Field trials

2009 Biochar Trials in Hawaii

Last updated August 10, 2010

Josiah Hunt, Landscape Ecology July, 2010


Biochar Trials

In 2009 Landscape Ecology was awarded a grant to produce biochar amended compost and observe plant growth responses.  Instead of conducting the growth trials ourselves we donated the material to a series of local Ag businesses to conduct in their systems.  Fertilizer use and such vary with the different systems.  There are still more results coming in and a few we have yet to follow up on being that many of the recipients were late to apply the material and are just now getting results.  We will have several more in coming weeks including palms in nursery, wetland (flooded field) taro, and more of the tomato/cucumber series.

See the attached pdf for more detail.

½” minus hardwood biochar

All biochar used in these photos was produced by Landscape Ecology in an open pit method explained in greater detail at Biochar Hawaii’s website: http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-hawaii?hl=en
The feedstock is mixed tropical hardwoods gathered as scrap from local sawmills.
Some analysis are shown in the attached pdf

Biochar Compost

Composted with coconut and guava chips and horse manure. Allowed 4 months to mature. Maintained a temperature of 135oF on average. Approximately 40% biochar by volume when applied. Biochar was never mechanically ground. Too wide a C:N was found in compost as seen in initial trials. C:N ratio was corrected for later other trials.
Bioassay done by Professor Jonathan Awaya of UHH shown in next slides.
Nutrient analysis of biochar compost available by request.

Landscape Ecology - Biochar in Audubon Magazine

Last updated July 08, 2010

Josiah Hunt, July, 2010

Josiah has a background in Agroecology and Ecology, and he has been working both in landscaping, and in making Biochar. See his web site for more details http://www.landscapeecology-hawaii.com/

His work is also noted in the July-August 2010 Audubon Magazine Field Notes: Please Smoke

Lucia Stove Biochar Study

Last updated May 18, 2010

Nathaniel Mulcahy , World Stove May 2010

I'm slowly catching up on all the things that I had to place on hold while I was in Haiti. Haiti, and the up coming tests in other countries are clearly providing a wide range of of verifications into the effectiveness of biochar as a soil amendment. As valuable as field work is, there is something to be said for the opportunities to control the environment so as to isolate a few variables.


I am very lucky to have a great team working with me and wanted to share a bit of how it's going. (more updates soon)

‘Oven’ Turns Brush Into Soil Additive That Stores Carbon Over Long Term

Last updated March 24, 2010

‘Oven’ Turns Brush Into Soil Additive That Stores Carbon Over Long Term
Bob Wells, New England Biochar, March 23, 2010
Bob Wells cooked up a batch of biochar using his Mobile Adam Retort.Bob Wells cooked up a batch of biochar using his Mobile Adam Retort.

By ELISE R. HUGUS

Spring has undoubtedly inspired residents to clear the brush from their yards these days. But instead of burning those fallen tree limbs or taking them to the town compost dump, one Hatchville resident spent the weekend turning the detritus of winter into a substance that will help him grow vegetables, all while reducing his carbon footprint: biochar.

Starting at 9 AM on Saturday, Joseph L. Hackler, a researcher at the Woods Hole Research Center, and Robert Wells, of Eastham-based New England Biochar, started loading seasoned wood and collected brush into a biochar retort [oven] of Mr. Wells’s invention. By noon, the warmth of the sun was rivaled by the heat coming from the steel combustion retort, which the men kept at a steady temperature of 842 degrees Fahrenheit.

The plan was to slowly “pyrolyze” three cubic yards’ worth of woody biomass, which Mr. Hackler and his wife, Karen R. Schwalbe, will spread on the fields of their three-acre Tomten Farm. Similar to charcoal, but not intended for burning, biochar has been hailed as a miracle for its ability to enhance soil structure and water-holding capacity, as well as biological activity and nutrient availability. Composed of dead plant material, bones, or animal waste that would otherwise decompose, biochar is immobilized in the soil for at least 1,000 years, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.

“We’re short-circuiting nature by taking carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere and putting it directly into the soil,” said Mr. Wells. “We’re doing the opposite of what the coal companies are doing.” Because the biomass is burned in a chamber with little or no oxygen, the material does not turn to ash. The methane, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen gas created in the batch process is diverted back into the burn chamber, where the gases add fuel to the fire. Eventually, an exothermic reaction takes place, Mr. Hackler said, at which point the fire sustains itself. Once the fire burns out, all that is left is biochar.

With the help of Peter Hirst of Wellfleet, Mr. Wells designed the Mobile Adam Retort to reduce 75 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions that would normally be created in such a process. Only small amounts of CO2 and water vapor are released from the smokestack, he said, much less than is typically produced by creating charcoal from wood.

“Making charcoal is a smoky, nasty business. It’s the main energy source in Third World countries, and people die at a young age from lung problems because of it,” said Mr. Wells. Biochar was first developed by natives in Brazil and used as a soil amendment for the past 2,000 years, according to the International Biochar Initiative website. The technology has been embraced as a way to help reduce the pollution and disease resulting from charcoal production in developing nations, and more recently, as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Since biochar was adopted by agronomists in Japan and South America, its benefits as a natural agricultural additive have also spread around the world. Having designed a mobile retort, Mr. Wells demonstrates it around New England, and receives requests for information from as far away as India and Australia. “Now everyone wants me to show them how to do it. I could tour the world if I wanted to,” Mr. Wells said, noting that his mobile system could be shared by an entire community. “We’ve got a long way to go, but we’ve also come a long way.”

The energy created by Mr. Wells’s retort is enough to run a small engine or charge batteries. In addition, the heat created in the process could be recovered to heat a building, especially if it was used on an industrial scale, Mr. Wells said. As the moisture from the wood burns off, it passes through a condenser, turning into pyroligneous acid. “You can buy this for $4 a bottle at the store. It’s liquid smoke,” said Mr. Wells, opening a faucet on the condenser to release a stream of brown, smoke smelling liquid. He estimated that a typical biochar batch will create 30 gallons of the food additive.

Mr. Wells witnessed the benefits of biochar firsthand on his Redberry Lane Farm, where he said the sandy soils of Eastham impacted his ability to grow turnips, blueberries, and a variety of market vegetables. Now, in addition to greater crop productivity, Mr. Wells said he no longer has to pay for the “junk” wood left over from the trees he sells as firewood. And one of the most satisfying aspects of pyrolyzing plant material, he said, is getting rid of invasive species, such as multiflora rose, that plague his six-acre farm. Once he cooks up a batch of biochar, Mr. Wells said he runs over it with a tractor to reduce it to a fine dust. From there, he mixes it in an even ratio with compost, and sells the mixture by the 40-pound bag. It can also be added to compost “tea” for faster results, he said. Though it can take up to a year for biochar to innoculate in the soil, Mr. Wells said its effects are worth the wait. On a microscopic level, the biochar “opens a latticework of carbon, which provides spaces for microbes to live,” he said. These beneficial microbes help transport nutrients and water to plants. Just how much biochar increases the productivity of Cape Cod soil is the subject of a study that Mr. Hackler and an intern from Duke University will conduct this year, using Tomten Farm as an experimental field site.

The Falmouth Enterprise, Volume 119 Number 97 Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Alterna Biocarbon and Cowboy Charcoal Virginia field trials '09

5% Alterna Biochar on Left - 20% on Right.JPG

Field Trials;
 I am field testing for the 09 corn season with JMU and consultation  Dr. Hepperly at Rodale Institute.

Ten research priorities were identified at the IBI conference, The following priorities I hope to address:
• 1- Economy research/market research
• 2- plant+soil research depending on biochar
• 5- field trials
• 8- application to soil (depending on agricultural or other
systems/remediation`)

Planting date: June 24th.
Two split plots , which each are split into a 20% (27 tons/Ac) & 5% (7 tons/Ac) application rates,
All chars soaked in tarps for 1 month, all chars were mixed 1:2 by volume with finished poultry litter compost and roto-tilled to 5 inch depth.

3 treatment groups with 3 replications
Char+ Compost
Char+ Compost + soluble NPK (soaked in char)
MYC+Char+Compost ("Dr. Mike's" Mycorrhiza corn inoculent)
Charcoal #1: Alterna Energy Biocarbon
Charcoal #2: Cowboy Hardwood Lump Charcoal

Soil Testing:
Dr. Mike Amaranthus of Mycorrhiza Applications ( http://www.mycorrhiza.com/ ) has  supplied his granular corn MYC , applied at planting, and lab support for harvest root analysis.
Dr. Kristine Nicoles of ARS, their head glomalin researcher, will also run soil test at Harvest
Lynn Rogers of Microbial Matrix will be testing for functional microbe groups

Total wet weight of corn biomass will be collected for each treatment group.

Much Thanks to:

 James Madison University / I.S.A.T., Dr. Wayne Teal - for providing a student for work and help in publication.

Local farmers Keith Sheetz and Andy & Jack Dixon

Dr. Paul Hepperly of Rodale Institude in PA. for consultations and his sister study in cow-peas.

Special thanks to Ecotechnologies Group for funding both of our studies.  http://www.ecotechnologies.com/index.html

The soil carbon bond can lead to an integration of organic and commercial agriculture practices. Biochar is a tool for both, for organic to increase its already-sustainable credentials, for chemical agriculture to at least halt soil carbon mining and seriously reduce nutrient runoff. The carbon sequestration bond can lead to a marriage of the best practices from both systems of agriculture to build soil into a biologically vital synergistic organism.

I hope to demonstrate this in my field trials with Roundup-ready corn, with the consultation of the Rodale Institute. Soil test for the full spectrum of food web organisms should ferret out the affinity of BioChar with these organisms in the context of standard chemical agricultural practices, and at Rodale with organic practice.

Erich J. Knight
Eco Technologies Group Technical Adviser
University of California Riverside advisory board member
Shenandoah Gardens (Owner)
1047 Dave Barry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
540 289 9750

 

 

Third year results, Fourth Corner Nurseries soil/biochar study

Last updated August 01, 2009

Third year results: Fourth Corner Nurseries Soil/Biochar Study
Richard Haard, Plant Propogationist, July 31, 2009

This study predates the coining of the term biochar and I claim grandfather rights to use the word charcoal.

Third year results, Fourth Corner Nurseries soil/biochar study

Summer 2009 Biochar plot studySummer 2009 Biochar plot studyresults are showing some trends I have had difficulty measuring with the last two years of cropping these plots. The use of buckwheat, a short season cover crop plant makes a visual view of performance reflecting nutrition, quite vivid. In spite of the dips in the plots due to deer browse.

This image is a merged sequence of pictures taken at same distance. Background may be confusing because of perspective. These plots are the first set, (south end), of treatments laid out in a systematic way. Results from the north set are similar and will be presented in a final poster

This plot study included: compost ( a wood based commercial compost of sewage solids)
charcoal 1 ( about 1/2 inch minus), charcoal 2 ( powder from John Flottvik's pyrolyser).
fertilizer: a complete, chemical fertilizer

These additives were only used once. In 2008 and 2007 all plots were given a light treatment of urea, none in 2009, although the early spring cover crop was legume.

Quirks shown in pictures: upper right dips in each of 3 plots due to deer browse. Bump in production in compost plot that is consistent with every year and a odd drop in plant height in fertilizer plus charcoal 2 plot. Also the soil analysis of the north set of plots is better than the south part, and this also shows in the charcoal 2 only plot at the north end of the south set.

This said there are some interesting trends showing in this third year of this experiment.

Compost is still showing benefit even after continuous cropping.

This year the strategy was to duplicate our farm soil management strategy of cover cropping after two years to build up organic matter and burn weed seed. First cover crop in March was vetch and fava bean. Buckwheat was planted immediately in May and will be tilled in within a few weeks to be replaced with another cover crop (oats or barley) before planting with transplanted native plants next spring.

The compost + charcoal and compost + fertilizer + charcoal plots are showing the best growth of all the plots. This to me is an indication of synergism or an additive effect of charcoal in combination with compost.

Fertilizer series. The first 2 years of cropping the benefit of fertilizer was shown. Now I am seeing a decline in production in these plots. The compost plus fertilizer plot mysteriously is not better than compost only.

Control set. Interesting that the growth in the charcoal 1 is less than the control. Perhaps indication the charcoal errr biochar is removing nutrients from the soil. As mentioned above charcoal 2 control set is in beginning of higher nutrition soil.

This image is original size that allows scrolling close up.
Here is an image that shows all plots full screen.

Rich Haard, Propagation Manager
Fourth Corner Nurseries
Bellingham, Washington

Third year results: Fourth Corner Nurseries Soil/Biochar Study

Last updated August 01, 2009

Third year results: Fourth Corner Nurseries Soil/Biochar Study
Richard Haard, Plant Propogationist, July 31, 2009

This study predates the coining of the term biochar and I claim grandfather rights to use the word charcoal.

Third year results, Fourth Corner Nurseries soil/biochar study

Summer 2009 Biochar plot study results are showing some trends I have had difficulty measuring with the last two years of cropping these plots. The use of buckwheat, a short season cover crop plant makes a visual view of performance reflecting nutrition, quite vivid. In spite of the dips in the plots due to deer browse.

This image is a merged sequence of pictures taken at same distance. Background may be confusing because of perspective. These plots are the first set, (south end), of treatments laid out in a systematic way. Results from the north set are similar and will be presented in a final poster

This plot study included: compost ( a wood based commercial compost of sewage solids)
charcoal 1 ( about 1/2 inch minus), charcoal 2 ( powder from John Flottvik's pyrolyser).
fertilizer: a complete, chemical fertilizer

These additives were only used once. In 2008 and 2007 all plots were given a light treatment of urea, none in 2009, although the early spring cover crop was legume.

Quirks shown in pictures: upper right dips in each of 3 plots due to deer browse. Bump in production in compost plot that is consistent with every year and a odd drop in plant height in fertilizer plus charcoal 2 plot. Also the soil analysis of the north set of plots is better than the south part, and this also shows in the charcoal 2 only plot at the north end of the south set.

This said there are some interesting trends showing in this third year of this experiment.

Compost is still showing benefit even after continuous cropping.

This year the strategy was to duplicate our farm soil management strategy of cover cropping after two years to build up organic matter and burn weed seed. First cover crop in March was vetch and fava bean. Buckwheat was planted immediately in May and will be tilled in within a few weeks to be replaced with another cover crop (oats or barley) before planting with transplanted native plants next spring.

The compost + charcoal and compost + fertilizer + charcoal plots are showing the best growth of all the plots. This to me is an indication of synergism or an additive effect of charcoal in combination with compost.

Fertilizer series. The first 2 years of cropping the benefit of fertilizer was shown. Now I am seeing a decline in production in these plots. The compost plus fertilizer plot mysteriously is not better than compost only.

Control set. Interesting that the growth in the charcoal 1 is less than the control. Perhaps indication the charcoal errr biochar is removing nutrients from the soil. As mentioned above charcoal 2 control set is in beginning of higher nutrition soil.

This image is original size that allows scrolling close up.
Here is an image that shows all plots full screen.

Rich Haard, Propagation Manager
Fourth Corner Nurseries
Bellingham, Washington

Effects of Varied Soil Composition (Char, Sand, Potting Mix) on the Growth of Radish Starts

Last updated March 10, 2009

Bear Kaufmann. Initially posted April 7, 2008. Updated August 5, 2008.


Images showing trial preparation and radish germination
(Select image to enlarge in Gallery.)

Materials/Methods

Char was Lazzari Brand mesquite BBQ char (due to availability), crushed and screened to 1/8".
No nutrients were added to the char itself or to the soil.
Soil was FoxFarm OceanForest Potting Soil.
Sand used was horticultural sand.
No mycorrhizal fungi were added.
Mixtures range from 0-100% sand, soil, and char in ~16% increments by volume. 90 pots total. 28 combinations with 3 pots each + 6 additional pots at 33%/33%/33% composition. Pots were placed randomly within the tray. Tray was rotated 180° occasionally.
Plants were watered daily by a drip irrigation system.
Plants were removed from pots ~1 month after first watering. Soil was rinsed from roots and roots were patted dry with a towel. Wet weight of roots+shoots was measured (Acculab VI-3mg, 0.001 g precision).

Box Plots Showing Effect of Composition Across Three Transects
Figure 1. Box Plots Showing Effect of Composition Across Three Transects

Figure 2. Pictures of Radishes at Important Compositions
Figure 2. Pictures of Radishes at Important Compositions

Results

Plant growth was stunted even for the best preforming plants, likely due to the small pot size. Leaf color varied across different compositions.
A mixture of 33% charcoal and 67% soil had the best growth (176% of pure soil). Aside from mixtures around this level (Figure 1b), high levels of charcoal showed a generally negative effect on plant growth (Figure 1c).

Discussion

The positive interaction effects of charcoal and soil (Figure 1a,1b) are interesting. Assuming charcoal itself provides no integral nutrients to the soil (eg. nitrogen), increasing amounts of charcoal reduce nutrients available from the soil mixture. The effects at 33% char/67% soil, however, show beneficial effects. This could be explained by increased mineralization rates caused by the charcoal causing soil nutrients to be more available to plants. Beyond 33%, the Cation Exchange Capacity of the charcoal may have held the nutrients produced by mineralization, making them less plant available. Since the charcoal was not amended/soaked in a nutrient bearing solution it likely had a low Base Saturation leading to adsorption of nutrients as they became available. Other potential explanations for increased growth along the soil/char transect include alterations to pH or limiting nutrients (eg potassium(?)) provided by the charcoal. The speculative mineralization/CECi model could also explain the effects seen along the sand/char transect. Here, since the sand lacks organic materials and bound nutrients for soil microorganisms to make plant available, the increasing unsaturated CEC may have made any nutrients less plant available.

Author: Bear Kaufmann bear at ursine-design.com

PINE NEEDLE CHARCOAL IN VILLAGE OF UTTARAKHAND INDIA

Last updated November 16, 2008

In Our state We are having 70% Forest .Mainly Pine forest in every summer it is cause of forest fire . We face huge loss of trees, properties and life too.This is cost to Forest department . We develop the method to convert pine needle into CHARCOAL BRIQUETTE. Which use as cooking fuel. Now they are not cutting the tree for fuel.Save the forest use this method. This low cost method. for rural area. Apart of that it is produce local emplyment. Get the chrcoal with cutting tree.Like  LANTANA,PINE NEEDLE.

Improving wheat production with deep banded Oil Mallee Charcoal in Western Australia

Last updated April 13, 2008

Improving wheat production with deep banded Oil Mallee Charcoal in Western Australia
Paul Blackwell1, Syd Shea2, Paul Storer3, Zakaria Solaiman4, Mike Kerkmans5, and Ian Stanley6
Agchar Initiative Conference Terrigal New South Wales. April 29 - May 2, 2007

SUMMARY
• There can be benefits to wheat income from deep banded oil mallee charcoal in the low rainfall areas of WA; the trials on acid sandy clay loam and acid sand in 2005 showed up to $96/ha additional gross income at wheat prices of $150/ha; especially when applied with mineral fertilisers and inoculated soil microbes. Much of the yield improvement can be explained by better grain survival, associated with reduced drought stress.

• There were encouraging effects of charcoal on arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) colonisation. Banded oil mallee charcoal improved AM colonisation of wheat roots by 3 fold, when used with mineral fertilisers and AM is inoculated with the seed in the acid sandy clay loam with a low population of indigenous AM. Early phosphorus uptake was not improved by AM colonisation; P supply from the soil and applied fertiliser was already adequate.

• AM colonisation in spring was related to effects of charcoal application on grain survival in inoculated mineral fertiliser treatments. This infers AM hyphae may have improved water supply to reduce drought stress and loss of grains in these treatments.

• The true economic value of oil mallee charcoal will be clearer when the cost of charcoal production and application is better known and long term effects of charcoal, especially with inoculated AMs and mineral fertilisers is better understood. The potential to achieve a commercial return from the sequestration of charcoal as an offset for carbon
dioxide emissions in broadscale agriculture will also help calculate true economic value.

• More research is worthwhile on the long term effects of incorporated charcoal in a range of soil conditions and seasons, from various sources and how low the banded charcoal rate needs to be to encourage better yields from mineral fertiliser with inoculated AM.

INTRODUCTION
Oil Mallees are the first native woody perennial species to be promoted as a commercial crop in the lower rainfall areas of the southwest land division of Western Australia, primarily stimulated by the need to ameliorate salinity caused by the clearing of native vegetation for agriculture (Bartle and Shea, 2002). Mallees are hardy plants that are well suited as a perennial crop through their ability to re-sprout from the large lignotuber after the above
ground mass has been lost through fire or harvesting. In 2000 a group of Oil Mallee growers from Kalannie (300 km NE of Perth, Western Australia) began producing eucalyptus oil for the Australian market (see the Oil Mallee Association www.oilmallee.com.au ). Integrated processing of mallee biomass to produce electricity, activated carbon and eucalyptus oil in a central processing facility has been the main emphasis of industry development since the late 1990’s. Western Power, Enecon and the Oil Mallee Company have successfully developed a ‘test of concept’ Integrated Wood Processing (IWP) plant at Narrogin. Bell and Bennett (2002) estimated that the NPV of the net benefit to landowners of planting mallees in a local catchment area to supply a 5MW IWP would be about $6.2 million over 20 years. Charcoal is a valuable by-product of such IWPs and a possible by-product of farm based distillation of eucalyptus oil.

It has become well recognised in Japan and some other parts of Asia that charcoal from forestry products and rice hull can stimulate indigenous soil microbial activity (Ogawa, 1994; Nishio, 1996). Charcoal has especially encouraged arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) which can help supply phosphorus symbiotically to many agricultural crops (Ogawa et al., 1983) and rhizobia, which can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere to supply leguminous plants (Nishio and Okano, 1991). Field experiments in Indonesia (Yamato et al. 2006) showed charcoal made from tree bark applied at 10 L/ha could increase the yield of maize by about 50%, to 15 t/ha, when added to 500 kg/ha of NPK (15:15:15) fertiliser on an acid highly weathered infertile tropical soil; associated with increased AM fungal colonisation. Lehmann and Rondon (2006)
also identify numerous benefits of bio char to plant nutrition and microbial activity in the humid tropics. Benefits of charcoal to soil microbial activity have also been recognised in temperate forest environments (Zakrisson et al. 1996; Pietikainen et al. 2000).

Charcoal seems to assist microbial activity by having a porosity that provides a favourable microhabitat, weak alkalinity and by being a substrate unfavourable for saprophytes (Saito and Marumoto, 2002). AM fungi easily extend their extraradical hyphae into charcoal buried in the soil and sporulate in the particles (Ogawa, 1987). Postma et al. (1990) show evidence that rhizobia in pores <50 _m are protected from predation by protozoan predators; this
could be an important microhabitat property provided by charcoal in soils with low clay content.

Encouragement and establishment of AM fungi in Western Australian soils has encountered many challenges. “The objective of identifying procedure for managing mycorrhizal fungi is more appropriately restated as managing conditions to suit the growth and activity of beneficial populations of mycorrhizal fungi” (Abbot and Gazey, 1994). Introduced AM fungi can suffer competition with indigenous AM fungi and be ineffective for crop phosphorus supply due to high levels of background soluble P (Gazey et al. 2004). Australian native grass species can also be much more efficient at accessing insoluble forms of phosphate than introduced wheat varieties; whose rhizosphere colonies can be very different (Marschner et al. 2006). This may be an adaptation to the low clay content environment of many Australian topsoils; low clay content reduces the amount of small pore space to help some microorganisms prosper. Charcoal in suitable amount and form may provide the missing microhabitat in WA topsoils to help introduced AM fungi and other microbes survive and colonise introduced agricultural crops.

One commercial fertiliser company (Western Mineral Fertilisers; Tenterden WA) has developed products which minimise the abundance of readily soluble phosphorus to encourage symbiotic and other processes of inoculated soil microbes. Zeolite was initially included and intended to provide enhanced ion exchange capacity, and also a micro habitat
within the zeolite pores; however the pore volume may not be sufficient. It was a reasonable hypothesis that charcoal addition may improve the microhabitat further than the use of zeolite.

The opportunity to test hypotheses about charcoal effects on soil and use of soil microbes to improve crop nutrient supply came about in 2005. There was an intensive research effort to examine the efficacy of very wide rows of wheat on shallow soils in the low rainfall areas east of Geraldton (Blackwell et al. 2006; Blackwell 2007). With some support and encouragement from the Oil Mallee Company and Western Mineral fertilisers we developed the following experiments using no-till methods for crop establishment and very wide rows to minimise drought stress. Attempts to follow the long-term effects at Pindar failed due to a very dry winter season in 2006.

See complete paper attached and at:http://www.oilmallee.com.au/pdf/Improving_wheat_prod.pdf
See oral presentation at:
http://www.iaiconference.org/images/Blackwell_-_Improving_Wheat_Production_with_Mallee_Charcoal.pdf

1Department of Agriculture and Food, Geraldton WA, 2 Oil Mallee Company of Australia, 3Western Mineral
Fertilisers, 4University of Western Australia, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, 5Oil Mallee
Association of WA, 6 "Bungadale", Kalannie , WA

Syndicate content