Jump to content

Talk:Biochar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gr33nman (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 18 December 2021 (→Needs section on controversies to improve objectivity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HIGHTEE (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mliao2 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dparida7.

Image

Perhaps this image may be shown:

A customised pyrolysis unit may be used to generate soil additive and to sterilise planting soil

Needs section on controversies to improve objectivity

This story appears rather biased to me. I don't know the ins and outs of this subject but it seems strange that such a long and detailed article doesn't contain any critical information. Especially for a subject related to anthropogenic climate change AND geoengineering. Searching the internet on biochar + controversies yields many links to reputable sources. It's also strange that a few other people have raised this issue here already but apparently without avail. I think an extra paragraph mentioning controversies / critique / discussion about biochar would be in place. It will make the article more balanced. As said, I'm far from an expert on this issue and don't have time to research it now. Hope somebody can. I did find some references to peer-reviewed articles on the uncertainty surrounding soil organic carbon persistence in soils in general, and biochar in particular:

- Schmidt, M. W. I., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kogel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A. C., Nannipieri, P., Rasse, D. P., Weiner, S. & Trumbore, S. E. 2011. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478: 49-56.

- McHenry, M. P. 2009. Agricultural bio-char production, renewable energy generation and farm carbon sequestration in Western Australia: Certainty, uncertainty and risk. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 129: 1-7.

- Wardle, D. A., Nilsson, M.-C. & Zackrisson, O. 2008. Fire-Derived Charcoal Causes Loss of Forest Humus. Science, 320: 629-.

- Steiner, C., Teixeira, W., Lehmann, J., Nehls, T., de Macêdo, J., Blum, W. & Zech, W. 2007. Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant and Soil, 291: 275-290.

--M. van Geelen (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MvanGeelen. And I offer this article[1] which provides some criticism of biochar. It rebukes claims that biochar is an effective method of carbon sequestration. The article cites external sources. -- JoeyTwiddle (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like JoeyTwiddle, I also agree with M. van Geelen. In fact, I'll go a little further and say this article comes across as pro-incineration propaganda bolstered with published sources that are not acknowledged as peer-reviewed scientific journals and clearly biased toward incineration in general. Just because something is posted on the internet doesn't make it true or a reliable source. This is as far as I'm willing to go on the subject: If you live in a mud home with dubious ventilation and no gas or electric stove and no chimney, a "biochar" rocket stove that outgases fewer carcinogens and smoke might be less objectionable than the practice of cooking on in indoor open wood fire pit. Realistically, there is no paper that has objectively proven that this "special" form of charcoal is any better than any traditional cultural charcoal creation methods the world over at sequestering carbon into the ground, assuming you'll bury rather than than burn it as fuel. I defy anyone to prove that biochar as a soil amendment will bind carbon in the soil for a thousand years. That's not how any of this works. Lastly, the term "Biochar" comes across as a fancification term to whitewash the burning of organics and compostables so proponents can pretend what they're selling is wholesome. There's a whole world of anti-incineration organizations out there who will be happy to produce papers that counter the information in the bibliography for this article. For me, this is the camel with its nose in the tent. Clearly the next step is convincing people that incinerators are good. And they're just not. [2] Gr33nman (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2018/05/biochar-technology-factsheet/
  2. ^ The Waste to Energy Myth

Independently

In the first paragraph we read "Independently, biochar can increase...". What is that word "Independently" doing there? 86.132.221.189 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Some source here:

I won't add from them myself, as they relate to work done by Donna Udall at Coventry University, where I am Wikimedian in Residence. The latter paper is open access. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biochar&oldid=1060841252"