PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD-500030

Title:
BIOCHAR AND ITS APPLICATION IN
AGRICULTURE

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Dr G. E. Ch. Vidyasagar S. SUSHMA
Professor RAD/2020-04
Department of Agronomy AGRONOMY
C.A, PJTSAU, Rajendranagar- C.A, PJTSAU
500030
1
PRESENTATION OUTLINE

2
Introduction to biochar

3
 Biochar

“Bio-” means “biomass”

“Char” means “charcoal”.

It is highly porous fine-grained charcoal, which has been produced

under limited O2 condition using organic biomass that optimizes certain
special characteristics like large surface area, porosity and ability to
preserve in soils for a long time with very little biological deterioration.

4
 Genesis of biochar concept
• Biochar use is a millenia old concept used in many cultures.
• In Brazilian part of the Amazon basin, man made soils made by charcoal burial of over 2000
years or more known as terra preta (“black earth” in Portugese) are found at several sites.
• These soils are more productive than anywhere else on earth.
• These soils were formed by the application of stable OM in the form of biochar (charcoal)

Terra preta sanitation system 5

 Biochar is generally produced from
A wide variety of feedstocks being used for biochar production comprising:
•agricultural residues
•woody biomass
•poultry waste
•Dairy waste
Pigeon pea stalk Cotton stalk Castor stalk Maize stalk
•paper waste
•urban waste
•aquatic biomasskitchen waste
• animal and human excreta
Eucalyptus twigs Eucalyptus barks Pongamia shells
•industrial waste
•paper mill waste

6
Biochar production - Crop residues

7
India generates huge quantity of crop residue
(m t/ year)
Crop Quantity of residues Quantity of dry
generated residues generated
Rice 169 145
Wheat 170 149
Coarse cereals 70 28
Pulses 38 27
Oilseeds 18 15
Sugarcane 152 133
Cotton 16 13
Jute and mesta 5 4
Total 640 517
8
(Economic Survey, 2020)
 Crop residues (CR) management is a challenge

• CR use as livestock feed is decreasing on account of reduced numbers (Draught

animals declined by 24.43% in 20th Livestock Census, 2019 as compared to 19th
Livestock Census, 2012 (74.02 m) and poor quality for milch animals.
• CR generated in mechanized farms requires quick disposal especially rice-wheat
cropping system with short turnover period
• Hence, CR management is of great concern in mechanized farms and low / no
livestock farms and needs immediate attention.
9
 Residue burning is a quick way of disposal -India
• A ton of paddy straw contain ~ 5.5-2.3-25-1.2 kg N-P2O5-K2O-S out of which 90-25-25-60% is lost
during burning (Singh et al., 2008).
• 50-70% of micro-nutrients and 400 kg of carbon absorbed by rice are lost during burning.
• It also releases: 3-60-1460-199-2 kg particulate matter-CO-CO2-ash-SO2.
Burning residues leads to pollution of atmosphere and human diseases
• Deterioration of air quality resulting in aggravation of eye and skin diseases.
• Fine particles can also aggravate chronic heart and lung diseases.
Deterioration to the soil physical quality.
• Soil temperature, pH, moisture and SOM are greatly affected due to burning.
Burning of CR do have pest control benefits however, the damage to environment far exceeds these benefits.

Revised guidelines of crop residue management scheme -2020

10
 Crop residues burnt
Crop Total biomass burnt
(mt/yr)
Rice 33
Wheat 34
Coarse cereals 6
Pulses 6
Oilseeds 3
Sugarcane 30
Cotton 3
Jute and mesta 0.9
Total 117 (Economic Survey, 2020)
11
 Constraints in crop residue recycling
• Decreasing availability of farm labour and their ever increasing wages
(MGNREGA scheme, Free food grain supply) making collection of residues a
costly proposition.
• Lack of appropriate farm machinery for collection & baling of residues is
hindering their use
• Mechanized harvest crop residues have low livestock feed acceptability
• CR decomposition in situ by IARI fungal consortia is yet to reach commercial
level (UPL is attempting)
• Inadequate policy support / incentives for crop and agroforestry residue
recycling

12
 Biochar making from crop residue is a
viable proposition
• Conversion of CR
into biochar reduces
bulkiness &
enhances their life
period in soil
• It destroys crop
residue borne insect
pests and pathogens
(including weed
seeds).

13
(Lehmann, 2007)
Biochar yield from various residues
Crop Biochar yield
(%)
Castor (Ricinus communis) 17-24
Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) 30-35
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) 25-30
Rice straw (Oryza sativa) 28-33
Rice husk (Oryza sativa) 33-38
Corn stalks (Zea mays) 25-30
Wheat straw (Triticum aestivum) 25-20
Cotton stalk (Gossypium sps) 25-30
Sugarcane bagasse (Saccarum officinarum) 24-28

(CRIDA, 2015; Nan et al., 2020)

14
 Biochar use in agriculture is beneficial

Biochar is a source of soil amendment.

• Addition of biochar to soil enhances nutrient use efficiency and microbial activity.
• To improve soil physical properties viz., BD, porosity, WHC, drainage.
• To enhance soil and water conservation by using the biochar in rainfed areas.
• Substantial amounts of C can be sequestered in soils in a very stable form.
• Minimize reliance on external amendments for ensuring sustainable crop production.
• Mitigation of GHG emissions by avoiding direct crop residue burning by farmers.

(CRIDA) (Venkatesh et al., 2015)

15
Biochar production

16
 BIOCHAR PRODUCTION-APPROACHES
Pyrolysis systems employed to process unused and excess crop and agroforestry
residues for biochar production can be categorized into four types
(1) Slow pyrolysis:
It is performed under low temperature (<400-500°C) results in high biochar yield
(35%).
(2) Fast pyrolysis:
It operates at high temperatures (<800°C) and yields higher combustible gases than
solid biochar (12%).
(3) Flash pyrolysis:
Here biomass decomposes at high temperatures, i.e., more than 1000 °C within a short
period, mostly less than a minute.
(4) Gasification:
Temperature: > 700 °C are employed along with gasifying agents (steam)
17
Biochar characteristics - Pyrolysis temperature

18
 Characterization of 3 residue biochars
Sample Condition Ash content Fixed carbon Volatile C %
% %
Sweet sorghum bagasse biochar Raw 2.5 20.2 77.3
350oC 6.4 56.9 36.7
700oC 8.9 83.22 7.9
Sugar beet pulp biochar Raw 5.9 16.6 77.5
350oC 15.5 44.4 40.2
700oC 22.5 62.7 14.8
Sugarcane bagasse biochar Raw 7.8 16.4 74.3
350oC 12.9 42.8 41.8
700oC 20.3 63.2 11.2

USA Lima et al., 2017

19
 Methods of biochar production
Heap method

Traditional earth kiln

• In traditional method, a heap of pyramid like structure (earth kiln) is prepared by

keeping wood logs and roots of plants for making charcoal.
20
DRUM TECHNIQUE

• The cost of one unit of the kiln is s  ₹ 1200

• Kiln design functions with bottom-lit direct
natural up-draft principle.

CRIDA biochar kiln

21
Thermo-chemical conversion of residue to biochar

22
Biochar application methods

Mixing with soil for broadcasting Incorporating biochar into soil

Band application Spot placement 23

 Factors affecting the quantity and frequency of biochar application

• Availability of crop residue

• Soil type
• Crops
• Nature of biochar
• Application rate of biochar
• Labor and time availability
• Preference of the farmer

24
 Policy initiatives: Biochar production
• The Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy is promoting all the technology
options available for setting up projects for
recovery of energy from agricultural,
Industrial and urban wastes through pyrolysis
of crop residues.
• In 2014, the Ministry of Agriculture
developed a National Policy for
Management of Crop Residue (NPMCR)
to prevent agricultural residue burning as a
part of which biochar production is
promoted.
25
 Biochar use in Agriculture
Soil quality and fertility improvement
Crop productivity
Biochar as soil amendment
Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
C sequestration

26
Soil quality and fertility improvement

27
 Rice husk biochar - soil physico-chemical
properties of paddy crop

RDF: 120:60:60 kg ha−1 NPK

Cuttack Sandy clay loams Manda et al., 2016 28

 Effect of biochar on soil physico-chemical properties
Treatments Total pH Available N Available P Available K
Organic C (kg ha−1 ) (kg ha−1) (kg ha−1)
(g kg−1 )

RDF (120:60:60 kg ha−1 NPK) 12.1e 6.78e 221e 12.0c 110b

(RDF + 0.5 t ha−1 RHB) 17.4d 6.81de 227de 12.3c 113b
(RDF + 1.0 t ha−1 RHB) 28.0c 6.87d 233cde 12.7c 114b
(RDF + 2.0 t ha−1 RHB) 28.1c 7.01c 238bcd 13.4bc 115b
(RDF + 4.0 t ha−1 RHB) 28.6c 7.04bc 242abc 13.5bc 128a
(RDF + 8.0 t ha−1RHB) 31.2b 7.09ab 248ab 15.0ab 132a
(RDF + 10.0 t ha−1RHB) 32.6a 7.11a 252a 15.2a 134a

Cuttack Sandy clay loams Manda et al., 2016

29
 Effect of willow wood (Salix spp.) biochar use on
soil physico-chemical properties - Maize
Treatment SOC (%) C:N ratio
RDF (150-41-120 kg NPK ha-1) 3.09 17.2
RDF + biochar @ 10 t ha-1 3.34 19.6
RDF + compost @ 25 t ha−1 3.22 17.9
RDF + compost (25 t ha−1) + biochar (2.5 t ha−1) 3.34 18.6
RDF + Co-composted biochar compost (25 t ha−1) 3.24 19.1
LSD (0.05%) 0.22 0.71
CV (%) 3.55 2.05

Compost: green waste and bagasse, chicken manure

Australia Clay soils Agegnehu et al.,

2016
30
 Soil fertility (0-15 cm) of pearl millet crop - peanut shell & mixed
pine wood biochar

Total C Available K (g kg-1)

Treatment Available N (g kg-1)
g kg-1
Control 18 d 1.6 bc 364 b
Peanut shell biochar @ 10 t ha-1 26 bc 1.8 ab 505 ab
Peanut shell biochar @ 20 t ha-1 33 a 1.9 a 617 a
Pine wood biochar @ 10 t ha-1 25 c 1.6 bc 361 b
Pine wood biochar@ 20 t ha-1 31 ab 1.5 c 366 b

USA Fine loamy soils Diatta, 2015

31
 Nutrient uptake of wheat - sorghum biochar and residues
Treatment Na Al Fe Cu Zn
Aboveground parts uptake
Control 1.0 b 0.9 ab 0.8 ab 0.2 a 0.1 ab
Sorghum biochar 1.2 a 1.0 a 0.9 a 0.2 a 0.2 a
Sorghum biochar + phosphorus (40 kg ha-1) 1.0 b 0.9 a 0.7 ab 0.1 a 0.1 b
Sorghum residues (13 t ha−1) 0.6 c 0.6 c 0.4 c 0.1 a 0.07 c
Sorghum residues + phosphorus 0.7 c 0.6 bc 0.6 bc 0.1 a 0.07 c
Belowground parts upake
Control 1.3 ab 3.1 a 3.4 a 0.3 a 0.2 a
Sorghum biochar 1.3 a 5.2 a 7.0 a 0.2 a 0.1 a
Sorghum biochar + phosphorus 1.2 abc 4.1 a 5.4 a 0.2 a 0.1 a
Sorghum residues 0.9 bc 3.2 a 3.9 a 0.3 a 0.2 a
Sorghum residues + phosphorus 0.9 bc 3.7 a 4.0 a 0.2 a 0.1 a
USA Ultisols Gilbert et al., 2015
32
Cotton stalk biochar impacts in a sandy soils

Pakistan Sandy soils Younis et

al., 2017
33
pH of acidic soils of maize-French bean cropping system as influenced by
levels rice straw biochar

Aizwal Clay loams Layek et al.,

2019 34
 Microbial activity in salt-induced soil in groundnut
by application of groundnut shell biochar

Gujarat Clay loams Bhaduri et al., 2019

35
 Effect of red gram stalk biochar on soil
compaction in green gram crop

Tamil Nadu Sandy loams Kannan et al., 2021

36
Crop productivity

37
Effect of wood biochar application on finger millet grain
and straw yield (q/ha) in acidic soil
Treatments Grain yield Straw yield
NPK + ZnSO4 alone 33 49
NPK + ZnSO4 + FYM 40 61
NPK + ZnSO4 + 25% of biochar equivalent of FYM 34 50
NPK + ZnSO4 + 50% of biochar equivalent of FYM 36 53
NPK + ZnSO4 + 75% of biochar equivalent of FYM 38 56
NPK + ZnSO4 + 100% of biochar equivalent of FYM 40 60
NPK + ZnSO4 + 125% of biochar equivalent of FYM 43 64
CD@ (5%) 1.81 1.89

Karnataka Sandy loam Niranjan et al., 2020

38
 Salinity and wheat straw biochar impacts on sorghum
seedlings
Treatment Emergence % Root length (cm) RWC (%)
S1: 0.8 dS m-1 Biochar @ 0% (w/w) 100 a 16 c 63 c
Biochar @ 2.5% (w/w) 100 a 20 b 64 a
Biochar @ 5% (w/w) 93 c 21 a 60 b
Biochar @ 10% (w/w) 97 b 19 b 51 de
S1: 4.1 dS m-1 Biochar @ 0% (w/w) 90 d 13 f 50 e
Biochar @ 2.5% (w/w) 90 d 14 e 53 cd
Biochar @ 5% (w/w) 97 b 16 c 54 c
Biochar @ 10% (w/w) 83 e 13 f 41 g
S1: 7.7 dS m-1 Biochar @ 0% (w/w) 67 g 12 g 41 f
Biochar @ 2.5% (w/w) 93 c 14 e 46 f
Biochar @ 5% (w/w) 83 e 15 d 53 cd
Biochar @ 10% (w/w) 77 f 12 g 39 g
Sudan Sandy loam soils Ibrahim et al., 2021
39
Effect of fir wood biochar and fertilizer on shoot, root biomass and soil
organic matter (SOM)

USA Silty loam Bista et al., 2019

40
 Performance of maize and French bean as influenced by levels biochar

Treatment Maize French bean

Grain yield Kernel Seed index Pod yield Pod
(kg ha-1) weight/cob (g) (kg ha-1) length
(g) (cm)
No biochar 2368 82.9 28.0 2765 13.3
Biochar @ 2.5 t ha-1 3296 87.7 28.4 3890 14.0
Biochar @ 5 t ha-1 4376 94.4 28.5 5194 15.3
CD (p=0.05) 174.3 9.04 ns 82.70 0.31

Aizwal Layek et al., 2019

41
 Effect of castor based biochar on the germination, seedling
and root growth of castor seedlings

BCC: castor spent cake

biochar
BCS: castor stalk biochar

Greece Helioti et al., 2019

42
 Effect of wheat straw biochar as a soil amendment on yield
attributes of wheat crop

Spike 1000 grain

Grain yield Harvest
Treatment number weight
(t ha-1) index
m-2 (g)
Freshwater irrigation 6.0 a 0.5 a 525 a 48 a
Saline water irrigation + 0 t ha-1 biochar 5.2 d 0.4 b 491 c 44 b
Saline water irrigation + 10 t ha-1 biochar 5.66 b 0.5 a 486 c 47 a
Saline water irrigation + 20 t ha-1 biochar 5.65 b 0.5 a 496 b 47 a
Saline water irrigation + 30 t ha-1 biochar 5.35 c 0.4 b 496 b 45 b

China Clay loam Huang et al., 2019

43
Biochar as soil amendment

44
 Role of wheat straw biochar in immobilizing the heavy metals in the soil

Elements Wheat straw Concentration in the soil (ppm)

biochar application 2010 2012
rate (t ha-1)

Cd WSBC @ 0 t ha-1 2.7a 1.9a

WSBC @ 10 t ha-1 2.4a 1.7ab
WSBC @ 20 t ha-1 2.5a 1.5b
WSBC @ 40 t ha-1 2.5a 1.5b
Pb WSBC @ 0 t ha-1 63a 56a
WSBC @ 10 t ha-1 52b 46ab
WSBC @ 20 t ha-1 51b 47b
WSBC @ 40 t ha-1 51b 41b
China Anthrosol Bian et al., 2014
45
Adsorption of Hexavalent Chromium by banana peduncle biochar from aqueous
Solution

Adsorbent dose Banana Banana

(g l-1) peduncle peduncle
biochar (300oC) biochar
(500oC)
Chromium Removal (%)

0.4 13 08
1.2 41 26
1.6 61 36
2.0 77 44
8.0 96 69

Odisha Karim et al., 2015

46
 Rice straw biochar for phytoremediation of crude oil contaminated soil

Treatment Total Petroleum

Hydrocarbon (%) removal
rate
45th day 60th day
Soil (with crude oil contamination and without plant) 24 41
Soil (without crude oil contamination) + plant 42 50
Soil (with crude oil contamination) + plant + biochar 45 66
Soil (with crude oil contamination) + plant + biochar + compost 53 74
Soil (with crude oil contamination) + plant + biochar + compost 62 77

Tamil Nadu Deepika et al., 2020

47
Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions

48
 Rice straw biochar amendment for GHG emissions in paddy

Season Treatment CH4 N2O GWP GHGI

emissions emissions t CO2 ha-1 t CO2 ha-1
(kg ha-1) (kg ha-1)
2016 0 t ha-1 biochar + controlled irrigation 75b 5.2ab 3.51bc 0.48b
20 t ha-1 biochar + controlled irrigation 53c 8.67a 3.78b 0.47b
40 t ha-1biochar + controlled irrigation 71b 4.63b 3.21c 0.38c
40 t ha-1 biochar + flood irrigation 605a 2.31c 17.6a 1.93a
2017 0 t ha-1 biochar + controlled irrigation 154b 4.43a 5.49b 1.03a
20 t ha-1 biochar + controlled irrigation 108d 1.86c 3.53c 0.53b
40 t ha-1 biochar + controlled irrigation 130c 2.52b 4.31c 0.59b
40 t ha-1 biochar + flood irrigation 246a 1.67c 7.33a 1.01a
Global warming potential (GWP); greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI)

China Anthrosol Yang et al., 2019

49
Dynamics of soil N2O emission as influenced by Rice-
Straw Biochar with and without nitrogen

China Silty loam Aamer et al., 202

50
Dynamics of soil CO2 and N2O emission as influenced by willow
wood biochar in Maize crop

Australia Clay soils Agegnehu et al.,

2016 51
C sequestration

52
Effect of corn cob biochar on daily CO2-C emission in pearl millet

Effect of biochar on daily CO2-C emission during the (a) first, (b) second, and (c) third cut of pearl millet.
C = control; BC5 = 5 ton ha−1 ; BC10 = 10 ton ha−1 ; BC15 = 15 ton ha−1; BC20 = 20 ton ha−1 .
Egypt Ali et al., 2021 53
 Carbon balance with the addition of corn stover biomass, corn stover biochar, rice
husk biomass and rice husk biochar
Total C in Treatments % C in Total C (g) in Cumulative Loss of C Total C IN Total C Total C left in
soil initially biomass/ added biomass/ CO2 wt loss from 500 g (g) OUT (g) the soil (g)
biochar biochar (g kg-1 soil) of soil C IN – C OUT
A B C D E F G= A+D H=F I=G-H
Biomass
7.4 0.5 % CSBM 44 1.1 37 10 8.5 10 - 1.7
7.4 1.5 % CSBM 3.3 88 24 11 24 -13
7.4 3.0% CSBM 6.6 104 28 14 28 -14
7.4 0.5 % RHBM 40 1.0 18 4.8 8.4 4.9 3.6
7.4 1.5 % RHBM 3.0 25 6.7 10 6.7 3.7
7.4 3.0% RHBM 6.1 35 9.5 13 9.5 3.9
Biochar
7.4 0.5 % CSBC 77 1.9 9.1 9.3 2.5 9.3 6.8
7.4 1.5 % CSBC 5.8 6.4 13 1.7 13 11
7.4 3.0% CSBC 11.6 7.4 19 2.0 19 16
7.4 0.5 % RHBC 74 1.9 6.4 9.3 1.8 9.3 7.5
7.4 1.5 % RHBC 5.6 8.3 19 2.3 19 11
7.4 3.0% RHBC 11.1 4.9 13 1.3 13 17
54
Uttar Pradesh Mohan et al., 2018
Carrier for inoculum

55
Dry weight of corn produced during growth under salinity stress in response
to pinewood biochar used as bacterial inoculum carrier

BC: pinewood biochar prepared at 600 °C; W: worm castings; T: worm-casting tea; L: Luria–Bertani;
UW4: Pseudomonas putida

Canada Sun et al., 2016

56
Effect of cotton stalk biochar samples on the growth of
Bacillus subtilis SL-13

BC 400 & 600: Cotton stalk biochar prepared at 400oC and 600oC

China Tao et al., 2018

57
 Corn cob Biochar reduces the efficacy of herbicides
• Biochar reduces the efficacy of herbicides specially in case of pre-emergence herbicides which
are applied to soil
• When herbicide adsorption occurs, the active molecule is bound to the biochar (particles or
organic matter) and is not available for plant uptake.

Atrazine at 1 kg a.i ha-1: 1) without biochar; 2) with biochar at 2 ton/ac.

Pendimethalin at 0.75 kg a.i ha-1 3) without biochar; 4) with biochar at 2 ton/ac.

USA Neetha soni et al., 2021

58
Effect of maple bark biochar on Rhizoctonia solani virulence
in soilless potting substrate

Treatment Soybean Sugar beet

Disease Disease Disease Disease
severity incidence severity incidence
Control 1.6 b 70 1.4 b 50 b
1 % biochar 2.5 a 83 2.2 ab 70 ab
3% biochar 3.1 a 90 2.1 ab 70 ab
5% biochar 3.0 a 93 2.7 a 83 a

Canada Tanya et al., 2015

59
 Future challenges - Biochar
• Adding biochar increases soil pH that however reduces
micronutrient availability (best available in <6.0 pH) that
have a detrimental effect on crop yields
• Biochar application is conducive to the growth of pests and
micro organisms thus increased incidence of pests is a
challenge
• The inhibitory effect of biochar on microbial activity
increases as the pyrolysis temperature increases owing to
the changes in the structure and chemical composition of
biochar, especially the C content.
• Biochar can also increase the bioavailability of toxic
elements in the soil, which poses potential environmental
risks to soil contaminated with toxic element.
• Biochar may have a direct toxic effect on plants because of
the presence of hazardous organic or inorganic compounds
(e.g., PAHs and heavy metals).

60
 CONCLUSION
• C sequestration potential with application of rice husk and corn cob biochar @ 3% was much
higher when compared to the same percentage of residues incorporated directly into the soil.
• CH4 and N2O emissions from the paddy crop can be controlled with application of rice straw
biochar @ 10 t ha-1.
• The higher total carbon content, MBC and nutrient retention capacity of the soil were
observed with the application of rice husk biochar at a rate of 20 t ha-1.
• Biochar application @ 20 t ha-1 helps in reclamation of saline soils and increases the nutrient
availability.

61
FURTHER WORK NEEDED TO PROMOTE BIOCHAR PDOCUTION
FROM CROP RESIDUES AND THEIR USE IN AGRICULTURE

• Standardizing the procedures for the production of biochar with increased conversion
efficiency.

• Designing of low-cost / affordable biochar production units

• Optimizing the rate of application of biochar to soil as manure / amendment.

• Assessing and reducing Biochar negative impacts (herbicide/ pesticide absorption)

•
• Biochar - Carbon sequestration funding mechanisms needs to be evolved / strengthened
(climate funding)
62
63