[..]Here we use a global-scale meta-analysis to show that biochar has, on average, no effect on crop yield in temperate latitudes, yet elicits a 25% average increase in yield in the tropics. In the tropics, biochar increased yield through liming and fertilization, consistent with the low soil pH, low fertility, and low fertilizer inputs typical of arable tropical soils. We also found that, in tropical soils, high-nutrient biochar inputs stimulated yield substantially more than low-nutrient biochar, further supporting the role of nutrient fertilization in the observed yield stimulation. In contrast, arable soils in temperate regions are moderate in pH, higher in fertility, and generally receive higher fertilizer inputs, leaving little room for additional benefits from biochar. Our findings demonstrate that the yield-stimulating effects of biochar are not universal, but may especially benefit agriculture in low-nutrient, acidic soils in the tropics. Biochar management in temperate zones should focus on potential non-yield benefits such as lime and fertilizer cost savings, greenhouse gas emissions control, and other ecosystem services.[..]
We're talking in the context of soil depletion in this thread, so I don't think their limited conclusion applies.
It isn't like temperate climates where you can rotate between farms, fields, and forrests over time easier.
may i ask what you mean by 'terrible'...nutritionally deficient or acidic..etc etc?
Why ship it? you just burn brush and waste where you have it and put the fire out before charcoal turns to ash and then innoculate it with compost and you are done..
I was at a soil management talk once, out in a paddock, and we dug a few holes looking at biomes and general soil quality. When we dug up bits of charcoal, the man said nothing has been burnt here for at least 50 years. It's my experience that wood is better at storing water: if interested have a look at hugelculture/ hugelkultur. It's a method that deliberately buries timber for nutrient and water retainment and as it composts it continues to feed the soil nearby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
- ed
I think charcoal's use in this context is more in terms of a structural matrix, rather than itself being of 'nutritious value'.
It is extremely absorbent to anything, specially nutrients in the soil so they don't get washed away by rain or irrigation. it releases them slowly.
I have done tests myself with very small quantities, 50 or so plants, half of those without, half with it, and plants certainly improve a lot.
We need scientific studies of thousands and thousands of plants for info about the combination of all those things.
It will require several disciplines, like genome extraction from soil, computer science to identify the microorganism present, lots of sensors for humidity, temperature, ph and so on.