1. Biochar Field trial results in Norway - 2011 1 Adam O’Toole, Daniel P. Rasse, 2 Bjørn Lilleeng 1 Bioforsk Soil and Environment, Ås, Norway. 2 Norsk Landbruksrådgiving Gudbrandsdalen Støttet av:

2. Field trials in Norway - 2011 Sel Ås Notodden

3. Introduction Carbonizing biomass renders plant-C more resistant to biological breakdown – a feature making it attractive for increasing soil C stocks.

4. Ås – Can biochar be used for carbon storage?

5. Biochar is a novel solution for increasing Soil C and reducing atomospheric CO 2 …provided that it: It is in fact stable, and leads to an overall increase in soil-C Does not pose a risk to food production and soil health

6. To estimate the stability of biochar-C and effects of biochar on native soil-C under field conditions Purpose of study

7. Methods C Stability: Measuringthe δ 13 C signature and CO 2 efflux of a C3 soil after additons of Miscanthus (C4 plant) derived biochar C4 plants: ~ -15‰ C3 SOM: ~ -30‰ Oats Miscanthus δ 13 C

8. Methods Equipment: Closed static chambers, Infrared gas analyzer (IRGA) for CO 2 efflux and Piccaro G1101-i for δ 13 C measurements) Keeling plot method used to isolate soil respired CO 2 in chamber measurements.

9. Biochar and Soil description Feedstock: Miscanthus giganteus (Elephant Grass) Produced by Pyreg Gmbh (Germany) Pyroysis temperature 650-750 °C Fixed C = 70% VM= 7% Ash= 23% Total N: 2.5 g kg-1 Total P: 1.3 g kg-1 Total K:4.8 g kg-1 pH: 10 BET: 349 m 2 g -1 Soil: Inceptisol, Sandy Clay Loam, TOC: 2.5 %

10. Field Trial 2010-2013 Biochar inverse ploughed in the fall of 2010 2011 crop: Oats 2012 crop: Barley

11. Experimental Design 16 plots - 4 treatments x 4 reps 1.Miscanthus Biochar 8 t C ha -1 2.Miscanthus residue 8t C ha -1 3.Control – no amendments 4.Miscanthus Biochar 25 t C ha -1 Randomized block design

12. Results Average for season 0.33C 0.32MC8 0.31BC8 0.29BC25

14. δ13 C measurements δ13 CSD (n=2) Control-29,80,4 Biochar 8 t-29,60,3 Biochar 25 t-29,42,0 Miscanthus 8 t-26,81,6

15. Contribution of C4 derived C to soil-C loss

16. No significant diff. Between treatments +6% -5% Oat grain yield (kg per dekar)

17. No significant diff. Between treatments

18. What can we conclude so far on soil and plant effects?

19. Heavy metal content Biochar was well under the legal limits set for soil amendments in Norway

20. Conclusion Preliminary first year results Appeared relatively stabil and did not prime native C Did not lead to decreased plant and grain yields More years are required to establish a trend

21. Interreg: Climate Saving Soils project Field Trial: Simmenstad Farm, Sel. Norway 2011-12

22. Experimental Design 16 plots - 4 treatments x 4 reps Fertilizer 1.Biochar 2t daa -1 10 kg N daa -1 2.Sludge 2t daa -1 6 kg N daa -1 3.Biochar 2t + sludge 2t daa -1 6 kg N daa -1 4.Control – no amendments 10 kg N daa -1 Randomized block design

25. A poor year for grain in Norway Photo: Karl Erik Berge (Nationen

26. Flood in Gudbrandsdalen, June 2011 110 mm in one week (normal 50 mm/mth) 441mm from June 01 – Sept 29 (normal 228 mm)

27. Soil erosion from the flood

29. The field in July – flood effects

30. Soil water and temperature effects

31. Plant and grain yields

32. Barley grain yield Sel 2011

33. Yield as compared to 5 year average barley yield (kg daa-1)

36. Thanks for your attention Our website: www.bioforsk.no/biochar Acknowledgements -Svend Pung – SKP, UMB -Toril Trædal (UMB) -Bjørn Lilleeng (NLR) Gudbrandsdalen -Kåre Simmenstad (farmer) -Christophe Moni, Farshad Tami and Robert Barneveld Funding: Matprogrammet, Norwegian Research Council. Interreg IV NSR program and SLF