Alder Burns wrote:I think the key is right there in the abstract "during the 4 week timescale of our experiments" They didn't let the char and the nitrogen mellow long enough in the soil.
I totally agree. It is very easy to do a study which shows no or negative benefits. Negative is easy by adding raw / underprepared char over short timescales since the biology in the char is charging itself up, and hence not sharing with plants at the rate it otherwise would. When dealing with a very simple demonstrable 1000 year timescale fertility booster (in some soils) it is dishonest to look at it for 4 weeks and conclude. There are very few academic papers that have a robust study method and appropriate time length. I think this is exacerbated by funding cycles, which are far too short to set up a decade long trial, over multiple climates, soil and crop types, which is what is required to actually evaluate biochar rigorously.
Very promising local regenerative approach. Hard to monetize for big agra given the very low costs of biomass, and risks of shipping char unless it is in a slurry and therefore much heavier than required.
For peeps in Oz, these guys have some pretty nice claims re their VAM microrizae
http://biocoat.com.au/vam-in-action/commercial-agriculture/
Like some of the other posts it really is your integrity and unquestionable passion for changing the planet that pushed me over the line.