C H A P T E R
26
Biochar Processing for Sustainable
Development in Current and Future
Bioenergy Research
Mark P. McHenry
School of Engineering and Information Technology, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
email: mpmchenry@gmail.com
O U T L I N E
Introduction 447
Theoretical Income Streams 448
Renewable Energy and Fuel Generation 448
Carbon Sequestration of Biochars and
Carbon Markets 449
Agricultural Benefits 450
Economic Analysis 451
Can Biochar Be a Cost-effective Fertilizer Substitute? 451
Can Biochar Be a Cost-Effective Approach to
Increase Grain Crop Primary Productivity? 452
INTRODUCTION
Rural biomass energy and carbon options seem to
offer increased financial resilience to agricultural enter-
prises relative to fluctuating seasonal growing condi-
tions and uncertain market prices of inputs, products,
and exchange rates. The projected increases in farming
costs from any future inclusion of the agricultural sector
from carbon pricing may be offset by additional net in-
come from such rural biomass-based sequestration and
renewable energy activities. Cellulose, hemicelluloses,
and lignin are the main components of wood and crop
residues of known potential for bioenergy and stable
carbon forms, and the management of which requires
detailed agronomic, technical, and market information.
Thus, there is a synergistic match between growing
Bioenergy Research: Advances and Applications 447
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59561-4.00026-7
Can Biochars Increase Livestock Growth Rates,
or Provide a New Market for Semiarid Forestry? 453
A Comparison of Biochar Carbon Value for Different
Potential Income Streams 454
Conclusion 454
Disclaimers 455
References 455
food and growing biomass for energy and carbon in
the same rural enterprise.
Modern concepts of biochar-agricultural systems and
their respective projected financial viabilities have been
outlined in the existing literature (Lehmann and Joseph,
2009). These systems commonly incorporate complex
semi-industrial operations with rural and forestry
biomass as well as small-scale low-technology concepts
with farm waste and domestic heating. To narrow research
specificity, this work focused on the West Midlands of the
Northern Agricultural Region of Western Australia (WA),
and uses Australian dollars. (At the time of writing the
Australian and US currencies were roughly parity.) To
date, this region is one of the few regions of Australia
that has exhibited economically encouraging agricultural
responses from biochar addition, and has an established
Copyright Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
448 26. BIOCHAR PROCESSING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CURRENT AND FUTURE BIOENERGY RESEARCH

practice of profitable grazing leguminous fodder shrubs,
which is a potentially large and sustainable biomass
supply.
THEORETICAL INCOME STREAMS
The potential income streams in the West Midlands
from above ground rural biomass include renewable
energy and fuel generation, carbon sequestration of bio-
chars, and agricultural benefits from the use of biochar
and ash from energy and fuel generation or charring
alone. It is likely that tradable sequestered carbon will
be reliant on the supplies from bioenergy generation
plants that are able to comply with both emission and
biochar quality standards. However, a price on carbon
may help offset the additional costs of the coproduction
of electricity and biochar from biomass. (Table 26.1
outlines key benefits, costs and barriers to biochar
compliance to carbon markets.) The Australian Farm
Institute (2011) estimates an income reduction of be-
tween 1.4% and 1.6% from a carbon price based on elec-
tricity consumption for a WA mixed farming enterprise
of 4900 ha (2400 ha cropped and about 2000 head of live-
stock, mainly sheep), assuming agriculture and trans-
port fuels are excluded from any carbon liability
(Australian Farm Institute, 2011). In contrast to concerns
of a carbon price reducing agricultural profitability, this
work presents the case that integrating new sequestra-
tion options into conventional production systems
from low-cost biochars produced from agricultural
wastes (with sufficient operational safety consider-
ations) may offset costs in the West Midlands. The prof-
itability of income streams (presented in Table 26.1) are
highly sensitive to (and often dependent upon) govern-
ment subsidies for renewable energy, a carbon price, and
also the location-specific demand for biochar and
energy. Similarly, agricultural effects of biochar addition
will vary more with soil type, seasonal conditions, and
animal nutrition characteristics. In complex and uncer-
tain circumstances, predictive modeling can become
particularly challenging. However, the agricultural
effects (where they occur) will likely provide a more
solid basis for emerging industry development than
the highly sensitive and evolving carbon and electricity
markets. If agricultural benefits, initially at least, exhibit
less risky investments to individual farms than bio-
energy cooperatives or carbon sequestration pooling
activities, then agricultural benefits may be a more suit-
able foundation for the establishment of biomass-based
industrial developments than energy or carbon seques-
tration policies in the initial phases.
Renewable Energy and Fuel Generation
In simple terms, wood-fired stoves, barbeques, or wa-
ter heaters are a biomass-based renewable energy system.
Yet, the growing range of new medium- to large-scale
bioenergy technologies include gasifier and pyrolysis
power stations coproducing electricity, heat, and a range
of biofuels. Nonetheless, all traditional and new technol-
ogies convert the complex hydrocarbon molecules in
biomass to hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, and numerous other gasses, including polyaro-
matic hydrocarbons and dioxins. Some technologies
also produce liquid and soil fuels (such as biochar)
from the same biomass. In general, while small-scale
and simple technology designs have less control and
efficiency, they exhibit lower capital and operating costs,
although they are usually more labor intensive per unit
production of output (McHenry, 2012b). At the regional
scale biomass power plant technology choices often

TABLE 26.1 Outline of Key Potential Income Streams from Rural Biomass in the West Midlands

Income stream Carbon Form Benefits Costs Barriers

Renewable Energy Crop residues, woody Electricity, fuel Capital and running Competition from other
from Biomass harvest/coppice, costs renewable energy
manures technologies
Carbon Markets Trees > 2 m, soil Carbon sequestration Establishment, practice Accreditation and
carbon, biochar change, manufacture/ acceptable
purchase and methodologies
application, monitoring
Agricultural Benefits Biochar from crop Increased grain yield at Manufacture/ High soil P levels, crop
waste or woody maintenance P, reduced purchase, application and pasture benefits
biomass or manures fertilizer requirement, restricted to sand and
detannification of gravelly soil types
livestock feed, (these are more
composting accelerant common in the West
Midlands than some
other regions)
 THEORETICAL INCOME STREAMS 449
TABLE 26.2 Performance of a Selected Range of Available Biomass Conversion Technologies that May be Suitable
to Some West Midland Applications

Technology Cost Electrical Output Application Challenges

Gasifier Power Station w$50 million w30 GWh/yr Regional landfill Biochar contamination,
(Waste to Energy) transport costs, gas cleaning
Rainbow Bee-Eater e w1 MWh/t Regional center New technology but clean gas
(Crucible Carbon Slow dry straw and near substation
Pyrolysis Design) 350 kg char

Slow Pyrolysis (BEST) w$15 million e Regional center near Gas cleaning
substation or customer

Updraft Gasifier (Big Char) w$0.25 million Nil Mobile plant for biomass Conversion rate and
conversion to biochar biochar quality?
(w25% efficiency)
Woodgas Genset w$25,000 20 kW On farm Current price of diesel,
(Powerpallet) biochar production rate,
emissions?
Simple Drum Kilns Low Nil On farm Biochar production rate,
emissions, biochar quality

include gasifiers (which optimize gas production), and
slow pyrolysers (which optimize biochar production).
A general outline of the variations in biomass renewable
energy technologies are shown in Table 26.2. In terms
of developing a regional energy/biochar industry,
medium-sized biochar production units may address
concerns of soil nutrient loss from harvested biomass.
Despite the generally high costs of transporting timber
trees, transporting returned biochar is relatively efficient
on a weight basis, as the biochar mass is 70e80% less than
the original dry biomass (Lehmann, 2007). Nonetheless,
industrial biochar production and use will require a
number of safeguards. Handling risks include flamma-
bility concerns, and the dusts can spontaneously combust
in enclosed spaces and is comparable to the risk of
handling some metals, foods (flour, etc.), coal, plastics,
and woods (Joseph, 2007).
Carbon Sequestration of Biochars and
Carbon Markets
Biochars contain very stable forms of carbon (fixed
carbon) (Blackwell et al., 2010). The proportion of the
original biomass carbon as total solid carbon in biochar
ranges from around 5% from gasification technologies
to about 35% in slow pyrolysis technologies. Well-
managed large-scale biomass power plants can produce
biochar of a consistent quality, whereas often small-
scale “low-tech” technologies tend to produce very
variable quality biochars, and are highly dependent on
the homogeneity of the heating regime and the duration
of heating. (See Tables 26.3 and 26.4.) A low-cost high-
volume supply of sustainable biochar with a high
carbon fraction will be needed to generate meaningful
climate change mitigation benefits. However, currently

TABLE 26.3 Conversion Efficiencies and Outputs of a Range of Technologies Producing Biochars

Technology Power Output Biochar Yield Fixed C Limitations

Gasification Maximum w5% e Some waste contamination. Biochar

credit may be owned by the power
plant operators
Slow Pyrolysis Some w35% w65% Biochar credit may be owned
by the power plant operators
Crucible Carbon (Slow Pyrolysis) Some 35% 70% Project developing
Kiln Pyrolysers (Big Char) Nil 25% e
Simple Drum Kiln (Ogawa) Nil e Output rate
Drum Kiln (TLUD) Nil e Output rate

Pit Kiln Nil 12.5e30% (Brown, 2009) Output rate

450 26. BIOCHAR PROCESSING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CURRENT AND FUTURE BIOENERGY RESEARCH
TABLE 26.4 Carbon Analysis of Biochars Used in Research in the West Midlands
Biochar Source (Temp of Slow
Pyrolysis)
Wood Jarrah (600
C Simcoa)*


Wood Jarrah (600 C Wundowie)*
y

Wheat Chaff (550 C)
y

Chicken Manure (550 C)
* Blackwell et al., 2010.
y
Krull, personal communication, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (a national initiative for biochar research), and Grains Research and
Development Corporation (biochar for agricultural productivity), 2010.
low carbon prices will not provide sufficient commercial
incentives to simply apply biochar in soils for mitigation
alone. The unacceptably high uncertainties of the direct
and indirect influences and residence times of biochars
and other organic carbon species in soils, their suitability
for carbon markets (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2000), and even the commercial incentives of
high-volume production are fundamental barriers to
widespread biochar use. Therefore, there is a growing
need for researchers to quantify the net effect of specific
biochars and application methods within niche agroeco-
logical systems (particularly grains and livestock) and to
verify any stable sequestration of carbon fractions
(McHenry, 2011). Furthermore, in terms of farm applica-
tion risks, some biochars can contain toxic materials that
are controlled by “permissible exposure limit” stan-
dards. The levels of these toxic materials in the biochar
is dependent on both the biomass feedstock and the bio-
char manufacture process, thus no simple permissible
exposure limit is available for biochar to date (Blackwell
et al., 2009). Thus, the development of a secure and
responsible biochar industry will require awareness of
safe methods of handling agricultural inputs and
will need to be justified economically, and be in-
tegrated with existing agricultural production systems
(McHenry, 2011).
AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS
Available research to date has shown that biochar al-
ters various soil properties in a number of ways. (See
Table 26.5.) In the context of the siliceous sandy soils
of the West Midlands, the most sought effects are
improved microbial habitats and improved nutrient
supplies from relatively low (w1 t/ha) rates of biochar
use. (See Table 26.6 for crop and pasture research
responses in the West Midlands.) It is clear that more
research is needed on how various biochars influence
the flows of nutrients through the soil profile (Lehmann
Total Carbon, % Fixed Carbon, % K, % P, %
65 69 e e
45.7 76 e e
58.6 e 34 4
40.1 e 14 12
et al., 2006; Laird et al., 2008), particularly under Austra-
lian conditions (McHenry, 2011). To date, the major
claims have been related to biological immobilization
of inorganic N, adsorption of dissolved ammonium, ni-
trates, P, and hydrophobic organic pollutants (Beaton
et al., 1960; Gustafsson et al., 1997; Accardi-Dey and
Gschwend, 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003; Bridle, 2004;
Mizuta et al., 2004). However, the available research
scope does not include an assessment of whether this
adsorption could reduce some transport of agricultural
fertilizers or other pollutants into ground and surface
waters in agricultural catchments (Lehmann et al.,
2006; Lehmann, 2007). Early work by Bridle (2004) sug-
gested that biochar applications reduce nitrate leaching,
as his research found levels of nitrate and ammonium
did not change in soils for 56 days after application.
The soil incubation study further revealed that in
contrast, soil bicarbonate availability and plant available
P levels would increase slowly (Bridle, 2004). The labo-
ratory results suggested that biochar would provide a
source of P for plant growth and could have applications
on soils as a slow release form of P, yet some research
suggest a reduced uptake of N. This may be more useful
in deep sandy soils where P leaches from the surface into
groundwater. Biochars are also hypothesized to slow the
N cycle by increasing the carbon to N soil ratio, possibly
due to increased soil aeration reducing anaerobic
conditions (Lehmann et al., 2006). Rondon et al. (2005)
found a significant reduction of nitrous oxide emissions,
and a near-complete suppression of methane emissions
in glasshouse environments at biochar additions of
30 g/kg of soil for some crops (Rondon et al., 2005;
Lehmann et al., 2006). However, in some circumstances
a high carbon to N ratio and abiotic buffering of mineral
N may lead to low N availability (Lehmann and
Rondon, 2006). Therefore, medium-scale crop biochar
trials are required with regionally common soil biota
and mineralogy, and also crop, pasture, and animals
for greater understanding of commercial agricultural
applicability in a particular region.
 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 451
TABLE 26.5 Positive and Negative Effects on Plant Growth of Biochar Additions to Soil

Effect (D) or (L) Process Rate of Application Appropriate Soils

Neutralization (þ) Most biochars are alkaline and Often 10þ t/ha mixed in topsoil. Has worked on Krasnozems.
can adsorb Al3þ ions Possibly very acid sands (Wodjils).
Increase Water Increased microporosity Effect proportional to rate and More for lower clay contents
Holding (þ) biochar character
Increase Nutrient Increased cation exchange capacity Effect proportional to rate and More for lower clay contents
Holding (þ) and anion exchange capacity? biochar character
Increased Nutrient Direct supply from biochar Effect proportional to rate and All soils
Supply (þ) inorganic fraction biochar character
Reduced Mechanical Lowers soil cohesion Higher rates Non sands
Strength (þ)
Reduced N2O Unclear Higher rates? 10 t/haþ? Especially poorly drained soils at
Emission (þ) risk of denitrification

Microbial Habitat Micropores in the biochar help w1 t/ha banded Mainly low available P soils
Improvement (þ) mycorrhizal fungi and bacteria (Colwell <20 ppm)
survival, which use symbiosis
to improve nutrient and water
supply to plants which host them
Phytotoxins () Carbon compounds such as phenols Quenching, soaking and resting in Depends on biomass and charring
are retained on low temperature the soil after incorporation may process
biochars and ones cooled with their lower the concentration of these
own emissions substances
Herbicide Adsorption Can increase application All rates All soils
(þ) and () requirement and/or reduce
leaching

TABLE 26.6 Summary of Benefits to Crop and Pasture Production from Applied Biochars
in the West Midlands (2007e2010)

Crop Trial (Place) Yield/DM Increase Increase, % Fertilizer Soil

Wheat (Mingenew) 0.23 t/ha 40 96 kg/ha super Colwell P 5 ppm

Wheat (Mingenew) 0.45 t/ha 25 25 kg/ha DAP Colwell P 5.5 ppm
Pasture (Irwin) 40 kg/ha DM 20 Nil Colwell P 10 ppm

Clover (Tubes) 0.15 kg/ha at the 75 Nil Colwell P 5.5 ppm

rate of flowering
Clover (Badgi) Very visible Leached biosolids Gravelly sand

DM, Dry matter.

DAP, Di-ammonium phosphate.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS $50/ha; thus a production/purchase and transport cost

A recent analysis by Blackwell et al. (2010) on biochar
effects on profitability of dryland wheat production in
WA provided a perspective of the breakeven investment
costs per hectare of different responses over the medium
term. Table 26.7 shows that for the West Midlands area
(high rainfall north) a 10% yield increase from 1 t/ha
application of banded biochar with a declining response
over 12 years would break even at $130/ha, based on the
previous 12-year data. This breakeven cost included
estimated biochar application costs of between $20 and
would need to be no higher than about $50e$100/t to
enable some income from the biochar use, which
encourages further work toward low-cost biochar pro-
duction technology development (Blackwell et al., 2010).
Can Biochar Be a Cost-effective Fertilizer
Substitute?
An analysis by McHenry (2012a,b) quantified the po-
tential of using biochar as a soil amendment to displace
annual applications of single superphosphate (SSP)
452 26. BIOCHAR PROCESSING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CURRENT AND FUTURE BIOENERGY RESEARCH
TABLE 26.7 Breakeven Cost of Applied Biochar in Six Rainfall Regions in WA
Low Rainfall Low Rainfall Medium Rainfall
Trial North (const.) North (decl.) North (decl.)
10% Yield Increase 170 100 140
50% P Fertilizer 70 40 50
Reduction
10% Yield 240 140 190
Increase and 50%,
P Fertilizer
Reduction
With and without initial yield increase and/or P fertilizer reduction responses, which decline linearly to nit after 12 years (decl.) or are constant for 12 years (const.).
(0% N, 8.8% P, 0% K, 11% S) in wheat cropping systems
in WA. The analysis assumed two biochar applications
over a 15-year period, applied in year zero, and year
eight. The analysis ignored all production inputs and
outputs, and only calculated the difference between us-
ing an average “full rate” of SSP (90 kg/ha), and a “half
rate” of SSP with deep banded biochar equivalent
to 1 t/ha. The 45 kg/ha year half-rate SSP application
is approximately equivalent to an annual application
of 4 kg of P/ha. The simplified analysis assumed that
the use of either method would achieve an identical
wheat yield, negating the requirement to model wheat
prices. The application cost of deep banding the biochar
(tons per hectare per application) was assumed to be
$110. The annual application costs of both the rates of
SSP were assumed to be $20/ha, goods and services
tax (GST)1 inclusive. A range of biochar prices (deliv-
ered to farm, per ton) was analyzed: $0, $50, $100,
$150, $200, $250, $300, $350, $400, and $450/t. Similarly,
a range of SSP costs (delivered to the farm, per ton) were
calculated: $250, $300, $350, $1250. A carbon price was
included in the analysis, and was analyzed at intervals
of $5 tCO2-e, between $0 and $100 tCO2-e. The analysis
assumed a 0.8 carbon fraction recalcitrance. A real dis-
count rate of 8% p.a. was used, and all capital and main-
tenance costs were based on average current prices and
were GST inclusive. In summary, the results showed that
without a carbon value the “half rate” of SSP (45 kg/
ha year) and biochar (1 t/ha application) were only
cost competitive with the full rate of SSP (90 kg/ha year)
when the biochar purchase price was unreasonably low
(<w$20). At 2012 prices of SSP (generally between $200
and $450/t), the choice of using half SSP application
rates with biochar additions at the above application
rate assumptions were not an attractive option unless
1
The Australian GST (goods and services tax) is a value-added tax of 10%, paid only by the final consumer of a good or service.
2
This assumption requires basic research to verify, although some agronomic studies indicate that this may be possible for certain crops
and soil types (Lehmann, J. and S. Joseph. 2008). Many individual studies are detailed in the book Biochar for Environmental Management:
Science and Technology (2008) published by Earthscan.
High Rainfall Low Rainfall Medium Rainfall High Rainfall
North (decl.) South (decl.) South (decl.) South (decl.)
130 100 120 140
50 40 40 40
190 150 160 180
the biochar purchase price was practically zero. The
net cost was also calculated assuming the carbon in
the biochar was eligible in soil carbon markets, and
the various potential prices of carbon were subtracted
from the gross biochar purchase price. While the intro-
duction of a carbon price would effectively subsidize
biochar costs, very high carbon prices (>$100/t)
were required for the sequestration value of biochar
to simply equal the purchase price and cover costs of
soil application (McHenry, 2012a). The low SSP price,
the high market prices for biochar, and the high bio-
char soil application cost of deep banding relative to
conventional broadcasting, all resulted in the option
of halving SSP applications by using biochar an unat-
tractive practice.
Can Biochar Be a Cost-Effective Approach to
Increase Grain Crop Primary Productivity?
For comparison, a further analysis by McHenry
(2012a,b) was undertaken of the value of applying bio-
char at 1 t/ha with the full rate of SSP as described
above. This analysis was undertaken to explore the rela-
tive impact of using biochar to increase yield, as
opposed to increasing fertilizer use efficiency. The anal-
ysis assumed that using the full rate of SSP (90 kg/ha
year) with a 1 t/ha year application of biochar increased
wheat yields by 15% on average over the 15 years rela-
tive to full SSP applications only, in the southwest of
WA2. The baseline yield used for the scenario was
1.75 t/ha, an approximate average wheat yield for WA.
The assumptions of the model, including a total area
wheat return increase of $71.75/ha, were based on an
increased production of an additional 15% wheat yield
from the 1.75 t/ha at a constant value of $350/t over
 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
the 15 years using the 8% real discount rate. The scenario
did not include additional harvesting or transport costs
for the additional wheat yield. The results indicated that
the required carbon prices to recoup biochar purchase
price costs were lower when biochar is used to increase
yield, rather than reduce fertilizer use. When biochar
purchase prices were below $250/t, the application of
biochar was attractive without any carbon price,
assuming the 15% yield is achieved (McHenry, 2012a).
Therefore, these relatively simple analyses suggest that
the most cost-effective on-farm use for biochar is to
simply increase the wheat yield. The results confirm pre-
vious assertions that agricultural biomass production
for the sole purpose of producing biochar for soil carbon
sequestration may not be economically feasible
(Lehmann et al., 2006).
Can Biochars Increase Livestock Growth Rates,
or Provide a New Market for Semiarid Forestry?
It is now clear that forestry carbon offsets are resilient
features of Australian climate change policies. To partic-
ipate in such markets, farmers must be able to
adequately measure, and verify the mitigation achieved
(The CRC for Greenhouse Accounting & Tony Beck
Consulting Services Pty Ltd, 2003). Forestry plantations
that include some rotational harvesting for biochar or
bioenergy will require more sophisticated carbon
accounting than a simple revegetation project (Indepen-
dent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, 2008). The estab-
lishment of tree fodder plantations has long offered a
significant productivity option for some farmers
(Sanford et al., 2003). Deferring the early grazing of
annual pastures and reduce dry season hand-feeding
has long generated interest (Patabendige et al., 1992;
Cleugh et al., 2002), and perennial fodder tree planta-
tions offer another source to supplement stock feed in
the summer/autumn period (Sanford et al., 2003).
Deep-rooted perennials are well known to use available
water when annual pastures are dead, recover nutrients
from deeper soils, reduce soil acidification, minimize
erosion, and some leguminous species also fix nitrogen
(Patabendige et al., 1992; Cransberg and McFarlane,
1994; Hatton and Nulsen, 1999; Wise and Cacho, 1999;
Valzano et al., 2005). Adding value to these conventional
applications in such regions is the use of tree woody
wastes to produce biochar as a feed additive which
may improve ruminant growth when fed on the trees
(which may be of lower grade and/or be a “high tannin”
content), and in the process sequester carbon in the soil
(McHenry, 2010). The mechanism for this improvement
is generally known as “detannification”, and may enable
the use of potentially large resources of high-tannin fod-
der species (such as Acacia sp.) by increasing the avail-
ability of leaf protein (Van et al., 2006; Blackwell et al.,
453
2009). Acacia sp. fodder plantations require annual prun-
ing of the higher branches to provide fodder for grazing
animals. Animals eat the leaves from the branches on the
ground, leaving the inedible woody waste components
in the paddock to dry and be collected as a potential
source of biomass for biochar manufacture. The
improved digestibility of some high-tannin fodder trees
with biochar feed additives may expand their utility
within agricultural production systems (McHenry,
2010). In particular, if an Acacia sp. biochar feed additive
is effective in Australian semiarid production systems
(such as the West Midlands), this might provide a
further incentive to revegetate semiarid sandy soils suit-
able to many native Acacia sp. to attain a combination of
positive benefits (Graetz and Skjemstad, 2003; Antle
et al., 2007). These options are currently based on a
12-week experiment by Van et al. (2006) comparing
goat growth rates fed on tannin-rich Acacia sp. fodder.
The goats were either fed biochar (produced from
bamboo) at a feed rate of <1 g per day per kilo of live
weight, or no biochar for the control group. The experi-
mental group exhibited notably higher growth rates
(w20%) than the control goats that received no biochar
feed additive on the same feed regime. Over the 12
weeks the experimental goats fed biochar weighed
5.2% heavier than their controls (Van et al., 2006). This
may be a sufficient commercial incentive to drive de-
mand and subsequent biomass conversion technology
investment without a carbon price (McHenry, 2010).
The work by Van et al. (2006) also presents a mechanism
(via animal excreta) that may be assessed for efficacy
when avoiding relatively expensive biochar soil applica-
tion options such as deep banding, broadcasting,
seeding application, topdressing, aerial delivery, or pre-
cision application to ailing plants (Blackwell et al., 2009).
In addition to researching the efficacy of small
biochar additions to the diet of grazing animals, the
opportunity arises to simultaneously investigate the
reported capacity and magnitude of numerous other
biochar benefits (McHenry, 2010), including the ecologi-
cally delivered biochar to biosequester C; biologically
immobilize inorganic N; retain soil N; increase soil pH;
adsorb dissolved ammonium, nitrates, phosphate, as
well as hydrophobic organic soil pollutants such as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Beaton et al., 1960;
Gustafsson et al., 1997; Accardi-Dey and Gschwend,
2002; Lehmann et al., 2003). The remaining levels of bio-
char in the animal excreta would also determine the car-
bon fractions that survive the digestive system to
determine the maximum available long-lived carbon
species fractions to be sequestered in soils via the ecolog-
ical delivery method (McHenry, 2010). Long-term soil
testing may also be able to detect the stable fraction of
the ecologically delivered biochar after being exposed
to the soil environment. However, there is clearly
454 26. BIOCHAR PROCESSING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CURRENT AND FUTURE BIOENERGY RESEARCH

much research required to verify a number of assertions
and assumptions to provide a level of certainty accept-
able to farmers and investors who collectively command
much of Australia’s productive capacity (Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change, 2000; Barker et al.,
2007).
A Comparison of Biochar Carbon Value for
Different Potential Income Streams
A simple analysis of potential value per unit of dry
biomass associated with various potential production
systems may help identify suitable uses of agricultural
biomass (Table 26.8.) These theoretical comparative
financial values are exclusive of costs, which are
extremely variable according to the application and
scale of operation. These basic scenarios seem to indicate
that the highest values of agricultural residues are ani-
mal husbandry or cropping applicationsdonly if the
biochar can increase conventional yields. This demon-
strates that a key focus for the development of a sustain-
able biochar industry is the value of the product to an
industry, rather than the cost of production per se.
This also illuminates the aspects of supplying biochar
with appropriate characteristics for the specific applica-
tion, as it is likely that biochar applications will mature,
and standards for biochars will be sought by users
assessing cost-effective product suppliers. In any case,
it seems reasonable that small-scale waste-to-energy
suppliers will be established at some point near rural
settlements with the assistance of government subsidies
in Australia. It also seems reasonable that various agri-
cultural wastes will be co-fired, as well as potential
adjustments installed to increase clean biochar produc-
tion options. These projects can be a sound foundation
to understand biomass-to-biochar technology by
supplying sufficient volumes of relatively cheap and
consistent biochars suitable for numerous medium- to
large-scale research trials. It is further likely that
bioenergy and biochar cogeneration at a regional level
may be more cost-effective when agricultural wastes
are leveraged by municipal solid waste resources, if
quality control of municipal wastes is maintained.
However, this will also require much evaluation and
research for processing technology and downstream
application suitability.
CONCLUSION
Taken in isolation, the cost and benefits of using
biochar for only farm soil carbon sequestration may

TABLE 26.8 Comparative Values per Unit Wood Biomass for Different Mitigation and Sequestration Applications

Value per Ton

Income Biochar Effect Biochar Used Product Product Value Dry Biomass

Biomass Energy Mitigation $23 tCO2-e1 $32.20/t*

(Combustion)
Carbon Credit Sequestration $23 tCO2-e1 $42.16/ty
(Uncut Forestry)
Grain Production 20% yield 0.3 t of biochar Wheat yield at the $300/t (wheat), $36 þ $17.71/tyy
increase used on 0.3 ha rate of 2 t/ha $23 tCO2-e1
at a rate of 1 t/ha
Detannification 20% increase in 0.75 g/kg Live goat growth $1000/t liveweight, $359 þ $17.71/tx
liveweight gain liveweight at the rate of or $1/kg), $23 tCO2-e1
over 12 weeks 10 kg/goat
relative to controls (liveweight)

* 1 ton of wood with a 0.5 carbon dry fraction and a dry energy content of 21 MJ/kg can generate 1.75 MWh with a 30% conversion technology. If this technology was able to directly
displace electricity from the South West Interconnected System, using the latest estimate for the scope 2 emission factor (0.80 kgCO2-e/kWh) this would mitigate up to 1.4 tCO2-e, or at
$23 tCO2-e1 a gross mitigation value of up to $32.20.
y
If this same ton of wood remained in the paddock unharvested and was part of a carbon sequestration plantation, the theoretical sequestration of the carbon fraction would be
1.833 tCO2-e (500 kg C  3.666 tCO2-e t/C). At a price of $23 tCO2-e1, the gross value of the wood is now $42.16, or 25% more than the bioenergy option.
yy
In this scenario the ton of dry wood is assumed to be converted to biochar at an efficiency of 30%, with a stable carbon fraction of 0.7. Therefore, the 1 ton yields 300 kg of biochar
containing 210 kg C or 0.770 tCO2-e (210 kg C  3.666 tCO2-e t/C). If the paddock yield for the wheat crop increases 20% above the 2 t/ha, in the 0.3 ha the biochar from the 1 ton of
wood was applied to, the additional yield is 120 kg (2 t/ha  0.3 ha ¼ 0.600 t, 0.600 t  0.2 ¼ 0.120 t). Therefore, the additional 120 kg of wheat at $300/t is worth $36. The additional
stable fraction of 0.770 tCO2-e at a carbon price of $23 tCO2-e1 is also theoretically worth $17.71.
x
In this scenario the ton of dry wood is also converted to biochar at an identical efficiency (30%), with a stable carbon fraction of 0.7. The 300 kg of biochar is fed to 10 kg (liveweight)
goats as a detannification feed using the Van et al. (2006) methodology. The 300 kg would be sufficient for 40,000 daily doses for a goat weighing exactly 10 kg per head when given
0.75 g for each kg of liveweight each day. The 300 kg is the theoretical equivalent dose for 476 goats over the 12-week, or 84-day period (40,000/84). At a 20% growth increase relative to
controls on the same diet of high tannin fodder of an assumed 9 g per day, this is an additional liveweight of 0.756 kg per animal over the interval, or 359 kg for the total gain of the 476
goats. Therefore, the 1 ton of wood (or the 300 kg of char) has a value of $359 when the value of goats is assumed to be $1 per kg of liveweight. In terms of carbon sequestration, the
carbon fraction of 0.7 (assuming the digestion process does not influence the char), the additional $17.71.
 REFERENCES
not be a profitable activity. Yet, the net sum over the agri-
cultural system in terms of biochars increasing
conventional productivity may prove to be a more
cost-effective option than existing operations in some
areas (Antle et al., 2007). Notwithstanding economic
issues, the greater scientific challenge is determining
the efficacy of biochar carbon species in a range of
specific agricultural production systems over both the
long and the short term (McHenry, 2009, 2011). Inte-
grated agricultural production systems require suitably
high-resolution data to determine the agricultural sys-
tems and regions that may be able to implement options
cost-effectively and sustainably (McHenry, 2010). Thus,
a coordinated and cross-disciplinary research approach
will likely be the most effective means of utilizing exist-
ing biomass/bioenergy activities for new agricultural
applications (Nabuurs et al., 2007). Providing greater
scientific rigor and certainty to farmers, environmental-
ists, governments and the broader community require
undertaking biochar research alongside their impacts
on upstream and downstream activities (McHenry,
2011). Once this research becomes available, it may pro-
vide a form of indemnity to farmers before prematurely
applying new systems and technologies that may be
only cost-effective in highly specific situations.
Conversely, if biochar feed additives prove effective,
even in localized regions, a major source of biochar
will be required, and as Acacia sp. are native to Australia,
and also most major continents, this may have extensive
global implications in arid, semiarid, and even some
temperate regions (McHenry, 2010). Nonetheless,
complex biological and agroecological production sys-
tems require high-resolution information to determine
where the best opportunities are to integrate these new
diversification options into their existing production
systems. In conclusion, the author offers a selection
of key biochar-related knowledge deficiencies for
Australian agriculture in bullet points,3 and also
numbered suggestions for groups in the West Midlands
of WA:
• Key sensitivities of biochars in major West
Australian agricultural operations (grains and
livestock);
• Key sensitivities of biochar carbon sequestration in
major agricultural operations;
• Energy, material, and cost flows of various biochar/
bioenergy conversion systems;
• Major feedstock availability in different regions, costs,
and transportation logistics;
• Efficacy and cost of various biochar application
technologies for West Australian conditions;
3
These requirements are in addition to the major research projects underway regarding the influence of various biochar feedstocks and
conversion technologies on the characteristics of the final biochar product.
455
• The sensitivity of biochar industry to policy change
and administrative changes;
• Development of biochar research that aims to create
major benefits to agricultural productivity.
1. Proceed with caution
2. Understand carbon credit ownership in biomass
provided to regional power stations
3. Test cropping benefits with affordable biochar
4. Using appropriate safety precautions, experiment
with on-farm production and application of biochar
on a small scale
5. Encourage research into effects of biochar on crops,
animal nutrition, and animal health
6. Monitor technical developments of small scale
(2e20 MW) gasifier power units
7. Consider relationships with local waste-to-energy
projects using landfill
DISCLAIMERS
This material has been written for Western Australian
conditions, and many conclusions do not imply suit-
ability to other areas. The inclusion of biochar/bio-
energy products or trade names do not imply
recommendation, the comparisons are simply for a gen-
eral audience, and are not sufficiently detailed for com-
mercial comparisons or technical appropriateness for
any one or range of applications. The omission of any
locally available technology is unintentional.
Acknowledgments
This chapter would not have been written without the considerable
experience and expertise of Dr Paul Blackwell, Department of Agri-
culture and Food, Western Australia’s (DAFWA) Geraldton Regional
Office. Dr Blackwell’s long-time contribution to this field of research in
WA under particularly limiting funding and time allocations is an
example to those of us following in his notable footsteps.
References
Accardi-Dey, A., Gschwend, P.M., 2002. Assessing the combined roles
of natural organic matter and black carbon as sorbents in sedi-
ments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 21e29.
Antle, J.M., Stoorvogel, J.J., Valdivia, R.O., 2007. Assessing the economic
impacts of agricultural carbon sequestration: terraces and agrofor-
estry in the Peruvian Andes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 122 (4), 435e445.
Australian Farm Institute, 2011. The Impact of a Carbon Price on
Australian Farm Businesses: Grain Production. Australian Farm
Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Barker, T., Bashmakov, I., Alharthi, A., Amann, M., Cifuentes, L.,
Drexhage, J., Duan, M., Edenhofer, O., Flannery, B., Grubb, M.,
Hoogwijk, M., Ibitoye, F.I., Jepma, C.J., Pizer, W.A., Yamaji, K.,
456 26. BIOCHAR PROCESSING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CURRENT AND FUTURE BIOENERGY RESEARCH
2007. mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007:
Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, USA.
Beaton, J.D., Peterson, G.A., Bauer, N., 1960. Some aspects of phos-
phate adsorption by charcoal. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 24, 340e346.
Blackwell, P., Krull, E.S., Butler, G., Herbert, A., Solaiman, Z., 2010.
Effect of banded biochar on dryland wheat production and fertil-
iser use in south-western Australia: an agronomic and economic
perspective. Aust. J. Soil Res. 48, 531e545.
Blackwell, P., Reithmuller, G., Collins, M., 2009. Biochar application to
soil. In: Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental
Management: Science and Technology. Earthscan, London, United
Kingdom, pp. 207e226.
Bridle, T.R., 2004. Use of Pyrolysis to Recover Energy and Nutrients
from Biosolids. Cited 25.07.08. Available from: http://www.wef.
org/NR/rdonlyres/7DA581D9-C0D3-4E5C-B127-
AC68B7ABA6DD/0/Bridle_Paper.pdf.
Brown, R.C., 2009. Biochar production technology. In: Lehmann, J.,
Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management: Science
and Technology. Earthscan, London, United Kingdom, pp. 127e145.
Cleugh, H.A., Prinsley, R., Bird, R.P., Brooks, S.J., Carberry, P.S.,
Crawford, M.C., Jackson, T.T., Meinke, H., Mylius, S.J.,
Nuberg, I.K., Sudmeyer, R.A., Wright, A.J., 2002. The Australian
national windbreaks program: overview and summary of results.
Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 42, 649e664.
Cransberg, L., McFarlane, D.J., 1994. Can perennial pastures provide
the basis for a sustainable farming system in southern Australia?
N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 37, 287e294.
Graetz, R.D., Skjemstad, J.O., 2003. The Charcoal Sink of Biomass
Burning on the Australian Continent. CSIRO Atmospheric Research
Technical Paper No. 64. CSIRO, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia.
Gustafsson, O., Haghseta, F., Chan, C., Macfarlane, J., Gschwend, P.M.,
1997. Quantification of the dilute sedimentary soot phase: impli-
cations for PAH speciation and bioavailability. Environ. Sci. Tech-
nol. 31, 203e209.
Hatton, T.J., Nulsen, R.A., 1999. Towards achieving functional
ecosystem mimicry with respect to water recycling in southern
Australian agriculture. Agroforestry Syst. 45, 203e214.
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, 2008. Compliance and
Operation of the NSW Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme 2007.
The New South Wales Government & The Independent Pricing
Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2000. Land Use, Land
Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, United Kingdom. pp. 25e45.
Joseph, G., 2007. Combustible dusts: a serious industrial hazard.
J. Hazard. Mater. 142, 589e591.
Laird, D., Fleming, P., Wang, B., Horton, R., Karlen, D.L., 2008. Impact
of soil biochar applications on nutrient leaching. In: The 2008 Joint
Annual Meeting of Black Carbon in Soils and Sediments: III.
Environmental Function Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA.
Lehmann, J., 2007. Bio-energy in the black. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5 (7),
381e387.
Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J., Rondon, M., 2006. Bio-char sequestration in
terrestrial ecosystems. Mitigation Adapt. Strategies. Global Change
11, 315e419.
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2008. Biochar for Environmental Management:
Science and Technology. Earthscan, London, United Kingdom.
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2009. Biochar systems. In: Lehmann, J.,
Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management: Science
and Technology. Earthscan, London, United Kingdom, pp. 147e168.
Lehmann, J., Pereira da Silva Jr, J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W.,
Glaser, B., 2003. Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological
Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertiliser,
manure and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil 249, 343e357.
Lehmann, J., Rondon, M., 2006. Bio-char Soil Management on Highly
Weathered Soils in the Humid Tropics. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA.
McHenry, M.P., 2009. Agricultural bio-char production, renewable
energy generation and farm carbon sequestration in WA: certainty,
uncertainty & risk. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 129, 1e7.
McHenry, M.P., 2010. Carbon-based stock feed additives: a research
methodology that explores ecologically delivered C bio-
sequestration, alongside live-weights, feed-use efficiency, soil
nutrient retention, and perennial fodder plantations. J. Sci. Food
Agr. 90, 183e187.
McHenry, M.P., 2011. Soil organic carbon, biochar, and applicable
research results for increasing farm productivity under Australian
agricultural conditions. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan 42, 1187e1199.
McHenry, M.P., 2012a. Sensitive variables for applying biochar as a
fertiliser substitute and a method to sequester carbon in soils: a
wheat crop scenario. In: Ryan, B.J., Anderson, D.E. (Eds.), Carbon
Sequestration: Technology, Measurement Technologies and Envi-
ronmental Effects. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, New
York, USA.
McHenry, M.P., 2012b. Small-scale (6 kWe) stand-alone and grid-
connected photovoltaic, wind, hydroelectric, biodiesel, and wood
gasification system’s simulated technical, economic, and mitiga-
tion analyses for rural regions in Western Australia. Renewable
Energy 38, 195e205.
Mizuta, K., Matsumoto, T., Hatate, Y., Nishihara, K., Nakanishi, T.,
2004. Removal of nitrate-nitrogen from drinking water using
bamboo powder charcoal. Bioresour. Technol. 95, 255e257.
Nabuurs, G.J., Masera, O., Andrasko, K., Benitez-Ponce, P., Boer, R.,
Dutschke, M., Elsiddig, E., Ford-Robertson, J., Frumhoff, P.,
Karjalainen, T., Krankina, O., Kurz, W.A., Matsumoto, M.,
Oyhantcabal, W., Ravindranath, N.H., Sanz Sanchez, M.J., Zhang, X.,
2007. Forestry, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA.
Patabendige, D.M., Scott, P.R., Lefroy, E.C., 1992. Fodder Trees and
Shrubs for High Rainfall Areas of South Western Australia.
Department of Agriculture Western Australia, Perth, Western
Australia.
Rondon, M., Ramirez, J.A., Lehmann, J., 2005. Greenhouse gas emis-
sions decrease with charcoal additions to soils. The Third USDA
Symposium on Carbon Sequestration. Baltimore, USA.
Sanford, P., Wang, X., Greathead, K.D., Gladman, J.H., Speijers, J.,
2003. Impact of Tasmanian blue gum belts and kikuyu-based
pasture on sheep production and groundwater recharge in
south-western Western Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 43 (8),
755e767.
The CRC for Greenhouse Accounting & Tony Beck Consulting Ser-
vices Pty Ltd, 2003. Opportunities for the Western Australian Land
Management Sector Arising from Greenhouse Gas Abatement.
Western Australian State Government, Perth, Western Australia.
Valzano, F., Murphy, B., Koen, T., 2005. The Impact of Tillage on
Changes in Soil Carbon Density with Special Emphasis on
Australian Conditions. Report No. 43. National Carbon Account-
ing System, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, Australia.
Van, D.T.T., Mui, N.T., Ledin, I., 2006. Effect of method of processing
foliage of Acacia mangium and inclusion of bamboo charcoal in the
diet on performance of growing goats. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 130,
242e256.
Wise, R., Cacho, O., 1999. A Bioeconomic Analysis of Soil Carbon
Sequestration in Agroforests. Cited 16.07.12. Available from:
http://www.une.edu.au/carbon/CC02.PDF.