I just want to point out that there is a difference between charcoal and biochar. Not trying to ruffle any feathers, and charcoal will work too, but biochar and charcoal are not the same.
Hardwood lump charcoal beaten down and innoculated is the cheap version of biochar. I am aware the good stuff is made at a specific temperature and method, and is the superior product. its down the purchase list.
Is there enough of a difference to justify the huge price difference? I'm with Jerry on this, but is it more than lump charcoal in a nice suit? Wet
Honestly, i don't believe it is. First off, the chemistry behind this debate is ongoing. Secondly, carbon has "almost always" been considered strictly "organic". However, it is the process of each that labels it as such, or not. Briquette charcoal uses the same method as lump charcoal (pyrolysis of biomass), but adds petroleum products to help it burn faster (in this case the petroleum is considered "non-organic".....). Lump charcoal only uses pyrolysis, at low temps, with low 02, and NO addition of petroleum products. (Aside: the production of biochar is directly related to the production of bio-oils, or bio-fuels, in current industries....do the research) The outcome seems to be thus - LUMP charcoal, and biochar, are very much the same thing: pyrolysis of organic material at little to no 02 levels, at low temps (around 400C). **Warning, aside, whatever you want to call it - The temp/oxidation level among industry is widely variable, and leaves no CONCICE STANDARD of biochar production. I believe the distinction that Rider is incorrect about, sits around the use of "charged" biochar/charcoal. Charged simply means incorporating charred biomass ("biochar"/"lump charcoal") with organic matter (burying it in your compost pile...), for the purpose of sequestration, and exchange initiation, over a period of time, so as to "be charged" (lots of stuff likes to attach itself to the isolated carbon structures left behind). This leaves you with a soaked carbon mass, that is free of 02, and can be picked up freely by microbes/roots/etc. Don't "charge" it, and the benefits take much longer...perfect example being the origin of this phenomena - the tera prata soils of the amazon. Lu Source: http://www.swcs.org/documents/resources/1_All_Chapters__Sustainable_Feedsto_8A410A56233E6.pdf Ch16; p257
Wetdog, as you know, I believe, I'm referring to real charcoal and not briquettes. Once we put that behind us we now have the actual difference between charcoal and "Biochar". I believe that the difference is that Biochar has been inoculated with both nutrients and bacteria? - or at least nutrients, (right?) but that this is a big difference. I'm not very well-informed on biochar even though I make it in bed it to my soil. I've often heard that charcoal that is not inoculated/soaked for a period of time in some type of nutrient bath can "drain" nutrients out of the surrounding soil, very similar to the time where I had big issues in my vegetable garden when I added lots of wood shavings that had not broken down sufficiently. After seeing what happened then, that's a good enough reason to me just soak it in a nutrient bath prior to adding to soil - or compost. I would have to imagine that if you do not charge the biochar prior to adding to a potting soil mix, that it will eventually suck up the surrounding nutrients and be just fine but is this at the cost of losing nutrients to the biochar in the meantime? I just don't know. I find that I really like having it in my mix (which is basically all compost) and that it helps to lighten it up a little bit and I'm sure that it provides additional aeration to the soil structure. I also think that this is a very long-term amendment and probably works best in a no till raised bed vs a brand-new potting soil mix. that's about all I have on this subject LOL j
IIRC biochar is charred biomass. whether it has been charged or not. now they say it needs to be done at certain temps yadda yadda.. this might be true to get better quality (more porous) biochar but i find it hard to believe regular charcoal cannot be used for the same purpose, maybe not as effective but its still friken charcoal made of biomass, its still very porous and very stable. i made mine with whole wood charcoal made for boutique barbequing, crushed with a length of 4x4 in a 5 gallon bucket and let sit in a mix of 50/50 biochar/compost + compost tea and alfalfa tea for 3 weeks and strained before use. when i added to the soil mix i added double the amount required (since its half compost) and put less compost (subtracted half the amount from my compost input per SF) this is what i did and it seems to be working for my plants. YMMV.
I don't know if there is enough difference to justify a price difference. I don't think I'd pay for it. Someone gave it to me for free. The only difference that would apply to growing is that Biochar has a large amount of fixed Carbon. Charcoal is created to burn well and the carbon fixing is irrelevant when they create it. Charcoal can also have glues and binders. The briquettes are notorious for this, so lump charcoal is better. In my opinion, I think that you could use either successfully.
I agree with this. While Biochar will have a greater surface area, that does not mean that charcoal won't have any surface area and be useless. Charcoal can still be an effective amendment.
Here is a link to some of the differences. In my opinion, the greatest strength of Biochar is the Carbon fixing. However, I still think that you can use charcoal. Another difference that I didn't mention is that Biochar is ready to go. Charcoal will suck nutrients from your soil for a little bit, but that's nothing that can't be worked around. https://www.soilreef.com/blog/2012/05/5-ways-that-biochar-is-different-from-charcoal/#.VXrUVvlViko
i thought you still need to charge authentic biochar, unless you purchase the pre-charged verity. you could probably skip charging all together if you let the soil cycle for a while, which should charge it anyway in the duration.
Do you mean FIXED carbon (past tense)? The only thing that can fix carbon is an organism, and it gets turned into an organic molecule. Lu
Correct. Sorry about the confusion, but I meant exactly what you are saying. With Biochar, the Carbon has already been fixed.
You statement hints at the issue I have with Biochar. There isn't really a standard of what can be called Biochar.
You can thank Henry Ford for charcoal briquettes. A very large part of early autos was made out of wood. Ol Henry had mountains of sawdust. The lightbulb went off and mountains of waste got turned into $$$. NEVER use briquettes in your garden!! They are full of things that you or your plants just don't want to be involved with. I don't even use them to grill anymore, not after a side by side with 2 identical smokers and identical meat. You could taste tthe difference between lump charcoal and briquettes. Not huge, but enough to not use briquettes anymore. I used size graded charcoal for years as a orchid medium. Then a breeder tipped me off and I started with lump charcoal for the larger plants, grading it myself. Wasn't looking for anything, but noticed even after several years of weekly applications of Jack's Classic, the larger pieces when broken, were still shiney inside. Like, if stuff was getting absorbed, it didn't go much deeper than the surface. Like I said, this was just an observation while moving Vanda's to larger baskets. The main observation was the next to zero breakdown of the charcoal, but only in terms as a potting medium for Vanda's (it was great!). But now, I'll certainly charge it before adding to my mix. Certainly no hardship and it makes sense, like Jerry's wood chips sucking N from his garden. Wet
that's why I beat it down with a hammer, old kelp meal bags and old smart pots are good containers. MAKE SURE YOU SOAK THE CHARCOAL IN WATER 1ST. IT IS DUSTY.
So is the biochar itself something that soil bacteria can live in/on like lava rocks or is it strictly for assisting the soil rather than life in the soil?