Biochar (BC): History
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biochar, a carbon-rich material, is a by-product of pyrolysis (a thermo-chemical reaction in oxygen-depleted or oxygen-limited atmospheres). [1][2][3]

  • container substrate
  • compost
  • sustainability

1. Introduction

Questions have been raised on peat moss, the most commonly used greenhouse medium with its ideal properties for plant growth, due to environmental impacts and economic concerns [4][5][6]. Overharvesting peat moss can cause environmental issues such as rare wildlife habitat destruction, wetland ecosystem disturbance, and climate change interference [5][6]. Moreover, the price of peat moss has been rising, which causes economic concerns and could hinder growers’ profits, especially when transportation costs are considered [7].

Therefore, attention has shifted to biochar (BC) as a peat moss alternative due to its numerous advantages [6][8]. Biochar can be derived from various sources, such as green waste [9], wood [10], straw [11][12][13][14][15], bark [16], rice hulls [17], and wheat straw [13][18], making it readily available. For the same reason, BC can be generated faster and is not a limited resource like peat moss, presenting great environmental potential as a peat moss alternative. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions could be drastically reduced when BC is prepared from agricultural wastes, which otherwise would be incinerated, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions [19]. Additionally, the BC price may be competitive if BC is available locally. The average BC price is $78.57 m−3, less than half the price of peat moss ($173.93 m−3), presenting a great economic advantage as a peat moss alternative [20][21]. Moreover, different waste biomass and waste heat utilized during BC production process could bring significant savings for the overall economy [22].

Biochar’s potential as an alternative container substrate for peat moss has been documented in many studies. For instance, Guo et al. [23][24] observed that pinewood BC (80%, vol.) with peat moss-based substrate increased the growth of both poinsettia and Easter lily. A study by Huang et al. [25] showed that mixing 70% (vol.) mixed hardwood BC with two composts resulted in similar or better basil and tomato plant growth compared to a peat moss-based commercial substrate. Similarly, Yu et al. [26] showed that up to 70% (vol.) of mixed hardwood BC or sugarcane bagasse BC blended with peat moss can be used to grow container tomato and basil seedlings. Tian et al. [9] stated that 50% (vol.) green waste BC increased the total biomass of Calathea plants by 22% compared to those in 100% peat moss substrate. Additionally, Headlee et al. [27] demonstrated that a red oak BC feedstock mixture with vermiculite increased the total biomass and shoot biomass of hybrid poplar cuttings. Yan et al. [28] showed that 80% (vol.) mixed hardwood BC blended with 20% commercial peat moss-based substrate could be used as mixtures for different types mint plants growth without negative effects.

Incorporating compost with BC as a container substrate improves its physical and chemical properties and thus benefits plant growth [29]. Vermicompost (VC; the end product of earthworms breaking down organic waste) [30] and chicken manure compost (CM; the waste resulting from the poultry industry) [31][32] are the composts used in containers. Vermicompost and CM both have fine textures and are rich in nutrients, which could alter substrate properties and provide extra nutrients [25][33]. For instance, Huang et al. [25] demonstrated that adding 5% (vol.) VC or CM to a BC-amended substrate improved tomato and basil growth.

Adding mycorrhizae (MC) to container media, in the presence of BC, could also improve plant growth due to its symbiotic relationship with plants [34][35]. In this symbiosis, MC provide the host plant with mineral nutrients, especially phosphorus (P), and water in exchange for photosynthetic products [36]. Therefore, MC could promote plant growth and plant yield by boosting nutrient uptake [37][38][39]. Mycorrhizae are commonly known to boost plants’ uptake of P, a nutrient often difficult for plants to absorb due to its insoluble forms [40][41], especially when the substrate pH is higher than 7 [4]. The ideal pH range for P in a soilless substrate is 4 to 6 [4]. However, incorporating BC in the media may limit P availability because most BCs used in greenhouse studies have pH higher than 7 [4][42]. The presence of MC enhancing P availability [41], in addition to a high P content in CM and VC, is expected to compensate for P deficiencies in BC-amended soilless substrates.

Fertilizer leaching from containers during watering raises environmental concerns, and could be reduced by adding BC to the container substrate [4]. In an open greenhouse production system, excessive fertilizer is commonly used to ensure crop growth and yield, leading to increased nutrient leaching [4]. Nutrient leaching may contaminate groundwater, cause eutrophication, and release nitrous oxide (NO2) [43]. Incorporating BC in a container substrate could reduce nutrient leaching. Yu et al. [44] reported that mixed hardwood BC can retain nutrients due to its porous structure, which may reduce nutrient leaching. Similarly, Guo et al. [23][24] showed that the fertilizer rates could be reduced when pinewood BC was added at 60–80% (vol.) without sacrificing poinsettia’s or Easter lily’s growth.

Peatland has been functioning as carbon sink, playing a significant role in climate change yet its climatic potential has been underappreciated [45]. It was reported that restoring peatland for carbon sequestrate was 3.4 times less nitrite costly and less land costly compared to other ways [45]. Due to the urgency of global warming and peatland’s climatic potential, some countries have already taken actions to restrict peatland extraction [6]. For instance, the United Kingdom and Europe have legislated laws to protect the peatland from being overharvested [4][46]. Therefore, peat moss substitutes are needed to reduce the total amount of peat moss used in the horticulture industry.

2. Applications of Biochar

2.1. Treatment Effects on Plant Growth

Biochar mixes, MC, and F rates and their synergistic impacts can beneficially influence plant growth. Biochar can aid plant growth both directly by supplying nutrients [47] and indirectly by influencing nutrient availability via changing substrate total porosity and pH [23][48]. For instance, for poinsettia and Easter lily, adding 20−60% (vol.) pinewood BC to peat moss-based substrate increased the total stem length and the number of leaves due to the suitable total porosity and pH, which improved nutrient uptake at given F rates [9]. Peng et al. [6] demonstrated the mix of BC (20−60%) and peat moss-based substrate (80−40%) had no negative effects on basil, tomato, or chrysanthemum because suitable physical properties helped nutrient absorption. Furthermore, pinewood BC can replace a commercial peat moss-based substrate from 5−30% (vol.) without any negative impacts on gomphrena plant growth [7], resulting from mix properties and F integrated effects. Moreover, mixed hardwood BC can replace 70% (vol.) of a commercial peat moss-based substrate without negatively impacting on tomato or basil plant growth [25] due to the enhanced nutrient uptake.

Biochar can impact substrate pH, making nutrients, especially P, less available to the plant, which could be compensated by adding MC [4][49]. For example, Conversa et al. [50] showed that 30% of BC, even with a pH at 8.6 which made P less available, increased geranium plant growth because MC compensated P uptake. However, high percentage of BC (70%; vol.) induced high pH and led to N and P deficiency, which could not be compensated by MC, reducing geranium plant growth. Part of the Conversa et al. [50] results were similar to ours: tomato and pepper plants grown in BC-amended mixes (lower than 70%) had similar growth compared to those in the commercial substrate. However, in our study, the high BC rate (70% for pepper, 80% for tomato) did not result in any negative impacts on plant growth as Conversa et al. [50] reported. The difference may be due to the presence of composts (VC or CM) in our study. Additionally, our study had similar results to the study by Huang et al. [25], which showed that 70% (vol.) of mixed hardwood BC with 5% VC or CM can be used for tomato and basil plant growth with no negative impacts on plant growth. However, in our study, the results in 90% BC−5% VC mix with MC and 300 mg L−1 N differed from those of Huang et al. [25]. The differences could be explained by the MC, which improved nutrient uptake.

2.2. Biochar Potential Economic Value

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) [51], around 0.15 M m3 of container substrates were used for the horticulture industry with 91% (by vol.) being peat moss-based or just peat moss [51][52]. The Sunshine Mix #1 used in this study contains 80% peat moss. The estimated prices of the 70% biochar−5% vermicompost mix and Sunshine Mix #1 are $119.7 m−3 and $176.9 m−3, respectively [25]. With the results in this study, if the mix 70% biochar−5% vermicompost were chosen for container plant production, 0.1 M m3 of peat moss with an estimated value of $ 5.98 M could be saved annually, in addition to the reduced fertilizer costs. This study showed one aspect of the economic value of biochar by replacing peat moss-based substrate; other studies also proposed the economic value of biochar by introducing it into wastewater, farming, and municipal industries [53][54][55].

2.3. Biochar Potential Climatic Value

Using biochar as a peat moss alterative could have significant potential to slow down global warming. Peatland, accounting only for around 3% of the terrestrial surface, may store 21% of the global total soil organic carbon stock of around 3000 Gt [56][57][58] and provide natural habitats for wild animals. However, the potential climatic value of peatland has been underappreciated [45]. Using alternative substrate materials such as biochar could slow down peat moss harvest, and thus slow down depleting peat bogs, which could conserve their carbon sink capability and contribute to slower global warming. According to the literature, 20−80% of peat moss can be replaced by biochar [9][28][44]. With those numbers (assuming the commercial substrate contains 75% of peat moss), an estimated 0.02 M−0.08 M m−3 of peat moss can be saved annually. Furthermore, with pyrolysis for bio-oil purposes, the yield of biochar ranges from 20−47% [59]. Assuming biochar yield at 30%, to produce the same amount of biochar used sufficiently for the horticulture industry (assuming replacing 50% of peat moss), nearly 0.28 M m−3 of agriculture waste can be converted annually, which otherwise would be incinerated and aggravate global warming [60].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su12177072


  1. Demirbas, A.; Arin, G. An overview of biomass pyrolysis. Energy Sources 2002, 24, 471–482.
  2. Lehmann, J. A handful of carbon. Nature 2007, 447, 143–144.
  3. Nartey, O.D.; Zhao, B. Biochar preparation, characterization, and adsorptive capacity and its effect on bioavailability of contaminants: An overview. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014, 715398.
  4. Nelson, P.V. Greenhouse Operation and Management; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012.
  5. Alexander, P.; Bragg, N.; Meade, R.; Padelopoulos, G.; Watts, O. Peat in horticulture and conservation: The UK response to a changing world. Mires Peat 2008, 3, 1–8.
  6. Peng, D.H.; Gu, M.M.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, F.; Choi, H.S. Effects of Biochar Mixes with Peat-moss Based Substrates on Growth and Development of Horticultural Crops. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2018, 36, 501–512, doi:10.12972/kjhst.20180050.
  7. Gu, M.; Li, Q.; Steele, P.H.; Niu, G.; Yu, F. Growth of ‘Fireworks’ gomphrena grown in substrates amended with biochar. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 819–821.
  8. Michel, J.-C. The physical properties of peat: A key factor for modern growing media. Mires Peat 2010, 6, 1–6.
  9. Tian, Y.; Sun, X.; Li, S.; Wang, H.; Wang, L.; Cao, J.; Zhang, L. Biochar made from green waste as peat substitute in growth media for Calathea rotundifola cv. Fasciata. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 143, 15–18, doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2012.05.018.
  10. Fascella, G.; Mammano, M.M.; D’Angiolillo, F.; Pannico, A.; Rouphael, Y. Coniferous wood biochar as substrate component of two containerized Lavender species: Effects on morpho-physiological traits and nutrients partitioning. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 267, 109356.
  11. Hansen, V.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Petersen, C.T.; Mikkelsen, T.N.; Müller-Stöver, D. Effects of gasification biochar on plant-available water capacity and plant growth in two contrasting soil types. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 161, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.still.2016.03.002.
  12. Spokas, K.; Koskinen, W.; Baker, J.; Reicosky, D. Impacts of woodchip biochar additions on greenhouse gas production and sorption/degradation of two herbicides in a Minnesota soil. Chemosphere 2009, 77, 574–581.
  13. Vaughn, S.F.; Kenar, J.A.; Thompson, A.R.; Peterson, S.C. Comparison of biochars derived from wood pellets and pelletized wheat straw as replacements for peat in potting substrates. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013, 51, 437–443, doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.10.010.
  14. Hansen, V.; Müller-Stöver, D.; Ahrenfeldt, J.; Holm, J.K.; Henriksen, U.B.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. Gasification biochar as a valuable by-product for carbon sequestration and soil amendment. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 72, 300–308.
  15. Spokas, K.A.; Baker, J.M.; Reicosky, D.C. Ethylene: Potential key for biochar amendment impacts. Plant Soil 2010, 333, 443–452.
  16. Hina, K.; Bishop, P.; Arbestain, M.C.; Calvelo-Pereira, R.; Maciá-Agulló, J.A.; Hindmarsh, J.; Hanly, J.; Macìas, F.; Hedley, M. Producing biochars with enhanced surface activity through alkaline pretreatment of feedstocks. Soil Res. 2010, 48, 606–617.
  17. Locke, J.C.; Altland, J.E.; Ford, C.W. Gasified rice hull biochar affects nutrition and growth of horticultural crops in container substrates. J. Environ. Hortic. 2013, 31, 195–202.
  18. Xu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, J.; Shao, H. Negative interactive effects between biochar and phosphorus fertilization on phosphorus availability and plant yield in saline sodic soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 910–915, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.079.
  19. Wang, H.; Ren, T.; Yang, H.; Feng, Y.; Feng, H.; Liu, G.; Yin, Q.; Shi, H. Research and Application of Biochar in Soil CO2 Emission, Fertility, and Microorganisms: A Sustainable Solution to Solve China’s Agricultural Straw Burning Problem. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1922.
  20. Natural-Resources, E. Biochar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2017–2025. Availabe online: (accessed on 22 August 2017).
  21. BWI Inc. Availabe online: (accessed on 31 March 2014).
  22. Maroušek, J. Significant breakthrough in biochar cost reduction. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2014, 16, 1821–1825.
  23. Guo, Y.; Niu, G.; Starman, T.; Volder, A.; Gu, M. Poinsettia Growth and Development Response to Container Root Substrate with Biochar. Horticulturae 2018, 4, 1.
  24. Guo, Y.; Niu, G.; Starman, T.; Gu, M. Growth and development of Easter lily in response to container substrate with biochar. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2018, 94, 80–86.
  25. Huang, L.; Niu, G.; Feagley, S.E.; Gu, M. Evaluation of a hardwood biochar and two composts mixes as replacements for a peat-based commercial substrate. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2019, 129, 549–560.
  26. Yu, P.; Li, Q.; Huang, L.; Niu, G.; Gu, M. Mixed Hardwood and Sugarcane Bagasse Biochar as Potting Mix Components for Container Tomato and Basil Seedling Production. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4713.
  27. Headlee, W.L.; Brewer, C.E.; Hall, R.B. Biochar as a Substitute for Vermiculite in Potting Mix for Hybrid Poplar. Bioenergy Res. 2013, 7, 120–131, doi:10.1007/s12155-013-9355-y.
  28. Yan, J.; Yu, P.; Liu, C.; Li, Q.; Gu, M. Replacing peat moss with mixed hardwood biochar as container substrates to produce five types of mint (Mentha spp.). Ind. Crop. Prod. 2020, 155, 112820.
  29. Barker, A.V.; Bryson, G.M. Comparisons of composts with low or high nutrient status for growth of plants in containers. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2006, 37, 1303–1319.
  30. Manna, M.; Jha, S.; Ghosh, P.; Ganguly, T.; Singh, K.; Takkar, P. Capacity of various food materials to support growth and reproduction of epigeic earthworms on vermicompost. J. Sustain. For. 2005, 20, 1-15.
  31. Mitchell, M.; Hornor, S.; Abrams, B. Decomposition of Sewage Sludge in Drying Beds and the Potential Role of the Earthworm, Eisenia foetida 1. J. Environ. Qual. 1980, 9, 373–378.
  32. Li, C.; Strömberg, S.; Liu, G.; Nges, I.A.; Liu, J. Assessment of regional biomass as co-substrate in the anaerobic digestion of chicken manure: Impact of co-digestion with chicken processing waste, seagrass and Miscanthus. Biochem. Eng. J. 2017, 118, 1–10.
  33. Atiyeh, R.; Subler, S.; Edwards, C.; Bachman, G.; Metzger, J.; Shuster, W. Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedobiologia 2000, 44, 579–590.
  34. Chalk, P.; Souza, R.D.F.; Urquiaga, S.; Alves, B.; Boddey, R. The role of arbuscular mycorrhiza in legume symbiotic performance. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 2944–2951.
  35. Fahramand, M.; Adibian, M.; Sobhkhizi, A.; Noori, M.; Moradi, H.; Rigi, K. Effect of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi in agronomy. J. Nov. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 400–404.
  36. Bonfante, P.; Genre, A. Mechanisms underlying beneficial plant–fungus interactions in mycorrhizal symbiosis. Nat. Commun. 2010, 1, 1–11.
  37. Veresoglou, S.D.; Menexes, G.; Rillig, M.C. Do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi affect the allometric partition of host plant biomass to shoots and roots? A meta-analysis of studies from 1990 to 2010. Mycorrhiza 2012, 22, 227–235.
  38. Carey, P.D.; Fitter, A.H.; Watkinson, A.R. A field study using the fungicide benomyl to investigate the effect of mycorrhizal fungi on plant fitness. Oecologia 1992, 90, 550–555.
  39. Safapour, M.; Ardakani, M.; Khaghani, S.; Rejali, F.; Zargari, K.; Changizi, M.; Teimuri, M. Response of yield and yield components of three red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes to co-inoculation with Glomus intraradices and Rhizobium phaseoli. Am. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2011, 11, 398–405.
  40. Smith, F.A.; Smith, S.E. What is the significance of the arbuscular mycorrhizal colonisation of many economically important crop plants? Plant Soil 2011, 348, 63.
  41. Bianciotto, V.; Victorino, I.; Scariot, V.; Berruti, A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as natural biofertilizers: Current role and potential for the horticulture industry. In Proceedings of the III International Symposium on Woody Ornamentals of the Temperate Zone 1191, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2–5 August 2016; pp. 207–216.
  42. Huang, L.; Gu, M. Effects of Biochar on Container Substrate Properties and Growth of Plants—A Review. Horticulturae 2019, 5, 14.
  43. Savci, S. An agricultural pollutant: Chemical fertilizer. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2012, 3, 73.
  44. Yu, P.; Huang, L.; Li, Q.; Lima, I.M.; White, P.M.; Gu, M. Effects of mixed hardwood and sugarcane biochar as bark-based substrate substitutes on container plants production and nutrient leaching. Agronomy 2020, 10, 156.
  45. Leifeld, J.; Menichetti, L. The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1–7.
  46. Carlile, B.; Coules, A. Towards sustainability in growing media. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Growing Media, Composting and Substrate Analysis 1013, Milan, Italy, 24–28 June 2011; pp. 341–349.
  47. Graber, E.R.; Harel, Y.M.; Kolton, M.; Cytryn, E.; Silber, A.; David, D.R.; Tsechansky, L.; Borenshtein, M.; Elad, Y. Biochar impact on development and productivity of pepper and tomato grown in fertigated soilless media. Plant Soil 2010, 337, 481–496.
  48. Lehmann, J.; da Silva, J.P.; Steiner, C.; Nehls, T.; Zech, W.; Glaser, B. Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: Fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil 2003, 249, 343–357.
  49. Ortas, I.; Iqbal, T.; Yücel, Y.C. Mycorrhizae enhances horticultural plant yield and nutrient uptake under phosphorus deficient field soil condition. J. Plant Nutr. 2019, 42, 1152–1164.
  50. Conversa, G.; Bonasia, A.; Lazzizera, C.; Elia, A. Influence of biochar, mycorrhizal inoculation, and fertilizer rate on growth and flowering of Pelargonium (Pelargonium zonale L.) plants. Front Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 429, doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.00429.
  51. United States Geological Survey. PEAT. Mineral Commodity Summaries; Center, N.M.I., Ed.; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2019; pp 118–119.
  52. United States Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Statistics; USDA, Ed.; United States Government Printing Office Washington: Seattle, WA, USA, 2018; pp 202–210.
  53. Maroušek, J.; Kolář, L.; Strunecký, O.; Kopecký, M.; Bartoš, P.; Maroušková, A.; Cudlínová, E.; Konvalina, P.; Šoch, M.; Moudrý, J. Modified biochars present an economic challenge to phosphate management in wastewater treatment plants. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 123015.
  54. Maroušek, J.; Strunecký, O.; Stehel, V. Biochar farming: Defining economically perspective applications. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 1389–1395.
  55. Maroušek, J. Economically oriented process optimization in waste management. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 7400–7402.
  56. Moore, P.D. The future of cool temperate bogs. Environ. Conserv. 2002, 29, 3–20.
  57. Yu, Z.; Loisel, J.; Brosseau, D.P.; Beilman, D.W.; Hunt, S.J. Global peatland dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, doi:10.1029/2010GL043584.
  58. Dargie, G.C.; Lewis, S.L.; Lawson, I.T.; Mitchard, E.T.; Page, S.E.; Bocko, Y.E.; Ifo, S.A. Age, extent and carbon storage of the central Congo Basin peatland complex. Nature 2017, 542, 86–90.
  59. Ok, Y.S.; Uchimiya, S.M.; Chang, S.X.; Bolan, N. Biochar: Production, Characterization, and Applications; CRC press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
  60. Gunarathne, V.; Ashiq, A.; Ramanayaka, S.; Wijekoon, P.; Vithanage, M. Biochar from municipal solid waste for resource recovery and pollution remediation. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 1225–1235.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service