading. In:
Biochar for environmental management (J. Lehmann and S. Joseph eds.), Science and
Technology, Earthscan, London. pp 317-340.

44
Gaunt, J. and Lehmann, J. 2008. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar.
Sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environmental Science &
Technology, 42: 4152-4158.
Glaser, B., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G. and Zech, W. 1998. Black carbon in soils: The use
of benzene carboxylic acids and specific markers. Organic Geochemistry, 29: 811-819.
Glaser, B., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G. and Zech, W. 2001. The ‘Terra Preta’ phenomenon:
a model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics. Naturwissenschaften, 88:
37-41.
Glaser, B., Lehmann, J. and Zech, W. 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties
of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal – a review. Biology and Fertility
Soils, 35: 219-230.
Graetz, R.D. and Skjemstad, J.O. 2003. The charcoal sink of biomass burning on the Australian
continent (CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper No. 64). Aspendale, CSIRO,
Australia.
Granatstein, D., Kruger, C.E., Collins, H., Galinato, S., Garcia-Perez, M. and Yoder, J. 2009.
Use of biochar from the pyrolysis of waste organic material as a soil amendment. Final
Project Report. Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington
State University, Wenatchee, WA. 181 p. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0907062.html.
Gupta, R. 2010. The economic causes of crop residue burning in Western Indo-Gangetic
plains. Paper presented at conference held at Indian Statistial Institute, Delhi centre,
December 2010, 1-26.
Hajarika, U.K., Munda, G.C., Bujarbaruah, K.M., Das, A., Patel, D.P., Prasad, K., Kumar, R.,
Panwar, A.S., Tomar, J.M.S., Bordoloi, J., Sharma, M. and Gogoi, G. 2006. Nutrient
Management in Organic Farming. Technical Bulletin No. 30. ICAR Research Complex
for NEH Region, Umiam, Meghalaya.
Hatrack, L. 2008. Forty five percent of Indian agricultural land degraded; particulate air
pollution spiking in all major cities. Available online at: http://www.zeenews.com/
news554697.
IARI, 2012. Crop residues management with conservation agriculture: Potential, constraints
and policy needs. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 32 p.
Iliffe, R. 2009. Is the biochar produced by an Anila stove likely to be a beneficial soil additive?.
UKBRC Working Paper 4. (Accessed online at www.biochar.org.uk/download.php?
id=18).
IPCC, 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., Vander Linden, P.J., Dai, X.,
Maskell, K. and Johnson, C.A. (Eds.)), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and
New York.
Iswaran, V., Jauhri, K.S. and Sen, A. 1980. Effect of charcoal, coal and peat on the yield of
moong, soybean and pea. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 12: 191-192.
Izaurralde, R.C., Rosenberg, N.J. and Lal, R. 2001. Mitigation of climate change by soil
carbon sequestration: issues of science, monitoring, and degraded lands. Advances in
Agronomy, 70: 1-75.

45
Jha, P., Biswas, A.K., Lakaria, B.L. and Subba Rao, A. 2010. Biochar in agriculture –prospects
and related implications. Current Science, 99 (9): 1218-1225.
Kammen, D.M. and Lew, D.J. 2005. Review of technologies for the production and use of
charcoal. Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Berkeley University.
Kimetu, J.M., Lehmann, J., Ngoze, S.O., Mugendi, D.N., Kinyangi, J.M., Riha, S., Verchot, L.,
Recha, J.W. and Pell, A.N. 2008. Reversibility of soil productivity decline with organic
matter of differing quality along a degradation gradient. Ecosystems, 11: 726-739.
Kishimoto, S. and Sugiura, G. 1985. Charcoal as a soil conditioner. Int Achieve Future, 5: 12-
23.
Koopmans, A. and Koppejan, J. 1997. Agricultural and forest residues – generation, utilisation
and availability. Regional Consultation on Modern Applications of Biomass Energy. 6
-10 January 1997. Kuala Lumpur.
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: 178-181.
Lakaria, B.L., Sumitra Giri, Pramod Jha and Biswas, A.K. 2012. Biochar preparation and
characterization. (Unpublished).
Lehmann, J. 2007a. Bio-energy in the black. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5: 381-
387.
Lehmann, J. 2007b. A handful of carbon. Nature, 447: 143-144.
Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. 2009. Biochar systems. In: Biochar for environmental management
(J. Lehmann and S. Joseph eds.), Science and Technology, Earthscan, London. pp
147-168.
Lehmann, J. and Rondon, M. 2006. Biochar soil management on highly weathered soils in
the humid tropics. In: Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems (N. Uphoff et al.
eds), Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp 517-530.
Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J. and Rondon, M. 2006. Biochar sequestration in terrestrial
ecosystems—a review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11: 403-
427.
Lehmann, J., Pereira da Silva Jr. J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W. and Glaser, B. 2003. Nutrient
availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central
Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and Soil, 249: 343-
357.
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J., O’Neill, B., Skjemstad, J.O.,
Thies, J., Luizao, F.J., Petersen, J. and Neves, E.G. 2006. Black carbon increases cation
exchange capacity in soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70: 1719-1730.
Major, J. 2013. Practical aspects of biochar application to tree crops. IBI Technical Bulletin
#102, International Biochar Initiative. (Accessed online at http://www.biochar-
international.org/sites/default/files/Technical%20Bulletin%20Biochar%20Tree%20
Planting.pdf).
Major, J., Steiner, C., Downie, A. and Lehmann, J. 2009. Biochar effects on nutrient leaching.
In: Biochar for environmental management (J. Lehmann and S. Joseph eds.), Science and
Technology, Earthscan, London. pp 271-287.

46
Mankasingh, U., Choi, P.C. and Ragnarsdottir, V. 2011. Biochar application in a tropical,
agricultural region: A plot scale study in Tamil Nadu, India. Applied Geochemistry, 26:
S218-S221.
MacCarty, N. and Ogle, D., Still, D., Bond, T. and Roden, C. 2008. A laboratory comparison
of the global warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking stoves. Energy
for Sustainable Development, 12(2): 56-65.
Maraseni, T.N. 2008. Re-evaluating land use choices to incorporate carbon values: a case
study in the South Burnett region of Queensland. PhD thesis, University of Southern
Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Masek, O. 2009. Biochar production technologies, http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/ biochar/
documents/BiocharLaunch-OMasek.pdf.
McHenry, M.P. 2009. Agricultural biochar production, renewable energy generation and
farm carbon sequestration in Western Australia: Certainty, uncertainty and risk.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 129: 1–7.
Milne, E., Powlson, D.S. and Cerri, C.E. 2007. Soil carbon stocks at regional scales (preface).
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 122: 1-2.
MNRE, 2009. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Resources, Govt. of India, New
Delhi. www.mnre.gov.in/biomassrsources.
MoA, 2012. Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, New Delhi. www.eands.dacnet.nic.in.
Murali, S., Shrivastava, R. and Saxena, M. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from open
field burning of agricultural residues in India. Journal of Environmental Science and
Engineering, 52(4): 277-84.
NEDFI, 2013. North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited. Databank of
agriculture, http://db.nedfi.com/.
Ogawa, M., Okimori, Y. and Takahashi, F. 2006. Carbon sequestration by carbonization of
biomass and forestation: Three case studies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, 11: 429-444.
Oguntunde, P.G., Abiodun, B.J., Ajayi, A.E. and Van de Giesen, N. 2008. Effects of charcoal
production on soil physical properties in Ghana. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil
Science, 171(4): 591-596.
Oguntunde, P.G., Fosu, M., Ajayi, A.E. and Van de Giesen, N. 2004. Effects of charcoal
production on maize yield, chemical properties and texture of soil. Biology & Fertility
of Soils, 39: 295-299.
Okimori, Y., Ogawa, M. and Takahashi, F. 2003. Potential of CO2 emission reductions by
carbonizing biomass waste from industrial tree plantation in Sumatra, Indonesia.
Mitigation and Adaptation. Strategies for Global Change, (September 2003). pp 261-
280.
Pathak H, Bhatia A, Jain N and Aggarwal PK (2010) Greenhouse gas emission and mitigation
in Indian agriculture – A review. In: ING Bulletins on Regional Assessment of Reactive
Nitrogen, Bulletin No. 19 (Ed. Bijay-Singh), SCON-ING, New Delhi, 34 p.
Pelaez-Samaniego, M.R., Garcia-Perez, M., Cortez, L.B., Rosillo-Calle, F. and Mesa, J.
Improvements of Brazilian carbonization industry as part of the creation of a global
biomass economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12: 1063-1086.

47
Priyadarshani, K. and Prabhune, R. 2009, Biochar for carbon reduction, sustainable
agriculture and soil management (BiocharM), final report for APN Project, ARCP,
2009-12 NSY-Karve.
Punia, M, Prasad, N.V. and Yogesh, Y. 2008. Identifying biomass bur ned patches of agriculture
residue using satellite remote sensing data. Current Science, 94 (9): 1185-1190.
Purakayastha, T.J. 2010. Effect of biochar on yield of different crops. IARI. Annual Report
2010-11, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India. pp 55.
Purakayastha, T.J., Das, K.C., Julia, G. and Keith, H. 2012b. Evaluating potential of biochar to
increase carbon sequestration in soil for mitigating climate change. In: Proc. 99th Indian
Science Congress, Part II, Abstracts of Oral Presentation, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar
during Jan. 3-7, 2012, pp 64.
Purakayastha, T.J. 2012b. Preparation and utilization of biochar for soil amendment.
In: Climate Change Impact, Adaptation and Mitigation in Agriculture: Methodology for
Assessment and Applications (H. Pathak, P.K. Aggarwal and S.D. Singh, Eds.). Indian
Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. pp 280-294.
Purakayastha, T.J., Pathak, H. and Savita, K. 2013a. Stability of biochar carbon – Its implication
on carbon sequestration and microbial activities in soil. In: Proc.100th Indian Science
Congress, Part II, Abstracts of Oral Presentation, University of Calcutta, Kolkata during
Jan. 3-7, 2013. pp 287-288.
Purakayastha, T.J., Pathak, H. and Savita, K. 2013b. Effect of feedstock on characteristics of
biochar and its impact on carbon sequaestration in soil. In: Proc. National seminar on
current environmental challenges and possible solutions, University of Delhi, during Feb.
15-16, 2013. pp 74-75.
Quayle, W.C. 2010. Biochar potential for soil improvement and soil fertility. In: IREC Farmers
Newsletter, Large Area No. 182.
Ramanathan, V. and Carmichael, G. 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to black
carbon, Nature Geoscience, 1: 221-227.
Reddy, B. 2011. Biochar production and use. http://www.slideshare.net/saibhaskar/biochar-
production-and-uses-dr-reddy-5242206.
Roberts, K.G., Gloy, B.A., Joseph, S., Scott, N.R. and Lehmann, J. 2010. Life cycle assessment
of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential.
Environmental Science & Technology, 44(2): 827-833.
Rodríguez, L., Salaza, P. and Preston, T.R. 2009. Effect of biochar and biodigester
effluent on growth of maize in acid soils. Livestock Research for Rural Development,
21(7): 110.
Rodriguez, V., Al-Asmi, H.S. and Esechie, H.A. 2002. Effect of pyroligneous liquid on growth
and yield of maize (Zea mays L.). Crop Research, 24: 471-475.
Rogovska, N., Fleming, P., Cruse, R. and Laird, D. 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions from soils
as affected by addition of biochar. Abstracts of 2008 International Annual Meetings
ASA CSSA SSSA. No. 666-5.
Rondon, M., Ramirez, J.A. and Lehmann, J. 2005. Charcoal additions reduce net emissions
of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In: Proceedings of the 3rd USDA Symposium on
Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration, Baltimore, USA, March 21-24, 2005.

48
Rondon, M.A., Lehmann, J., Ramirez, J. and Hurtado, M. 2007. Biological nitrogen fixation
by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with biochar additions. Biology and
Fertility of Soils, 43: 699-708.
Rosa De la, J.M., Knicker, H., Capel López, E., Manning, D.A.C., González-Perez, J.A. and
González-Vila, F.J. 2007. Direct detection of black carbon in soils by Py-GC/MS,
carbon-13 NMR spectroscopy and thermogravimetric techniques. Soil Science Society
of America Journal, 72: 258-267.
Saranya, K., Krishan, P.S., Kumutha K. and French, J. 2011. Potential for biochar as an
alternate carrier to lignite for the preparation of biofertilizers in India. International
Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology, 4(2): 167-172.
Schmidt, M.W.I. and Noack, A.G. 2000. Black carbon in soils and sediments: analysis,
distribution, implications, and current challenges.Global biogeochemical cycle, 14: 777-
793.
Shuji, Y., Tanaka, S. and Ohata, M. 2007. Preservation of woods in forest acid soil by addition
of biomass charcoal. Proceedings of the International Agrichar Initiative (IAI) 2007
Conference, 27 April-2 May 2007.
Singh, J. and Gu, S. 2010. Biomass conversion to energy in India- a critique. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14: 2596–2610.
Smith, P., Fang, C., Dawson, J.J.C. and Moncrieff, J.B. 2008. Impact of global warming on soil
organic carbon. Advances in Agronomy, 97: 1-43.
Sohi, S., Krull, E., Lopez-Capel, E. and Bol, R. 2010. A review of biochar and its use and
function in soil. Advances in Agronomy, 105: 47-82.
Sohi, S., Lopez-Capel, E., Krull, E and Bol, R. 2009. Biochar ’s roles in soil and climate
change: A review of research needs. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 05/09,
p 64.
Sollins, P, Homann, P. and Caldwell, B.A. 1996. Stabilization and destabilization of soil
organic matter: Mechanisms and controls. Geoderma, 74: 65-105.
Sombroek, W.G., Nachtergaele, F.O. and Hebel, A. 1993. Amounts, dynamics and
sequestering of carbon in tropical and subtropical soils. Ambio, 11: 417-426.
Spokas, K.A., Koskinen, W.C., Baker, J.M. and Reicosk, 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.
Srinivasarao, Ch., Vankateswarlu, B., Lal, R., Singh, A.K., Sumanta Kundu, Vittal, K.P.R.,
Balaguruvaiah, G., Vijaya Shankar Babu, M., Ravindra Chary, G., Prasadbabu, M.B.B.
and Yellamanda Reddy, T. 2012. Soil carbon sequestration and agronomic productivity
of an Alfisol for a groundnut-based system in a semiarid environment in southern
India. European Journal of Agronomy, 43: 40-48.
Srinivasarao, Ch., Venkateswarlu, B., Lal, R., Singh, A.K. and Sumanta Kundu. 2013.
Sustainable management of soils of dryland ecosystems for enhancing agronomic
productivity and sequestering carbon. Advances in Agronomy, 121.
Steiner, C. 2010. Biochar in agricultural and forestry applications. In: Biochar from agricultural
and forestry residues – a complimentary use of waste biomass, U.S.- focused biochar report:
Assessment of biochar’s benefits for the United States of America.

49
Steiner, C., Glaser, B., Teixeira, W.G., Lehmann, J., Blum, W.E.H. and Zech, W. 2008. Nitrogen
retention and plant uptake on a highly weathered central Amazonian Ferralsol
amended with compost and charcoal. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 171:
893-899.
Steiner, C., Teixeira, W.G., Lehmann, J., Nehls, T., MaceDo, J.L.V., Blum, W.E.H. and Zech,
W. 2007. Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop
production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant
and Soil, 291: 275-290.
Streets, D., Yarber, K., Woo, J. and Carmichael, G. 2003. Biomass burning in Asia: Annual
and seasonal estimates and atmospheric emissions, Global Biogeochemical Cycles,
17(4): 1099.
Sugumaran, P. and Sheshadri, S. 2009. Evaluation of selected biomass for charcoal
production. Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, 68: 719-723.
Sugumaran, P. and Sheshadri, S. 2010. Biomass charcoal briquetting: Technology for
alternative energy based income generation in rural areas. Shri AMM Murugappa
Chettiar Research Centre, Taramani, Chennai. 20 p.
Tryon, E.H. 1948. Effect of charcoal on certain physical, chemical, and biological properties
of forest soils. Ecological Monographs, 18: 81-115.
UNEP. 2008. United Nations Ministerial Conference of the Least Developed
Countries. Energizing the least developed countries to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals: the challenges and opportunities of globalization.
Issues Paper.
Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Morris, S., Chan, K.Y., Downie, A., Rust, J., Joseph, S. and Cowie,
A. 2010. Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of paper mill waste on agronomic
performance and soil fertility. Plant and Soil, 327: 235-246.
Venkataraman, C., Habib, G., Kadamba, D., Shrivastava, M., Leon, J., Crouzille, B., Boucher,
O. and Streets, D. 2006. Emissions from open biomass burning in India: Integrating
the inventory approach with high-resolution Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) active-fire and land cover data. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 20(2): GB2013.
Venkatesh, G., Korwar, G.R., Venkateswarlu, B., Gopinath, K.A., Mandal, U.K., Srinivasarao,
Ch. And Grover, M.T. 2010. Preliminary studies on conversion of maize stalks into
biochar for terrestrial sequestration of carbon in rainfed agriculture. In: National
Symposium on Climate Change and Rainfed Agriculture. CRIDA, Hyderabad, 18-20
February, 2010. pp 388-391.
Wardle, D.A., Nilsson, M.C. and Zackrisson, L. 2008. Fire-derived charcoal causes loss of
forest humus. Science, 320: 629.
Warnock, D.D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T.W. and Rillig, M. C. 2007. Mycorrhizal responses to
biochar in soil – concepts and mechanisms. Plant and Soil, 2007, 300: 9-20.
Warnock, D.D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T.W. and Rillig, M.C. 2007. Mycorrhizal responses to
biochar in soil - concepts and mechanisms. Plant and Soil, 300: 9-20.
Whitman, T. and Lehmann, J. 2009. Biochar - one way forward for soil carbon in offset
mechanisms in Africa?. Environmental Science and Policy, 12: 1024-1027.

50
Winsley, P. 2007. Biochar and bioenergy production for climate change mitigation. New
Zealand Science Review, 64: 5-10.
Woolf, D. 2008. Biochar as a soil amendment: A review of the environmental implications.
(Accessed online at http://orgprints.org/13268/1/Biochar_as_a_soil_amendment_-
_a_review.pdf).
Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Street-Perrott, F.A., Lehmann, J and Joseph, S. 2010. Sustainable
biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications, 1: 1-9.
Yamamoto, M., Okimori, Y., Wibowo, I.F., Anshori, S. and Ogawa, M. 2006. Effects of the
application of charred bark of Acacia mangium on the yield of maize, cowpea and
peanut, and soil chemical properties in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Soil Science and
Plant Nutrition, 52: 489-495.
Yanai, Y., Toyota, K. and Okazani, M. 2007. Effects of charcoal addition on N2O emissions
from soil resulting from rewetting air-dried soil in short-term laboratory experiments.
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 53: 181-188.
Yeboah, E., Ofori, P., Quansah, G.W., Dugan, E. and Sohi, S. 2009. Improving soil productivity
through biochar amendments to soils. African Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 3(2): 34–41.
Yu, X.Y., Ying, G.G. and Kookana, R.S. 2006. Sorption and desorption behaviors of diuron in
soils amended with charcoal. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54: 8545-8550.

51
Acronyms/Abbreviations
BC Biochar
BNF Biological Nitrogen Fixation
CART Centre for Appropriate Rural Technology
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
CIAE Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering
CRIDA Central Research Insitute for Dryland Agriculture
EC Electrical Conductivity
EDX Energy Dispersive X–ray Spectroscopy
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GHG Greenhouse Gas
IARI Indian Agricultural Research Institute
ICAR RC NEH ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region
IISS Indian Institute of Soil Science
IIT Indian Institute of Technology
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
NEDFI North Eastern Development and Finance Corporation
NEXAFS Near Edge X-ray Absorption Fine Structure
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PAWC Plant Available Water Capacity
PBS Pyrolysis Biochar System
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RDF Recommended Dose of Fertilizers
SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy
SOM Soil Organic Matter
STXM Scanning Transmission X-ray Microscopy
SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
TLUD Top-Lit Updraft Gasifier
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
XPS X–ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy

52

National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture
Santoshnagar, Hyderabad 500 059, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Ph.: 91-40-24530177, Fax: 91-40-24531802, Web : http://www.crida.in