Akwasi A. Boateng

Biochar has been heralded as an amendment to revitalize degraded soils, improve soil carbon sequestration, increase agronomic productivity, and enter into future carbon trading markets. However, scientific and economic technicalties may limit the ability of biochar to consistently deliver on these expectations. Past research has demonstrated that biochar is part of the black carbon continuum with variable properties due to the net result of production (e.g., feedstock and pyrolysis conditions) and postproduction factors (storage or activation). Therefore, biochar is not a single entity but rather spans a wide range of black carbon forms. Biochar is black carbon, but not all black carbon is biochar. Agronomic benefits arising from biochar additions to degraded soils have been emphasized, but negligible and negative agronomic effects have also been reported. Fifty percent of the reviewed studies reported yield increases after black carbon or biochar additions, with the remainder of the studies reporting alarming decreases to no significant differences. Hardwood biochar (black carbon) produced by traditional methods (kilns or soil pits) possessed the most consistent yield increases when added to soils. The universality of this conclusion requires further evaluation due to the highly skewed feedstock preferences within existing studies. With global population expanding while the amount of arable land remains limited, restoring soil quality to nonproductive soils could be key to meeting future global food production, food security, and energy supplies; biochar may play a role in this endeavor. Biochar economics are often marginally viable and are tightly tied to the assumed duration of agronomic benefits. Further research is needed to determine the conditions under which biochar can provide economic and agronomic benefits and to elucidate the fundamental mechanisms responsible for these benefits.

Seasonal time of switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L.) harvest affects yield and biofuel quality and balancing these two components may vary depending on conversion system. A field study compared fall and spring harvest measuring biomass yield, element concentration, carbohydrate characterization, and total synthetic gas production as indicators of biofuel quality for direct combustion, ethanol production, and gasification systems for generation of energy. Switchgrass yields decreased almost 40% (from about 7–4.4 Mg ha −1 ) in winters with above average snowfall when harvest was delayed over winter until spring. The moisture concentration also decreased (from about 350–70 g kg −1 ) only reaching low enough levels for safe storage by spring. About 10% of the yield reduction during winter resulted from decreases in tiller mass; however, almost 90% of the yield reduction was due to an increase in biomass left behind by the baler. Mineral element concentrations generally decreased with the delay in harvest until spring. Energy yield from gasification did not decrease on a unit biomass basis, whereas ethanol production was variable depending on the assessment method. When expressed on a unit area basis, energy yield decreased. Biofuel conversion systems may determine harvest timing. For direct combustion, the reduced mineral concentrations in spring‐harvested biomass are desirable. For ethanol fermentation and gasification systems, however, lignocellulose yield may be more important. On conservations lands, the wildlife cover provided by switchgrass over the winter may increase the desirability of spring harvest along with the higher biofuel quality.