No

Infact , the conceptualisation on biochar emerged from Terra Preta only...Please refer the website of International Biocahr Initiative

Thanks to Niels for a very useful and informative link. I now have to do more thinking as I believe I can get most any answer I want from this first URL. I can certainly see BFW using this response to justify their negative view of biochar. But I see a distinction being made that I don't believe exists. I see some very positive results labeled as biochar that do not fit a description of biochar as being industrial. Considerable biochar implementation today is being done in developing countries with quite primitive techniques. I am thinking especially of the work in Nepal of Hans-Peter Schmidt - found at "the Biochar Journal". I am part way into the doctoral thesis of Tatiana Francischinelli Rittl - and am impressed. I expect to read all 6 (?) theses from this program. Some very nice work on both Terra Preta and biochar by this group.

I hope Kulvir Singh will expand on his "No". My question was "True or false?" on whether biochar is very different from terra preta. I still see more similarities than differences (so I am leaning towards "False"). The suggested URL seems to agree that biochar and terra preta were very similar a few years back. Apologies for the wording of my question.

Ron

They are not the same. As Glaser (2007) stated, "The Terra Preta soils were generated by pre-Columbian native populations by chance or intentionally adding large amounts of charred residues (charcoal), organic wastes, excrements and bones. " Charcoal or biochar has recalcitrant carbon but most biochars from woody feedstock have little nutrient value. The nutrients of terra preta, and much of the benefit, came from other organic "wastes" that complexed with the charcoal over a very long time.

Reviews and meta-analyses of the recent flood of biochar studies have found very inconsistent results or rather marginal benefits. Jeffery et al., 2011, found crop yield -28% to +38% with average +10%, and the best effects required 100 tons per acre (!!). And Jeffery et al., 2017, found a net 0 effect in temperate areas but +25% average benefit in tropical areas, closely tied to the nutrient fertilization value of the biochar. Nutrients and physical effects like water holding capacity and cation exchange capacity of biochar depend on materials, temperature, and post-treatment (Suliman et al., 2016 and 2017).

So, 1) biochar is not the entire recipe of terra preta, 2) all biochars are not the same, and 3) biochar amendment to soil is not always beneficial to the desired characteristics. With future studies aimed at defining the best materials and process to produce biochar with the characteristics desired in a particular place and soil, we could make more progress. Whether biochar will then be economical, esp. compared to compost or other amendments and fertilizers, is yet another question.

Lynne:

Thanks for the response. I still need more time to digest the large amount of terra preta material at the site that Dr. Batjes recommended in the first response in this series. I agree with your three points above, but still believe that there is a great deal of similarity between what most of us mean when we use the terms "terra preta" and "biochar". It is by no means obvious to me why terra preta should be considered OK but biochar not. Re price, the work of Hans-Peter Schmidt (3 recent papers on work (labeled as "biochar") in Nepal - at tBJ)) are clearly highly cost-effective (all showing NPP gains greater than 100%). They were made with techniques that could have been used in the Amazon 500 years ago.