Final Report Yukon Biochar Project

Transcription

1 Final Report Yukon Biochar Project Increasing Self Sufficiency in Yukon s Agricultural Sector through the use of Bio- char Prepared for: Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program Council Prepared by: Treharne Drury Date: January 24, 2014 Funding for this project has been provided by Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada through the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP). In Yukon, this program is delivered by the Yukon Agricultural Association.

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Introduction... 5 Background... 6 Biochar... 6 Project... 7 Project Methods... 9 Results Season One, Assessing Biochar, Background Methodology Results and Discussion Preliminary Soil Samples Season One, Biochar Field Research Study, Progress Summary Laboratory Results from Conclusions for Season Two, Biochar Field Research Study, Progress Summary Field Observations Kale Harvest Wet Weight Results Lab Report and Scanning Electron Micrographs, Progress Summary Field Observations Yukon Grain Farm Zakus Farms Research Farm Lab Report Discussion... 0 Conclusion

3 References... 6 Project Communications... 7 Project Expenses All Years... 0 Appendix A, Biochar Field Assistant Report... 0 Field Notes Field Notes Field Notes Appendix B Data Sheets and Tables, Data Sheets and Tables, Data Sheets and Tables,

4 Executive Summary In our research, biochar application was not found to increase yields of bromegrass, barley, kale, carrot or potatoes during the three year field trials. Biochar was found to inhibit potato yields and reduce their tol- erance to frost. Biochar was not found to affect soil nitrogen retention, however, it was found to increase tissue nitrogen in bromegrass. Biochar application altered the uptake characteristics of several nutrients and minerals as well, it changed some soil chemical characteristics. Biochar has been used as an agricultural soil amendment in many parts of the world, its use was docu- mented early on in South America, and its presently gaining international attention, not only as a method to increase yields, but as a potential greenhouse gas management technique. The mechanisms responsi- ble for improved soil productivity are poorly understood and results have varied considerably between experimental studies. There is consensus on a number of factors with respect to how biochar alters soil characteristics. Addition of biochar can change the water holding capacity of soil, it can alter ph, it can change the ion exchange capacity of soil by increasing ion binding sites, it changes the microbial structure of the soil and it increases the amount of soil carbon. Due to the complex nature of soils and their study, it is poorly understood how the aforementioned soil changes, due to biochar, alter crop yields. Upon ex- amination of the literature one quickly realizes that many competing factors are at play; soil type, climate and weather, crop type and rotation, fertilizer, soil ph and temperature and innumerable other factors all contribute to a positive or negative growth result. Add to this the variables of biochar application rate, pyrolysis temperature, and feedstock type and its understandable that trial results vary significantly. With these factors in mind this project was designed to evaluate biochars effects on local agricultural soils and crop yields. Due to the unique characteristics of the agricultural soils in which we tested the biochar, it was thought that this addition would have a significant impact. The project optimistically awaited the results of the field trials. The agricultural soils used to conduct this evaluation of biochar were fairly homogenous in nature, all are classed Orthic Eutric Brunisols. All soils were deposited at roughly the same geologic time and from simi- lar glacial processes. These soils are categorized as young, poorly weathered, limited in nutrients, low in soil organic matter and, except for the Yukon Grain Farm, high clay content. The addition of an optimal fertilizer regime combined with large amounts of biochar were hypothesized to result in measurable yield increases. 3

5 During the development of this project it was noted that there was a lack of relevant literature regarding biochars use in northern climates. Much of the biochar research to date has taken place in subtropical and tropical regions, it should also be mentioned that there have been very few studies that assess bio- char over the long term. The overwhelming majority of published research reports one or two years of results (Verheijen et.al., 2010). Not only does this lack of long term study compound the unknowns asso- ciated with biochar addition, it increases the risks associated with large scale agriculture adoption of the- se techniques. Results from the first and second growing season did not produce significant yield differences between the control crops and the char amended crops. In each year three crop types were grown in three loca- tions throughout the Takhini and Yukon River valleys. Nutrient and elemental analysis of the plant matter differed slightly between the two treatments and a detailed account of this is provided in the lab reports from University Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). Third year results were equally unremarkable. It is recommended that further study is needed on the implications of adding biochar to soils, it is highly advised that producers contemplating its use conduct small scale trials within their operations in order to assess its value for them and their crops. It is also the recommendation of this study that research and monitoring take place to understand the long term implications of biochar addition. Biochar is a non- reversible amendment and its long term effects are poorly understood. For biochar to be considered fur- ther for agricultural usage in our region, continued research should be undertaken to try and better un- derstand these dynamics. 4

6 Introduction The Yukon biochar project, Increasing Self Sufficiency in Yukon s Agricultural Sector through the use of Biochar, was approved for funding on March 29, 2011 by the Yukon Agricultural Association (YAA) and Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP) Council. CAAP council administers CAAP in Yukon under contract with Agriculture and Agri- food Canada. Cash and in- kind support was provided by Zakus Farms, Cold Climate Innovation (CCI), the Yukon government s Agriculture Branch and by participating farmer, Steve MacKenzie- Grieve. The laboratory analyses component was provided by Dr. Mingchu Zhang at Uni- versity of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The project proponent was Warren Zakus of Zakus Farms. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed by all the partners of the project which include University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), CCI, and Agri- cultural Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources. The three farmer plots being used for the field research study were Zakus Farms, Yukon Grain Farm (Steve MacKenzie- Grieve), and Yukon Experimental Farm. In discussion with local produces, the Yukon Agriculture Branch, Yukon Research Centre, and University Alaska Fairbanks a draft proposal for research funding was submitted to the Canadian Agricultural Adap- tation Program (CAAP). The goal of the project was to increase local agricultural production in Yukon, provide farmers with an "on- site" method of developing renewable heat and power, and reduce Yukon's dependence on imported fertilizer. What resulted was funding to conduct a 3 year research project in- vestigating biochar production, biochar characterization and biochar usage and efficacy. This report will cover the background leading up to this project, the theoretical benefits of biochar and provide an overview of the past 3 years of field trials. This report will summarize and discuss the results of the lab analysis from Mingchu Zhang at the UAF. Data sheets and field notes will be provided within the appendices. 5

7 Background " Increasing Self Sufficiency in Yukon s Agricultural Sector through the use of Biochar", is a joint research project designed to investigate the viability of transitioning from a fertilizer based soil amendment sys- tem to a biochar based system. Through research and investigation it was found that a biochar based ag- ricultural transition had increased yields in other parts of the country and other parts of the world. It was also found to work on a variety of crop types and soil types. Research of this nature had not been done on extreme northern soils like those found in Yukon and it was unknown as to what to expect. However, due to the inherent deficiencies of our regional soils; nutrient poor, carbon lacking and geologically young, the potential benefits of any form of soil enhancement were expected to be measurable. Assessment of the addition of biochar to agricultural soils was investigated using several avenues of re- search. The project conducted a field component and a lab component. The field component was de- signed to assess actual effects on crop yields from year to year and the lab component assessed biomass nutrient differences between biochar crops and controls, as well as soil changes throughout the three year trial. Biochar For our purposes biochar will be defined as biomass that has been heated (pyrolysis) in a near- zero oxy- gen environment. The resultant char is a black, high- carbon, fine- grained material. The source material for biochar is traditionally woody biomass, however, almost any biological material will work. Biochar has a number of potential benefits for agricultural soils. It is mixed with soil to increase the soil's carbon content It can aid in soil water retention It has the ability to add micro and macronutrients (in some cases) Biochar also binds charged particles such as ions and nutrients through a process called ad- sorption which increases the ion exchange capacity of the soil, ideally increasing availability to plants (Pramod et al., 2010, Verheijen et al., 2010) When combined with annual fertilizer addition, biochar can modulate the storage and usage of the fertilizer resulting in less nutrient loss from the system. Biochar has been shown to benefit crop growth by altering the soil s physical, chemical, and biological properties. Comparable studies have been conducted in temperate or tropical regions but there have not 6

8 been many studies in northern climatic regions. Soils in northern regions, such as in Yukon and Alaska, are known to be particularly challenging. They can have low organic matter content, high acidity levels, are considered less weathered and deficient in nutrients. For these reasons it was surmised that biochar could improve soil characteristics and nutrient holding. Additionally, (yet not investigated by this project) biochar in soil is a method that carbon can be perma- nently sequestered in the earth. Through the pyrolysis technique, atmospheric carbon that is contained in woody biomass can be removed from the carbon cycle; reducing carbon gas in the atmosphere (Pramod et al., 2010, Verheijen et al., 2010). When stored in the ground (biochar is essentially inert) the biochar can be used as a potential climate change mitigation method (Pramod et al., 2010). Project This project was originally intended to investigate many aspects of biochar potential; biochar production, uses of biochar in agriculture and remediation, syngas production and alternate power potential. Follow- ing local consultation, the project team decided to focus the scope and split the project into several the- matic areas. This CAAP project focused on the optimum usage of biochar with crops and treatments per- tinent to Yukon agriculture (working in parallel with this project is a CCI project designed to investigate local methods of biochar and syngas production). The project was broken down into several research di- rections outlined below. Laboratory Evaluation of Local Biochar Produced from Different Feedstock: A multi- year project that investigated best practices for producing local biochar. Biochar produced from a variety of local feedstock was compared to commercially available biochar. This part of the project involved Cold Climate Innovation, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Zakus Farms. Results from this research can be found in "Laboratory Results from 2011". Characterization of biochar properties Biochars from Whitehorse were produced from three feedstocks: horse manure, wood chips, and wood shavings. Properties of biochar were character- ized before use in soils. These properties include particle size, pore size and total pore volume, Scanning Electron Microscope image analysis, elemental composition, apparent bulk density. These properties were determined through various approaches, further information can be found in " Season One, Assessing Biochar, 2011". 7

9 Laboratory incubation - UAF conducted research to determine the impact of different application rates of biochar on soil properties and nutrient status. The feedstock used for this part of the study was locally produced wood chips. The locally produced chips were found to have the most favorable characteristics of the chars tested. Further information can be found in " Season One, Assessing Biochar, 2011". Biochar Field Research Study: A multi- stakeholder, multi- year project to test biochar under vari- ous soil conditions and with different types of crops. Three farmer plots were used as part of the study, the three plots are located at Steve McKenzie s farm, the Yukon Experimental Farm, and Zakus Farms. This part of the project involved University of Alaska Fairbanks, Zakus Farms, and the Agriculture Branch (Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources). 8

10 Project Methods When working with biochar in a field trial there are many variables at work. With this in mind this project focused on just a few of these variables. The key variables investigated were crop yield changes and ni- trogen usage in response to biochar. Yield changes were assessed by comparing biochar crop weights to control crop weights (kg/ha). Nitrogen concentration was analyzed in soil and plant biomass and was also compared with the control. It has been shown in related studies (Asia et al. 2009) that the addition of biochar to specific soils can increase the usage and uptake of applied nitrogen by plants. This project set out to investigated the potential of using biochar to aid in nitrogen retention and usage in soils and crops local to the Whitehorse area (refer to map 1). It was the hopes of this project to be able to duplicate the positive results of similar trails and provide farmers a local solution that could safely and sustainably in- crease crop yields. The crops that were assessed were; bromegrass, barley, carrot, kale and potatoes. Crops were selected for; economic viability, cold weather tolerance, and marketability. All crops were historically and are cur- rently grown in Yukon. Bromegrass was freshly planted in an existing brome field at Zakus Farms (N:60 51' ', W:135 32' ") in May of This crop is a perennial and was planted with 30t/ha of biochar. At this site (and all sites) there were 4 biochar plots and 4 plots without biochar (the controls) making a total of 8 plots. Plot size (at all locations) is 2 by 3 meters. All brome plots were given optimum fertilization and irrigation for the first 2 years and in the third year fertilizer and irrigation was removed from all plots. Plant growth and yield data were recorded for all plots in all years. Soils were collected in 2011 and 2013 at depths of 0-15cm and 15-30cm. Growth and yield data can be and found in the results section. Barley was grown at the Yukon Grain Farm (N:60 56' ', W:135 6' ") in 8 plots situated with- in an existing and working barley field. These plots were subject to the management practices of the farmer, this included; tillage, fertilization, irrigation and pest management. In the spring of each year bio- char was added to only 4 of the 8 plots, these plots were designated the "biochar plots" and they were chosen rendomly. These plots remained the "biochar plots" for the duration of the study. Biochar was added annually to these plots at a rate of 10t/ha/year for a total of 30t/ha. This was done to more closely simulate a "real world" management scenario on a working farm. It was thought that most local produc- ers would not have the means to apply 30t/ha in the first year, therefore, application was made annually. 9

11 This may have had deleterious effects on yield as you will read in the discussion section. Fertilizer was eliminated in the third year from all plots, irrigation remained consistent throughout all three years. The third and final research location was the Yukon Experimental Farm, (N:60 51' ', W:135 12' ") this farm is operated by the Yukon Agricultural Branch and is used as a demonstra- tion and experimental farm. The project was allocated a small section of the field and again, 8 plots were laid out, 4 were "biochar plots" and 4 were controls. Biochar was added annually to the biochar plots at a rate of 10t/ha/year for a total of 30t/ha. In the first year of trials carrots were planted, Kale was grown in the second year and in the third year potatoes were grown. At the research farm fertilizer was added to all plots in years one and two and not added to the plots in the third and final year. All plots at the re- search farm were irrigated in all three years. It was theorized that the addition of fertilizer in years one and two would "prime" the biochar in the bio- char plots with nitrogen. This N would be utilized by plants more effectively and be made available to the plant in year three when no fertilizer is applied. The mechanism to support this hypothesis is well under- stood, biochar has many ionic binding sites (sites with small negative charges that are able to bind mole- cules with corresponding charges) that N is able to electro- statically bind to (Verheijen et al., 2010). If the ratio of N and biochar are sufficient N should have a longer residence time in the soil making it more available to the plants and resist being washed out of the system. 10

12 Map 1. 11

13 Results Season One, Assessing Biochar, 2011 Background Laboratory experiments were conducted by UAF to characterize various biochar chemical properties. Four biochars from different feedstock were evaluated. The feedstock include wood chips, wood shav- ings, horse manure, and commercial willows. The trees for wood chips and wood shavings consisted of species grown locally such as Black spruce (Picea mariana), Birch (Betula papyrifera), and Poplar (Populus balsamifera). The horse manure was collected in farms around the Whitehorse area. The major feed for horses in the area is the locally produced smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis). The biochars from wood chips, wood shavings, and horse manure were produced locally. The commercial willow biochar was pur- chased from Colorado, USA with the help of the Saskatchewan Research Council. However, the conditions (such as temperature) from which the commercial willow biochar was produced is not known. Methodology The characterization of biochars in the laboratory included determination of total nutrient concentration, extractable macro and micro nutrients, ph, and electrical conductivity (EC). The total N concentration was determined using a LECO CHN 1000 analyzer. Total P, K, Ca, and Mg concentration in the biochar was determined by digesting the biochar in nitric- perchloric acids (Olsen and Sommers, 1982) followed by the determination in inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP- AES, PerkinElmer Optima 300 XL). Mineral N (NH 4 - N and NO 3 - N) in the biochar was determined by a 2 M KCl extraction followed by determination in a Technicon II AutoAnalyzer (Technicon Industrial System, 1973a, 1973b). Extractable nutrients in biochar was determined using Melhich 3 extraction solution (0.2 N acetic acid N NH4NO N NH4F N HNO M EDTA) followed by determination in ICP- AES for Cu, Zn, Mn, and Fe (Mehlich, 1984). The biochar s ph was determined in deionized water with a solid:solution ratio of 1:1 (McLean 1982). Electric conductivity (saturation) was determined using an electric conductivi- ty meter (YSI Model 35 Conductance Meter). All measurements were replicated three times. Data were subject to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and mean comparison for each analytical item among biochars were made using least significant difference (LSD) at 5% level. 12

14 Results and Discussion Results showed that the biochar from horse manure had the highest total N content and the second was wood chips, both were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the N content of wood shavings and commer- cial willows (Table 1). Similarly, total P content in biochars of wood chips and horse manure was signifi- cantly higher (p < 0.05) than those from wood shavings and commercial willows (Table 1). For total K, Ca, and Mg, the biochar from wood shavings had the lowest concentration among the four biochars (Table 1). Type Total N Total P Total K Total Ca Total Mg % Wood chips Wood shavings Horse manure Commercial willow Prob. (F<0.05) <0.001 < <0.001 <0.001 LSD(0.05) Table 1: Total N, P, K, Ca and Mg content in four different biochars. Biochar from wood chips had the highest NH4- N content among the biochars (Table 2). In most cases, extractable nutrients from the biochar of wood shavings were the lowest among the four tested biochars (Table 2). Nutrient concentration is one of the quality indicators for biochar. It can be affected by type of feedstocks and pyrolysis temperature. In general, manure based feedstock usually yield high nutrient content in biochar after process (Chan and Xu, 2009). High process temperature usually results in nitro- gen loss in biochar that is reflected by increase of C:N ratio (Krull et al., 2009). For wood feedstock, high pyrolysis temperature also yields low biochar mass (Amonette and Joseph, 2009). Type NO 3 - N NH 4 - N Cu Zn Mn Fe mg/kg Wood chips <

15 Wood shavings < Horse manure < Commercial willow <0.1 < Prob. (F<0.05) NA <0.001 <0.001 < LSD(0.05) NA Table 2: Extractable nutrient concentration from four biochar types Biochar solution ph and EC were higher with commercial willows (Figures 1, 2). High solution ph was caused by high metal concentration in solution (Table 2), especially Na concentration (Fig. 3). The Na concentration in biochar from commercial willow and horse manure was higher (p<0.05) than wood chips and wood shavings (Fig. 3). However, the ph and Ec of biochar solution in horse manure displayed less than that of the commercial willows. This might be that Na, Ca, or K in horse manure biochar was held in the exchange site, and horse manure biochar might have a higher cation exchange capacity (CEC) than commercial willow biochar c b c a ph 6 ph Wood chips Wood shavings Horse manure Commercial willows Types of feedstock Figure 1: ph of biochars from four feedstocks. Different letters indicate statistical difference at 5%. 14

16 ds/m b c c a EC Wood chips Wood shavings Horse manure Commercial willows Types of feedstock Figure 2: Electric conductivity (EC) from biochars of four feedstocks. Different letters indicate statistical difference at 5%. Na concentraeon (mg/kg) c d Wood chips Wood shavings Horse manure Commercial willows Types of feedstock a b Na Figure 3: Sodium concentration in biochars from four feedstocks. Different letters indicate statistical difference at 5%. There is no information on what condition, especially pyrolysis temperature, the commercial willow bio- char was produced. However, from the laboratory test, it might be a process with a much higher pyroly- sis temperature. High dust (i.e. ash) content was observed for the commercial willow biochar during 15

17 handling. The locally produced biochar from wood chips and horse manure appeared to have a high N and P content, and a nearly neutral ph and low EC. This might be attributed to low pyrolysis tempera- ture. Locally produced wood chips was produced in wood stove or wood camp fire (Picture 1a and 1b) which might have a temperature around 450 C. Picture 1a: Wood stove from which local biochars are produced. 16

18 Picture 1b: Wood burn pile from which local biochars are made. The tubes contain wood chip feedstock, and the fire in the front of tube is the burning of syngas generated during pyrolysis process. Preliminary Soil Samples Soil testing labs often evaluate the EC and ph as part of a routine analysis and this was part of our evalua- tion of biochar from different feedstock. The EC and ph levels were quite high in the commercial willow mix biochar, where high EC means that there are more dissolved salts in the biochar, if this is used over time, it may lead to an accumulation of salt in the soil. The high ph in the commercial willow mix biochar means that it is acting like an alkaline amendment. Since the conditions are quite dry in Whitehorse, both these two properties would not improve soil productivity. It should also be noted that the wood chips, wood shavings and horse manure were all sourced locally by Warren Zakus. Since the local biochar showed better results than the commercial willow mix from the preliminary lab results, the Yukon biochar project team decided to use the readily available biochar made by Warren Za- kus from the wood chips he sourced locally. Tables 3 and 4 are preliminary results from UAF of the soil physical and chemical properties from the soil samples taken from Warren Zakus bromegrass (Bromus inermis L.). In Table 4, the Cation Exchange Ca- pacity (CEC) is related to percent of clay and organic matter that is in the soil. As the percent of clay and organic matter increase, the CEC also increases. 1 The soil also has a water holding capacity of 32%. The mineral nitrogen (NO NH + 4 ) is low, the EC is at a good level, and the ph is almost neutral. SAND SILT CLAY Textural (%) (%) (%) Class Soil texture Clay Loam Table 3: Preliminary soil samples from Zakus Farms Total Total Holding 2N KCL Extract

19 C N CEC Capacity NO 3 - NH 4 + EC ph (%) (%) meq/100 (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ds/m) (1:1) Table 4: Preliminary soil chemical properties from Zakus Farms Table 1.Soil macronutrient concentration, ph and EC prior to the experiment in spring 2011 (baseline da- ta). Location Depth NO3- N NH4- N Extractable P Exchangeable K ph EC cm mg/kg soil ds/m Warren ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±7 142 ± ± ±0.08 Grain Farm ± ± ±9 117 ± ± ± ± ± ±25 84 ± ± ±0.2 Exp. Farm ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±5 6.8 ± ±0.12 Table 2.Soil micronutrient concentration in soil samples taken in spring 2011 prior to the experiment (baseline data). Location/depth Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe B Na mg/kg soil Warren Farm 0-15 cm 3790 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± cm 3394 ± ± ± ± ± ±32 < ±17 18

20 Grain Farm 0-15 cm 2416 ± ±7 2.2 ± ± ±4 280 ± ± ± cm 4526 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±5 Exp. Farm 0-15 cm 1769 ± ± ± ± ±5 423 ± ± ± cm 1822 ± ± ± ± ±1 333 ± ± ±4 Table 3.Soil macronutrient concentration, ph and EC from soil samples taken in fall Location Treat. NO3- N NH4- N Extractable P Exchangeable K ph EC mg/kg soil ds/m Warren Biochar 0.9 ± ± ± ± ± ±0.05 No- Biochar 1.1 ± ± ± ± ± ±0.06 Grain Farm Biochar 3.5 ± ± ± ±5 6.8 ± ±0.05 No- Biochar 2.2 ± ± ± ± ± ±0.12 Exp. Farm Biochar 9.7 ± ± ± ± ± ±0.14 No- Biochar 8.3 ± ± ± ± ± ±0.14 Table 4.Soil micronutrient concentration in soil samples taken in fall

21 Location/depth Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe B Na mg/kg soil Warren Farm Biochar 3139 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±6 No biochar 3802 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±5 Grain Farm Biochar 2050 ± ± ± ± ±2 269 ± ± ±9 No biochar 2698 ± ± ± ± ±3 252 ± ± ±20 Exp. Farm Biochar 1344 ± ± ± ± ±7 361 ± ± ±6 No biochar 1335 ± ±8 0.2 ±< ± ±5 370 ± ± ±2 20

22 Season One, Biochar Field Research Study, 2011 Progress Summary Two different treatments were chosen for the field research study, NPKS 2 and NPKS + biochar. Each treatment area (sub plot) is 6ft x 8ft (48ft 2.), there are four subplots with NPKS and four subplots with NPKS + biochar, totaling eight subplots at each farm. After the preliminary results were completed on the different biochars and soil properties stated above, Dr. Mingchu Zhang suggested a biochar application rate of 10 T/ha/yr and the NPKS application rate to be 100 kg N, 30 kg P 2 O 5, 45 kg K 2 O, and 16 kg S/ha. In terms of the crops to be tested barley was grown at Yukon Grain Farm, bromegrass at Zakus Farms, and carrots at the Yukon Experimental Farm. These crops were chosen on the basis of what can grow around the Whitehorse region and for a variety of root and grain crops. The sites for the experimental plots on all three farms did not change during the three year project time. Since the bromegrass remained for all three years of the trial, the biochar application rate was applied once for three years (i.e. 30 T/ha) right at the beginning of the trial but the fertilizer will be applied annually. From the end of May to present, field visits and observations were recorded every week for all three sites. Consistent weeding occurred at the Experimental Farm and Zakus farms. As for Yukon Grain Farm, the plots were managed as per the rest of the barley field. Below are some project pictures that depict the current foliage of all three sites. The barley field was very uniform and did not have many differences between plots that have biochar and plots with only NPKS. The bromegrass trial exhibited stronger plants on the south facing plots, the reasons are still not clear, as it may be due to differences in the soil properties. Picture 3 is the carrot plots where growth was slow in the beginning of the season due to the location of the plots being at the edge of the field and the hay that was left from the previous year was not tilled into the soil enough which stunted the growth of the car- rots. The lesson learned from the Experimental Farm is that the seeding beds require more preparation and uniformity. Overall, there have not been any extensive visual differences in the observations be- tween the plots that have biochar and the plots that do not. This was to be expected as it takes time for the biochar to be worked in and integrated into the soil. 2 NPKS represents Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sulfur, which is a blended mineral and synthetic fertilizer 21

23 Picture 2: Barley plots with and without biochar Week 13 (Aug 22). Picture 3: Bromegrass plots with and without biochar Week 13 (Aug 22) 22

24 Picture 3: Carrot foliage with biochar Week 13 (Aug 22) As mentioned above, plant samples of bromegrass, barley, and carrot were taken during the growing sea- son. Soil samples were taken again in the and fall. The Field Assistant, Marlon Davis, has compiled a field report for the field activities per week at each farm and observation records which can be found in Appendix A & B. This is to maintain consistency in the three year trial and ensure that all details of each site are recorded for analysis. 23

25 Laboratory Results from 2011 Submitted by Dr. Mingchu Zhang, January 2012 Results showed no statistical difference was found for biomass of barley, fresh carrot root and brome- grass between biochar and non- biochar treatments (Table 1). Table 1. Yield of barley, bromegrass and carrot in 2011 Treatment Barley biomass (kg/ha) Carrot fresh biomass Bromegrass (kg/ha) (kg/ha) July 22 Sept.19 Top Root Biochar 5,221 4,862 11,856 64, ,431 Non biochar 5,165 4,781 12,852 66, ,454 T test There are three confidence levels to test if a true difference exists among treatments: 10%, 5% and 1%. Usually, researchers use 5% and 1% confidences. However, in some disciplines, especially in biological science areas, 10% confidence is used from time to time. For nutrient uptake by barley, there were no differences for all nutrients between biochar and non- biochar treatments if a 5% confidence is used (Ta- ble 2). However, when a 10% confidence is used, nitrogen uptake by barley was higher in biochar treated soil as compared to the non biochar treated soil. This is the first year result, validation of such observa- tion is still needed in For nutrient uptake of barley sampled in September, the results are being compiled and will be statistically analyzed. Table 2. Minerals taken up by barley sampled in July from soil treated with and without biochar. Mineral element Above ground uptake (July sample), kg/ha Probability (T test) Non biochar Biochar 24

26 N P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Mn Fe Nutrient uptake by bromegrass was not statistically (p> 0.1) different between the biochar and non- biochar treatments (Table 3). Bromegrass was seeded in 2011 in the biochar and non- biochar treat- ments. Perhaps it will take some time for bromegrass to respond to the biochar application. Table 3.Mineral taken up by bromegrass from soil with and without biochar treatment. Mineral element Above ground uptake (July sample), kg/ha Probability (T test) Non biochar Biochar N P K Ca Mg Na nd nd Cu Zn Mn Fe

27 Total nutrient uptake by carrot was not statistically (p> 0.1) different between biochar and non- biochar treatments (Table 4). This was also true for carrot above and below ground nutrient uptake. Table 4. Mineral elements taken up by carrot from soils treated with and without biochar. Mineral element Carrot top, kg/ha Prob. (T test) Carrot root, kg/ha Prob. (T test) Total, kg/ha Prob. (T test) Nonbio biochar Nonbio biochar Nonbio biochar N P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Mn Fe

28 Conclusions for 2011 In the first year of the experiment, impact of biochar was not observed in the yield of barley, carrot and bromegrass. Nutrient uptake was not significantly impacted by biochar application except nitrogen up- take by barley (p < 0.10) sampled in July. For barley and carrot, 2011 is the first year for soil receiving biochar application, yet we observed some impact in barley. It would be interesting to see if we can continue to observe the impact of biochar on crop yield and nutrient uptake after receiving biochar application in Bromegrass received three year biochar application in We have not observed any biochar impact. Bromegrass was seeded in It may require several years for bromegrass before we can observe any biochar impact on bromegrass yield and nutrient uptake. 27

29 Season Two, Biochar Field Research Study, 2012 Progress Summary Two different treatments were chosen for the field research study, NPKS 3 and NPKS + biochar.each treatment area (sub plot) is 6ft x 8ft (48ft 2.), there are four subplots with NPKS and four subplots with NPKS + biochar, totaling eight subplots at each farm. The 2012 season closely mirrored that of the 2011 season, recommendations from Dr. Mingchu Zhang suggested a biochar application rate of 10 T/ha/yr and the NPKS application rate to be 100 kg N, 30 kg P 2 O 5, 45 kg K 2 O, and 16 kg S/ha.In terms of crops tested, barley was grown at Yukon Grain Farm for a second time, bromegrass at Zakus Farms (second year), and kale atthe Yukon Experimental Farm (carrots were grown last year). These crops were chosen on the basis of growth viability within the Whitehorse region. The sites for the experimental plots on all three farms will not change during the three year project time. Since the bromegrass remains for all three years of the trial, the total biochar application rate was applied in the first year (i.e. 30 T/ha) so was not applied this season. Fertilizer was applied manually following recommended application rates from Dr. Mingchu Zhang. From the end of May to September, field visits and observations were recorded every week for all three sites. Consistent weeding and watering occurred at the Experimental Farm and Zakus farms. As for Yu- kon Grain Farm, the plots were managed as per the rest of the barley field. Kale crops were sampled fol- lowing a simulated market garden harvest schedule; two subsamples were taken at a 1 week interval. Wet weights were taken of the kale subsamples only as this would represent the condition of the plant when marketed. All other crops were dried down and shipped to UAF for comparative analysis as both brome grass and barley are dried down in practice. This was conducted to simplify sample collection and simulate real world harvest conditions. Field Observations 2012 Barley: The barley field is uniform and homogeneous, little observable growth difference is noted be- tween biochar amended plots and plots amended with only NPKS. Plant color is dark green and all plants 28

30 appear healthy. Few weeds or pests are noted, for detailed weed and pest information refer to attached data sheets. Plots were inspected on a weekly basis and growth analysis was noted, as were the condition of weeds and pests. Bromegrass:The bromegrass trial has exhibited stronger plants on the south facing plots, the reasons are still not clear, as it may be due to differences in the soil properties, although this is unlikely.2012 growth differences were less accentuated than 2011 observations. Kale: Kale was planted in early June, kale germinated poorly. Plots show significant patchiness and 50% of plants are stunted. It is decided through communication with project partners that kale should be trans- planted from the Research Farms trials (no amendments) into all of the test plots. 8 new healthy plants of relative size were selected from the RF trial plots and transplanted into each of the test plots. Transplant- ing was done successfully with all the transplanted plants surviving and thriving. Overall, there have not been any extensive visual differences in the observations between the plots that have biochar and the plots that do not. This was to be expected as it takes time for the biochar to be worked in and integrated into the soil. Below are some project pictures that depict foliage and growth conditions at the three sites. Barley germination at Yukon Grain Farm, 06/15/2012 Barley at YGF, 5 weeks, no change is noted between biochar and non- biochar plots. 29

31 Barley mid- August Zakus Farms, Brome Year 2, June, July Research Farm, Kale, July 20 pre- transplant, Aug 1 post- transplant 30

32 31

33 Kale Harvest Wet Weight Results Table 5. Weights of kale plants subsampled in each plot, samples taken on Aug. 17, 2012 Aug , Research Farm, Kale Harvest T1 =Fert T2 = Fert+Biochar Treatment Plot # row# Distance 1 Weight 1 Distance 2 Weight 2 Distance 3 Weight 3 Distance 4 Weight 4 Avge (g) T1 A T1 A T2 A T1 A T2 A T1 A T2 A T2 A Table 6. Weights of kale plants subsampled in each plot, samples taken on Aug. 24, 2012 Aug , Research Farm, Kale Harvest T1 =Fert T2 = Fert+Biochar Treatment Plot # row# Distance 1 Weight 1 Distance 2 Weight 2 Distance 3 Weight 3 Distance 4 Weight 4 Avge (g) T1 A T1 A T2 A T1 A T2 A T1 A T2 A T2 A Weight (g) T1 T2 0 Samp. 1 Samp. 2 Figure 1. Average wet kale weights, samp. 1 represents kale sampled on August 17 and samp. 2 repre- sents kale weights sampled August 24, T1 represents treatment 1 (fertilizer only) and T2 repre- sents treatment 2 (fertilizer and biochar). 32

34 33

35 Lab Report and Scanning Electron Micrographs,

36 35

37 36

38 37

39 38

40 39

41 40

42 41

43 42

44 43

45 44

46 45

47 46

48 47

49 Season Three, Biochar Field Research Study, 2013 Progress Summary As per project methodology, season three saw the elimination of fertilizer from both biochar- amended and non biochar amended research plots at all three sites. This was carried out in accordance with meth- ods developed to simulate the transition from fertilizer based amendment to a biochar based amend- ment system. Biochar amended sites at the grain farm and the research farm were again treated with biochar at a rate of 10t/ha. Char was applied by hand in a uniform manner over the entire plot and tilled in immediately after, tillage was to an approx. depth of 15cm. Non- biochar sites were tilled and seeded with no addition- al amendments added. From the end of May to September weekly field visits were made at all three locations. Measurements and observations were made and recorded during these visits and are found in Appendix A and B. 48

50 Field Observations 2013 Yukon Grain Farm Plating Plots were prepped in mid May, biochar was applied and tilled in. Farm operator, Steve McKenzie, cov- ered plots with a tarp prior to fertilizing and seeded the plots as per the rest of his crops. All other man- agement practices were according to his standard procedure including, irrigation and pest management. Maintenance Crop growth is uniform and homogeneous, little observable growth difference is noted between biochar amended plots and non- biochar plots. Plant color is green and all plants appear healthy, some yellowing of leaves towards the bottom of stem. Few weeds or pests are noted, for detailed weed and pest infor- mation refer to attached field notes. Plots were inspected on a weekly basis and growth analysis was not- ed, as were the condition of weeds and pests. Also noted during field inspections, both biochar and non- biochar amended plots did significantly poorer than the surrounding crop (this is observational and was not tested). 49

51 Harvest/Sampling Sampling at the Yukon Grain Farm was done on September 23, Four 1/4 m samples were taken from each plot and bagged. Bagged samples were dried down and packaged for shipping to UAF. Zakus Farms Maintenance The bromegrass trial has exhibited stronger plants on the south facing plots, the reasons are still not clear, as it may be due to differences in the soil properties, although this is unlikely growth differ- ences were not observable in the field. 50

52 It was discussed and decided that irrigation would not be conducted at Zakus Farms for the 2013 season. Reasons for this include; lack of available water nearby, and it was thought that by adding a water stress to the plant soil system the biochar would have a better opportunity to prove an advantage. Harvest/Sampling Bromegrass was sampled on July 24th Sampling involved taking four 1/4 m samples from each plot and bagging. Bagged samples were dried down and shipped to UAF for analysis. Research Farm Planting Plots at the research farm were planted with seed potatoes sourced locally, seed was clean, had not been treated and was certified organic. Each plot was seeded with 15 tubers of similar size, spacing was set at 30 cm apart and seed was placed at approx. 12 cm depth. Each plot had three rows (spaced 60 cm apart) of five plants. Planting took place on May 27,

53 Maintenance From the end of May to September, field visits and observations were recorded every week. Weeding occurred as needed and watering was conducted according to the scheduled watering of the research farm. Harvest/Sampling Potatoes were harvested on September 5, There was a light frost about 4 days prior to harvest which effected some potato tops. Effected tops were noted to be more heavily concentrated on plants in 52

54 biochar amended plots. It should be noted that this may affect the results of the potato top analysis, tops from the biochar plots were more heavily blackened and wilted than those from the non biochar plots. All tops and tubers were sampled for each plant in each plot, mass of tops were taken as were total tuber mass and number. Individual tubers were not weighed or measured. Tops and tubers were subsampled from each plot and 500g of tops and 500g of tuber were collected. Tops were weighed wet and then dried down and shipped to UAF. Tubers were weighed and shipped to UAF. The raw data tables for the potato harvest can be found in Appendix B. T1 = treatment 1, which is fertiliz- er only, T2 = treatment 2 which is biochar and fertilizer. The table below shows a graphical representation of the growth results from the potato harvest plant Survival % Tuber Size (g) Avg. Top weight (g) Avg. Tuber weight (g) Tubers per plant T1 (no char) T2 (char) Copies of the data collection sheets can be found in Appendix B 53

55 Lab Report 2013 Summary report for the biochar field results of bromegrass, barley and potato in Date: Jan. 14, Soil and plant sampling, sample preparation and data analysis. - Soil samples were taken after crops (bromegrass, barley and potato) were harvested. - Soil samples were air dried, passed through 2 mm sieve and then analyzed for their nutrient con- centration and soil ph, EC, and CEC. - Plant samples were taken at time of maturity, and oven dried at 65 o C and then ground for analy- sis. - Dry plant samples were weighed and then calculated on a hectare base for the yield. - Nutrient concentrations in plant samples were analyzed. - Nutrient uptake by plants was calculated by multiplying biomass with tissue nutrient concentra- tion. - Student t test were used to statistically compare between biochar and non biochar treatment for all analytical items, and a probability of 5% is used for statistically significance. 2. Interpretation of the results Bromegrass (1) Biomass and nutrient concentration - The average bromegrass yields from non biochar plots was found to be 15.9% higher than biochar plots. This result, however, does not represent a statistically significant difference when analyzed using the student t test at a confidence interval of 95% (table 1) N concentration was higher (0.06%, p = 0.03) for the bromegrass taken from the biochar treatment as compared with the non biochar treatment (Table 1).

56 - Fe concentration, in contrast, was higher (1.3 mg/kg, p = 0.03) for the bromegrass taken from the non biochar treatment as compared with the biochar treatment. - Na concentration was higher (7.3 mg/kg, p=0.006) in the bromegrass harvested from the non biochar plots as compared to the biochar plots. - No statistically differences (p > 0.05) were found for other nutrients. (2) Nutrient uptake - Without biochar addition, bromegrass took more Na and Cu from soil in comparison with the bromegrass grown from the soil with biochar addition ( p = 0.002, p = 0.008)(Table 2). - No statistical differences were found for other nutrients between the two treatments. (3) Soil nutrient status - For the depth of 0-15 cm, Mehlich 3 extractable potassium was higher (p = 0.008) in the non biochar treatments as compared to the biochar treatments (Table 3). In contrast, the sodium concentration of biochar treated soil was higher (2 mg\kg, p = 0.04) than that from non bio- char treated soil (Table 4). No statistically difference of nutrient concentration in soil was found for the other nutrients (Table 3). Soil ph was higher (0.09, p = 0.02) in the biochar treated soil as compared with the non biochar treated soil (Table 4). - For the depth of 6-12 cm, both Mehlich 3 extractable Mg (249 mg/kg, p = 0.03) and Na (13.7 mg\kg, p = 0.03) were higher in the non biochar treated soil as compared with the biochar treated soil (Tables 3, 4). There were several notable differences in nutrient analysis between treatment; in bromegrass, N concen- trations in tissue were 2.4 kg/ha higher (p < 0.05) in biochar treated plots, Fe (p < 0.05) and Na (p < 0.05) tissue concentrations were both higher in the non- biochar treated plots. In brome plots there were sev- eral differences in soil nutrients; extractable potassium was higher in the non- biochar soils and sodium was higher in the biochar treated soils. Barley 55