Biochar production and application = simulated wildfire?

As I was spreading my most recent batch of biochar, it made me think that our land had probably not experienced a wildfire in over a hundred years due to fire suppression.  My method of using dead and down wood certainly mimics a low level fire that just burns out debris without killing the overstory.  My open burn method surely produces plenty of ash as well, accelerating the cycling of nutrients.  A true wildfire certainly produces plenty of charred material.  Probably doesn’t stimulate any fire dependent plants, but the similarities do seem to be there.  What do you think?

Hi Gray.  I think following a natural way is usually more efficient than other ways.  I get my bio char from the rocket stove.  When I fire it hard and then shut the air off it makes lots of char.  Living in the damp east where I am at it is hard to burn on the ground.

You bring up a good point. I have thought many times that for most of human history, biochar was created naturally.  There were wildfires, which burned wood.  Some completely, some into ash, but there's a balance. Areas with more rain have more wood as fuel for fires, but they also tend to have more acidic soils, so the alkalinity of ash would balance out.   Places with alkaline soils tend to be drier and have fewer trees, so less ash or biochar would be made.  People, bear, hogs, deer and other animals and fruit trees left waste which was burned by the fires.  Because we suppress the fires, we have to artificially make the biochar.  

John S
PDX OR

To some degree, I think making and distributing char and ash mimics aspects of wildfire. It's certainly worthwhile -- I do it myself. Still, standing back, it maintains the landscape as a status quo.

My understanding is that natural burns and smaller wildfires provide a sort of creative destruction. They facilitate a changing of the guard, not just in tree species but in mushrooms, understory species, insects, birds, and mammals. I don't know the effect on soil biota, but I would wager it is substantial.

There are species that have carved the niche of sprouting after a fire.  Many of those species are moving toward endangered/extinct.

I have heard several Native American elders state that some of the species are going extinct because we aren't taking care of them.  Maybe because so many people in modern society don't understand roles in the ecology such as dynamic accumulator, nitrogen fixer, pioneer plant, pollinator, attractor of beneficial insects,  old growth tree, etc.  

John S
PDX OR

I live in a longleaf pine forest. It is a threatened species that depends on fire for survival so we do controlled burns. To help the trees & to minimize the fuel load should a wildfire occur. The grasses that grow back after a burn are very green. I think in some ways biochar provides some of the same benefits.

Ash and charcoal also act as filters, filtering out toxins from surrounding area. Lye is produced from ash, lye having capabilities of killing parasites, Smokey the bear loves forest fires, as they massively would help de-parasitize wild game. Liming soil helps growth. Lot more for herbivores to eat, as far as maintain an appropriate amount of grass land. In this location, natives did controlled burns at least every 2 years and up to twice a year, on places such a mountain balds, to maintain grassland. High pressure is caused by nasty bacteria, drying helps this process, but all bacteria is killed in fires sterilizing the area. The extreme insulation of fire residual, is extremely low pressure. Burning your own land certainly mimics the process and we as humans are environmental super computers on how to use the residual, making the process a more effective low pressure procreators. I just finished burning the last of my leaves, really no leaves left now, made a lot of charcoal out of last leaves, a few wheelbarrows worth.