PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD-500030

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-
500030
 Management of crop residues in agriculture
Technological advances and use of machinery and reduced
livestock population for crop harvesting are leaving behind large
quantities of crop residues, which is burnt by farmers as cheap and
easiest method with misconception that, burning of crop residues
enhances soil fertility and helps in control weeds, insects and pests.
 Table 1. Crop wise waste generated and fraction burnt

Crop Annual Dry Residue Residue to Fraction burnt

production Generated crop ratio
(Mt/yr) (Mt/yr)
Rice paddy 153.35 192.82 1.50 0.08-0.8
Wheat 80.68 120.70 1.70 0.1-0.23*
Maize 19.73 26.75 1.50 0.10
Jute 18.32 31.51 2.15 0.10
Cotton 37.86 90.86 3.00 0.10
Groundnut 7.17 11.44 2.00 0.10
Sugarcane 285.03 107.50 0.40 0.25
Rapeseed &Mustard 7.20 17.28 3.00 0.10
Millets 18.62 21.57 1.50 0.10
Total 627.96 620.43

Rautray, 2019
 Direct residue burning- Impacts

• Burning crop residue causes phenomenal pollution problems in the atmosphere and huge
nutritional loss and physical health deterioration to the soil.
• The burning of one ton of paddy straw releases 3 kg particulate matter, 60 kg CO, 1460 kg CO2,
199 kg ash and 2 kg SO2. These gases affect human health due to general degradation in air
quality resulting in aggravation of eye and skin diseases. Fine particles can also aggravate chronic
heart and lung diseases.
• One ton of paddy straw contains approximately 5.5 kg N, 2.3 kg P2O5, 25 kg K2O, 1.2 kg S, 50-
70% of micro-nutrients absorbed by rice and 400 kg of carbon, which are lost due to burning of
paddy straw.
• Apart from loss of nutrients, some of the soil properties like soil temperature, pH, moisture,
available phosphorus and soil organic matter are greatly affected due to burning.

Revised guidelines of crop residue management scheme -2020

 Constraints in recycling of crop and agroforestry residue
• Unavailability of farm labour, higher wage rates for collection and processing
of crop residue.
• Lack of appropriate farm machines for on-farm recycling of crop and
agroforestry residue.
• Inadequate policy support / incentives for crop and agroforestry residue
recycling
Need for recycling of crop and agroforestry residue into biochar for use in
Indian agriculture
• To improve soil health through efficient use of crop residue as a source of soil amendment/nutrients
• To improve soil physical properties viz., bulk density, porosity, water holding capacity, drainage etc.,
through incorporation of biochar
• Substantial amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soils in a very stable form
• Addition of biochar to soil enhances nutrient use efficiency and microbial activity
• To enhance soil and water conservation by using the biochar in rainfed areas
• Minimize reliance on external amendments for ensuring sustainable crop production
• Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding direct crop residue burning by farmers
• To enable destruction of all crop residue borne pathogens
• Conversion of residues into biochar helps to reduce the bulkiness both in terms of weight and volume and
make the product easier to handle compared with that of fresh and uncarbonized crop and agroforestry
residue

(Venkatesh et al., 2015)

 Biochar
The word “biochar” comes from a combination of “bio-” means “biomass” and
“char” means “charcoal” .

Biochar is highly porous fine-grained charcoal, which has been produced under
limited oxygen condition using organic biomass that optimizes certain special
characteristics like large surface area and porosity and ability to preserve in soils
for a long time with very little biological deterioration
 Origin of the concept of biochar
Biochar has acquired new dimensions in the current organic farming era, but its origins are
associated with soils of the Amazon region usually referred to as “terra preta” soils, which
have been found up to 2 m depth. It is a highly fertile dark-coloured soil that has supported
the agricultural needs of the Amazonians for centuries.

Terra preta sanitation system

Comparison of normal and biochar carbon cycles (Lehmann, 2007).
 Benefits of biochar
Biochar production and application to soil enhances the rate of soil carbon sequestration
through shift from short-term bio-atmospheric carbon cycle to the long-term geological
carbon cycle
• Nutrient supply and retention
• Crop productivity
• Liming effect
• Cation exchange capacity
• Nitrogen use efficiency
• Soil biota
• Cation exchange capacity
• Carbon sequestration to combat climate change
• Remediation of problem soils
• Nitrogen use efficiency:
• Soil microbial activity
• Cation exchange capacity:
• Remediation of problem soils
• Soil and water conservation
• Carbon sequestration to combat climate change:
• Reduce emission of non-CO2 greenhouse gases by
Soil inhibition of either stage of nitrification / inhibition of denitrification
Promotion of the reduction of N2 O
Increases CH4 uptake from soil
Agriculture-based materials used for the preparation of biochar
Crop residues:
The major crop residues produced in India are straws of paddy, wheat,
millet, sorghum, pulses (pigeon pea), oilseed crops (castor, mustard), maize stover
and cobs, cotton and jute sticks, sugarcane trash, leaves, fibrous materials, roots,
branches and twigs of varying sizes, shapes, forms and densities.
Agro-industrial residues:
Rice husk, groundnut shell, cotton waste, coconut shell, coir pith, tamarind
shell, mustard husk, coffee husk, cassava peels etc.
Agricultural by-products:
Bagasse, rice husk, groundnut shell, tea waste, casuarina leaf litter, silk
cotton shell, cotton waste, oil palm fibre and shells, cashew nut shell, coconut shell,
coir pith etc.
 BIOCHAR PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
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 lower temperature (<400-500°C)
results in a high yield of biochar (35%).
It is the most commonly employed process.
(2) Fast pyrolysis: It operates at higher temperatures (<800°C) and yields higher
combustible gases than solid biochar (12%).
(3) Flash pyrolysis:
(4) Gasification

Different methods of biochar production:

1.Heap method
2.Drum technique
Characteristics of biochar affected by pyrolysis temperatures.
Table 3. Characterization of sweet sorghum bagasse, sugarbeet pulp and sugarcane bagasse based biochar

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

 Heap method
• In traditional method, a heap of pyramid like
structure (earth kiln) is prepared by keeping
wood logs and roots of plants for making
charcoal.
• To allow the combustion products to escape,
vents are opened starting from the top and
working downwards.
• When smoke production is stopped, the cooling
process is started by covering stack with a layer
of moist earth.
• The cooling process takes several days before the Traditional earth kiln
earth is removed and the biochar produced is
separated from the surrounding carbonized
portions
DRUM TECHNIQUE
CRIDA biochar kiln
Thermo-chemical conversion of residue to biochar
Method of biochar application in soil
• mixing thoroughly some amount of carrier like native soil for
broadcasting
• Incorporating biochar well into soil
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
 Policy initiatives for the production of biochar

• The Ministry 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.
Research findings
Effect of biochar on daily CO2-C emission during the (A) first, (B) second, and (C) third cut of pearl millet. C = without
biochar application, BC5 = 5 ton ha−1 , BC10 = 10 ton ha−1 , BC15 = 15 ton ha−1 , and BC20 = 20 ton ha−1 .

Egypt
Ali et al., 2021
 Table . Effect of biochar on soil physicochemical properties at the end of growing season

Treatments SBD Available SOC C:N ratio

(g cm-3) SWC (%) (%)
RDF (150-41-120 kg NPK ha-1) 0.76 24.7 3.09 17.2
RDF + biochar @ 10 t ha-1 0.78 24.5 3.34 19.6
RDF + compost @ 25 t ha−1 0.76 23.0 3.22 17.9
RDF + compost (25 t ha−1) + biochar (25 t ha−1) 0.78 21.8 3.34 18.6
RDF + Co-composted biochar compost (25 t ha−1) 0.76 22.8 3.24 19.1
LSD (0.05%) 0.09 3.07 0.22 0.71
CV (%) 5.96 7.00 3.55 2.05

Australia Clay soils Agegnehu et al., 2016

 Effect of interaction between salinity and biochar on emergence percentage, root length and
relative water content (RWC) of sorghum seedling

Treatment Emergence % Root length RWC

S1: 0.8 dS m-1 Biochar @ 0% (w/w) 100.0 a 16.50 c 62.8 c
Biochar @ 2.5% (w/w) 100.0 a 19.70 b 63.7 a
Biochar @ 5% (w/w) 93.33 c 21.43 a 59.1 b
Biochar @ 10% (w/w) 96.67 b 18.80 d 50.7 de
S1: 4.1 dS m-1 Biochar @ 0% (w/w) 90.00 d 13.33 f 49.1 e
Biochar @ 2.5% (w/w) 90.00 d 14.73 e 52.8 cd
Biochar @ 5% (w/w) 96.67 b 16.27 c 54.3 c
Biochar @ 10% (w/w) 83.33 e 13. 47 f 40.6 g
S1: 7.7 dS m-1 Biochar @ 0% (w/w) 66.67 g 12.40 g 40.5 f
Biochar @ 2.5% (w/w) 93.33 c 14.43 e 45.2 f
Biochar @ 5% (w/w) 83.33 e 15.87 d 53.3 cd
Biochar @ 10% (w/w) 76.67 f 12.67 g 38.9 g

Sudan Entisols Ibrahim et al., 2021

Figure . Effect of biochar and fertilizer treatments on shoot biomass, root biomass and soil organic matter
(SOM)
USA Silty loam Bista et al., 2019
Table . Effect of biochar application and availability and uptake of some nutrients by pearl millet

treatments Available soil nutrients (mg kg-1)

N P K
Control 92 c 8.70 c 320 d
Biochar @ 5 t ha-1 115 b 11.1 b 380 c
Biochar @ 10 t ha-1 130 a 13.2 a 420 b
Biochar @ 15 t ha-1 133 b 13.5 a 400 c
Biochar @ 20 t ha-1 132 a 13.8 a 450 a
Nutrient concentrations in pearl millet (mg kg-1)
Control 25 c 2.8 d 18 d
Biochar @ 5 t ha-1 30 b 3.2 c 27 b
Biochar @ 10 t ha-1 35 a 4.5 a 28 a
Biochar @ 15 t ha-1 31 b 3.8 b 25 c
Biochar @ 20 t ha-1 32 b 40 b 25 c

Clay loam Egypt Ali et al., 2021

Table . Mean pH, CEC, Total C and available N, P, K concentrations in soil (0-15 cm) as affected by peanut
shell and mixed pine wood biochar

Treatment pH CEC Total C Available N Available P Available Ca Mg

Meq/100g g kg-1 g kg-1 g kg-1 K g kg-1 mg kg-1 mg kg-1

Control 6.59 5.35 17.6 d 1.64 bc 122 364 b 2500 709

Peanut shell biochar 6.60 5.34 26.3 bc 1.79 ab 148 505 ab 2470 681
@ 10 t ha-1
Peanut shell biochar 6.64 5.14 33.0 a 1.88 a 148 617 a 2350 643
@ 20 t ha-1
Pine wood biochar @ 6.60 5.35 25.2 c 1.62 bc 153 361 b 2500 688
10 t ha-1
Pine wood biochar@ 6.63 5.14 30.7 ab 1.55 c 145 366 b 2420 601
10 t ha-1
ns ns 0.90 - ns - ns ns

USA Typic Hapludults Diatta, 2015

Table . Aboveground and belowground nutrient uptake of wheat grown with sorghum biochar and
sorghum residues

Treatments Na Al Fe Cu Zn
Aboveground
Control 1.0 b 0.88 aba 0.79 ab 0.19 a 0.15 ab
Sorghum biochar 1.2 a 0.99 a 0.89 a 0.17 a 0.16 a
Sorghum biochar + phosphorus 1.0 b 0.93 a 0.70 ab 0.13 a 0.12 b
Sorghum residues 0.6 c 0.59 c 0.36 c 0.09 a 0.07 c
Sorghum residues + phosphorus 0.7 c 0.61 bc 0.58 bc 0.12 a 0.07 c
Belowground
Control 1.3 ab 3.1 a 3.4 a 0.28 a 0.17 a
Sorghum biochar 1.3 a 5.2 a 7.0 a 0.24 a 0.14 a
Sorghum biochar + phosphorus 1.2 abc 4.1 a 5.4 a 0.20 a 0.13 a
Sorghum residues 0.9 bc 3.2 a 3.9 a 0.32 a 0. 18 a
Sorghum residues + phosphorus 0.9 bc 3.7 a 4.0 a 0.19 a 0.15 a

USA Ultisols Gilbert et al., 2015

Table : Effect of biochar application on grain and straw yield of finger millet in acidic soil

Treatments Grain yield Straw yield

T1: NPK + ZnSO4 alone 32.72 49.36
T2: NPK + ZnSO4 + FYM 40.49 61.18
T3: NPK + ZnSO4 + 25% of biochar equivalent of FYM 33.58 50.06
T4: NPK + ZnSO4 + 50% of biochar equivalent of FYM 35.83 52.99
T5: NPK + ZnSO4 + 75% of biochar equivalent of FYM 38.34 56.43
T6: NPK + ZnSO4 + 100% of biochar equivalent of FYM 40.17 59.72
T7: NPK + ZnSO4 + 125% of biochar equivalent of FYM 42.64 64.16
CD@ (5%) 1.81 1.89

Sandy loam Karnataka Niranjan et al, 2020

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

Treatment Grain yield Harvest Spike 1000 grain

(t ha-1) index number m-2 weight (g)
Freshwater irrigation 6.05 a 0.47 a 524.80 a 47.25 a
Saline water irrigation + 0 t ha-1 biochar 5.21 d 0.44 b 494.05 c 44.45 b
Saline water irrigation + 10 t ha-1 biochar 5.66 b 0.47 a 485.85 c 47.40 a
Saline water irrigation + 20 t ha-1 biochar 5.65 b 0.46 a 491.10 bc 47.15 a
Saline water irrigation + 30 t ha-1 biochar 5.35 c 0.45 b 496.95 b 45.65 b

China Clay loam Huang et al., 2019

Table 1. Effect of biochar amendment and AMF inoculation on biomass of sorghum in pot culture
experiments

Treatment Recovery Plant height Root dry Shoot dry

% (at harvest) weight weight (g
(cm) (g plant-1) plant-1)
Control 81.50 0.71 2.08 b
Control + AMF 99.62 2.87 10.58 a
Rice hull biochar (2: 1: 1) + AMF 35% 91.75 1.52 5.24 ab
Coconut sawdust biochar (2: 1: 1) + AMF 26% 89.50 1.05 4.14 ab
Peanut hull biochar (2: 1: 1) + AMF 45% 101.13 1.27 6.10 ab
Corn cob biochar (2: 1: 1) + AMF 29% 103.79 1.11 5.13 ab
ns ns

2:1:1: Ultisol-based potting mix= 50% biochar + 25% ultisol + 25% sand

Philippines Ultisols James et al., 2017

 Table 1. Yield and yield attributes of maize and French bean as influenced by different levels
of nutrient management practices

Treatments Maize French bean

Biochar dose Grain yield Kernel weight/ Seed index Pod yield Pod length
(kg ha-1) cob (g) (g) (kg ha-1) (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

Table 1. CH4 and N2O emissions, global warming potential (GWP) and greenhouse gas intensity
(GHGI) under rice straw biochar amendment in 2016 and 2017

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 75.6b 5.24ab 3.51bc 0.48b
20 t ha-1 biochar + controlled irrigation 53.1c 8.67a 3.78b 0.47b
40 t ha-1biochar + controlled irrigation 70.8b 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

China Anthrosol Yang et al., 2019

Fig. 5 Dynamics of soil N2O emission as influenced by Rice-Straw Biochar in -N (A) and +N (B)
conditions.

China Silty loam Aamer et al., 202

Table 1. Total annual residue production from the major crops of Uganda forecasted using
models based on grain yields and the estimated quantity of biochar produced.

Production (Gg DM) Amount of biochar C (Gg DM)

Crop Grain Straw Shank/chaff/shell Model based Census based
Maize 2663 3,900 1,652 928 678
Sorghum 315 431 116 82.5 70.7
Rice 247 335 56.1 48.0 39.3
Millets 234 335 56.1 48.0 39.3
Groundnut 85 121 54.4 10.2 12.7
Total 3,554 5,179 1,978 1,120 841
 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 Cumulatie 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 44.24 1.10 37.48 10.22 8.51 10.22 - 1.71
7.4 1.5 % CSBM 44.24 3.32 88.44 24.12 10.72 24.12 -13.40
7.4 3.0% CSBM 44.24 6.64 104.25 28.43 14.04 28.43 -14.40
7.4 0.5 % RHBM 40.43 1.01 17.80 4.85 8.41 4.85 3.56
7.4 1.5 % RHBM 40.43 3.03 24.62 6.71 10.43 6.71 3.71
7.4 3.0% RHBM 40.43 6.06 34.83 9.50 13.47 9.50 3.96
Biochar
7.4 0.5 % CSBC 77.50 1.94 9.12 9.33 2.50 9.33 6.84
7.4 1.5 % CSBC 77.50 5.81 6.37 13.21 1.74 13.21 11.47
7.4 3.0% CSBC 77.50 11.63 7.45 19.03 2.03 19.03 16.99
7.4 0.5 % RHBC 74.37 1.86 6.45 9.26 1.76 9.26 7.49
7.4 1.5 % RHBC 74.37 5.58 8.32 18.56 2.27 18.56 10.70
7.4 3.0% RHBC 74.37 11.16 4.86 12.98 1.32 12.98 17.22

Uttar Pradesh Mohan et al., 2018

Fig .Aboveground and belowground biomass of winter wheat as affected by the
different sorghum treatments
 Figure : Effects of interaction between salinity (S) and biochar (BC) on plant height and leaf area of
sorghum

Ibrahim et al., 2020 China Sandy loam soils Chilean Journal of Agricultural research
Table . Effect of biochar on Rhizoctonia solani virulence in soilless potting substrate

Treatments Soybean Sugar beet

Disease Disease Disease Disease
severity incidence severity incidence
0 % biochar 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

 Constraints in the use of biochar:

• Adding biochar to soil caused increases in pH which had a detrimental effect on

yields, because of micronutrient deficiencies which occur at high pH (>6.0).
• Biochar application may result in increased incidence of pest and disease as its
application was conducive to the growth of pests and micro organisms.
• 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).
• 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.
FUTURE LINE OF WORK:

• Standardizing the procedures for the production of biochar with increased

conversion efficiency.
• Designing of low-cost / affordable biochar production unit