Sugar Tech (Oct-Dec 2012) 14(4):321–326

DOI 10.1007/s12355-012-0158-9

MINI REVIEW

Utilization of Biochar in Sugarcane and Sugar-Industry

Management
R. G. Quirk • L. Van Zwieten • S. Kimber •

A. Downie • S. Morris • J. Rust

Received: 7 May 2012 / Accepted: 1 June 2012 / Published online: 28 July 2012
Ó Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2012

Abstract The sugarcane industry in many parts of the urea-fertilised soil when bagasse biochar was applied at a
world produces food and energy (stationary and fuel). The rate of 10 t/ha. The agronomic performance of biochar is
industry is well positioned to offer greenhouse gas abate- being assessed in a 15 plot trial conducted on a sugar cane
ment and climate change mitigation. The thermal conver- property in the Tweed Valley, NSW. Biochars (from non-
sion, via a slow pyrolysis process, of cane residues such as sugarcane sources) were tested using relevant controls.
green harvest trash and bagasse can produce thermal or Each plot consists of 3 rows of cane and was 30 m in
electrical energy as well as biochar. Studies have shown length to enable commercial-scale harvesting. Although no
that a commercial slow pyrolysis unit could generate over significant effects in yield have been recorded this trial is
1 MWhr of electricity from every two tonnes of trash (dry expected to continue for several more seasons allowing
basis), with a biochar recover of between 31.3–33.6 %. additional data on yield effects to be evaluated. Our work
Due to its highly stable nature, biochar has recently been has demonstrated that implementing slow pyrolysis and
suggested as a sequestration pathway to remove CO2 from biochar utilisation in the sugarcane industry has potential to
the atmosphere. One tonne of bagasse derived biochar provide (1) renewable energy (2) income from waste (3)
would sequester in the order of 2.3 tonnes of CO2 equiv- climate mitigation through stabilisation of carbon and (4)
alents. In addition to C sequestration, biochar has other climate mitigation through reduced emission of N2O from
significant benefits (when used as a soil amendment) such soil. Further research is required to demonstrate agronomic
as offering improved soil quality, higher CEC and nutrient benefits of sugarcane biochars and to develop an under-
availability, and improved soil physical characteristics. standing of how they may address soil constraints in these
This work demonstrates that biochar application can reduce systems.
emissions of greenhouse gases from cane soils, such as
nitrous oxide. Biochars derived from cane trash and Keywords Biochar
Pyrolysis
Energy
Soil fertility

bagasse were applied in incubation studies to soils from the Greenhouse gas (GHG)
Burdekin region in Australia. We found declines in emis-
sions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O), from
Introduction

R. G. Quirk Anthropogenic enhancement of soil by the application of

Duranbah, NSW 2487, Australia charcoal has been implemented for several thousand years.
e-mail: [email protected]
The Terra Preta—dark earth—soils of the Amazon (Glaser
L. Van Zwieten (&)
S. Kimber
S. Morris
J. Rust et al. 2001) highlight the possibilities of biochar amend-
NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wollongbar, ment as these soils maintain very high fertility long after
NSW 2477, Australia application whilst surrounding soils remain poor.
e-mail: [email protected]
Black carbon manufactured through pyrolysis of bio-
A. Downie mass has become known as ‘biochar’ (Lehmann et al.
Pacific Pyrolysis, Somersby, NSW 2250, Australia 2006). A wide range of biomass sources have been used to

123
322 Sugar Tech (Oct-Dec 2012) 14(4):321–326

make biochar, including: woody materials, agricultural and that it can offer both food production and energy produc-
food wastes (Demirbas 2004; Ioannidou and Zabaniotou tion in the form of fuels (first and second generation), and
2007), greenwaste (Chan et al. 2007) animal manures stationary energy from crop residues such as lignin wastes,
(Chan et al. 2008) and wastes from the papermill industry bagasse and trash. It provides these products without
(Van Zwieten et al. 2010). The application of biochar to increasing the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmo-
soil can improve soil quality and plant growth (Chan et al. sphere. Climate change mitigation can be achieved through
2007, 2008) and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases both displacing fossil fuels, as well as the conversion of
(GHGs) in particular nitrous oxide (Yanai et al. 2007; Van labile organic carbon into very stable organic carbon
Zwieten et al. 2009). Furthermore, biochar is protected (biochar) that is used as a soil amendment.
from rapid microbial degradation enabling the carbon Recent work has demonstrated sugarcane residues can
stored in biochar to remain for hundreds of years (Lehmann generate energy in the form of electricity through com-
et al. 2006; Krull et al. 2009). bustion of the syngas (methane, hydrogen and carbon
There are a wide range of technologies that are capable monoxide) in a gas Engine (Table 1).
of making biochar products. These include slow and fast The ultimate analysis (Australian Standards 1038.6.3.3
pyrolysis, carbonisation, charcoal retorts and gasification. method) revealed that the molar H/C ratio of feedstock was
Slow pyrolysis typically utilises a kiln that is heated 1.50 and 1.45 for the trash and bagasse respectively, and
externally to achieve temperatures of around 500 °C with a this reduced to 0.45 for trash biochar and 0.43 for bagasse
residence time of the biomass at this temperature around biochar. This indicates the disproportional loss of hydrogen
30 min (Brown 2009). Slow pyrolysis yields two key as the carbon forms more stable, conjugated aromatic
products, biochar and syngas, although some systems may structures. In a review by Krull et al. (2009), it is suggested
also yield pyrolysis oil. The syngas is a combustible mix- temperatures above 400 °C form chars with H/C ratios
ture of methane, hydrogen and carbon monoxide which can below 0.5, demonstrate aromaticity and maturation. In
be used to generate the heat required to dry and pyrolyse recent work by Kuzyakov et al. (2009), biochars made at
the biomass, with surplus gas being available to generate temperatures of 400 °C were shown to have a turnover rate
renewable energy, such as electricity (Downie et al. 2007). of around 2000 years. The sugarcane waste biochars in this
Recent work by Gaunt and Lehmann (2008) used a life current study were produced at higher temperature
cycle assessment approach to assess systems designed (although lower residence time). Therefore it can be
solely for energy production and compared these to pyro- expected that when applied in soil, they will remain there
lysis which produced both energy and biochar. Their for many hundreds of years, highlighting their climate
findings show that the avoided emissions of GHGs are change mitigation potential.
between 2 and 5 times greater when biochar is applied to Trash biochar had high levels of total K (Table 2), while
agricultural land (2–19 t CO2 ha-1 year-1) than used levels of this mineral were lower in the bagasse biochar. In
solely for fossil energy offsets. Between 41 and 64 % of combustion systems like traditional co-generation facili-
these emission reductions were credited to the retention of ties, alkali compounds such as potassium foul heat transfer
C in biochar, the rest to offsetting fossil fuel use for energy, surfaces, participate in slag formation in grate-fired units
fertilizer savings, and avoided soil emissions other than and contribute to the formation of fluidized bed agglom-
CO2. Despite a reduction in energy output of approxi- erates (Turn et al. 1997). The concentrations of potassium
mately 30 % where the slow pyrolysis technology was in bagasse feedstock are not significant; however, con-
optimized to produce biochar for land application, the centrations in the cane trash would certainly contribute to
energy produced per unit energy input at 2–7 MJ/MJ is
greater than that of comparable technologies such as eth-
anol from corn. Additionally, this work by Gaunt and Table 1 Conversion of sugarcane waste into biochar and energy
Lehmann (2008) showed that C emissions per MWh of
Feedstock Biochar Syngas energy Electricity
electricity production range from 91 to 360 kg CO2 yield (dry produced MW/ production (MWhr/
MWh-1. Before accounting for C offset due to the use of basis) % tonne dry feed) tonne dry feed)
biochar, this figure is considerably lower than the lifecycle
Sugarcane trash 33.6 1.33 0.5
emissions associated with fossil fuel use for electricity
Bagasse 31.3 1.35 0.5
generation (600–900 kg CO2 MWh-1).
Pyrolysed (in a batch reactor) at a highest heating temperature of
Slow-Pyrolysis and the Sugar Industry 550 °C with mean residence time at this temperate of 40 min and a
heating rate of 5 °C/min. The electricity output is based on the use of
a gas engine at 37 % conversion efficiency. It should be noted that
Globally, the requirements of food and energy are larger scale applications may use gas or steam cycle turbines with
increasing. The sugarcane industry is well positioned, in differing conversion efficiencies

123
Sugar Tech (Oct-Dec 2012) 14(4):321–326 323

Table 2 Chemical analysis of feedstocks and biochars

Trash feedstock Bagasse feedstock Trash biochar Bagasse biochar

EC dS/m na na 4.8 0.18

pH (CaCl2) pH units na na 9.6 8.4
Bray 1 phosphorus mg/kg na na 250 67
KCl extractable ammonium-N mg/kg 20 16 0.73 2.2
KCl extractable Nitrate-N mg/kg 7.5 10 \0.20 \0.20
Total nitrogen % 0.61 0.64 1.2 1.1
Total potassium % 0.64 0.14 2 0.25
Total phosphorus % 0.074 0.17 0.25 0.22
Total carbon % 41 38 68 65
Exchangeable cations
Aluminium cmol(?)/kg na na \0.03 \0.03
Calcium cmol(?)/kg na na 6.4 2.1
Potassium cmol(?)/kg na na 27 0.94
Magnesium cmol(?)/kg na na 5.3 0.25
Sodium cmol(?)/kg na na 0.9 0.25
CEC cmol(?)/kg na na 40 3.5
Calcium/magnesium ratio na na 1.2 8.5
Acid neutralising capacity % CaCO2 na na 4.6 1.1
Molar H/C ratio 1.50 1.45 0.45 0.43

fouling. These fouling problems are overcome through the including CEC however can not be fully predicted, and field
use of slow pyrolysis. In addition, potassium, an important assessments are necessary.
sugarcane nutrient, is recycled with an almost 100 % It has been estimated that over 2.5 MT of unutilised
efficiency back into the biochar for soil application. biomass exists in the Australian sugarcane industry every
Both biochars have small amounts of plant available P year (Bernard Milford pers comm.). This waste biomass
(Bray P), but negligible plant available N. The trash bio- could generate around 140 MWhrs of electricity if pro-
char has a CEC of 40 cmol(?)/kg, much higher than the cessed via slow pyrolysis, and close to 855,000 t biochar.
bagasse biochar from these analysis or other CECs reported Putting numbers into perspective, this would equate to ca.
in the literature (Van Zwieten et al. 2010; Chan et al. 2007, 350,000 t avoided CO2 emissions through offsetting fossil
2008). This highlights their potential to be applied in fuels, and around 2 MT CO2 equivalents locked up in soil.
conjunction with fertilisers to enhance fertiliser use An average motor vehicle travelling about 20,000 km per
efficiency. year emits an equivalent of 5.2 t CO2 (US EPA 2000). This
The trash biochar had an acid neutralising capacity of would equate to offsetting emissions from around 500,000
4.6 % compared to agricultural lime. Previous research on motor vehicles.
biochar from papermill residues has demonstrated that
much of this acid neutralising capacity from biochar comes Reduction of Non-CO2 GHG Emissions from Soil
from Ca complexes on the surface, such as hydroxides,
oxides and carbonates (Van Zwieten et al. 2010). Climate change caused by an increase in atmospheric con-
Many of the biochar trials undertaken have used values of centrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is predicted to cause
10 t/ha application rate. This equates roughly to 1 % w/w catastrophic impacts (IPCC 2007). Human-influenced sour-
assuming incorporation into the 0–10 cm soil profile. ces of nitrous oxide (N2O) contributed 3GT CO2e (carbon
Applications of this rate would be equivalent to increasing dioxide equivalents), around 8 % of global emissions, in
soil carbon from a hypothetical value of 2.0 % to close to 2004. It was estimated that agriculture was responsible for
2.5 % carbon, assuming a bulk density of 1.5 g/cm3. The 42 % of this total (Denman et al. 2007). Sources for N2O
application (of trash biochar) would be equivalent to a emissions from soils include application of N fertilizers,
200 kg application of K, which would satisfy the K biological N fixation and excreta of grazing animals. A range
requirement of the crop, as well as a minor addition of P. pH of factors influence the emission of N2O from soil including
of soil would increase similarly to an application of around N application rate, crop type, fertilizer type, soil organic C
460 kg agricultural lime. The effects on soil fertility content, soil pH and texture (Dalal et al. 2003).

123
324 Sugar Tech (Oct-Dec 2012) 14(4):321–326

Soil is both a significant source and sink for the green-

house gases nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4).
Emissions from some sugarcane soils in Australia have
shown very significant production of nitrous oxide (21 %
of applied N converted to N2O) (Denmead et al. 2008). A
total of 45.9 kg N/ha was emitted from a northern NSW
sugarcane farm in the season following application of
160 kg N fertiliser. As the global warming potential of
N2O is 298 greater than the equivalent mass of CO2 in the
atmosphere (Forster et al. 2007), this equated to emissions
of 43 t CO2e/ha. Hence, small reductions in emissions
could potentially provide a significant contribution towards
climate mitigation.
Recent work by Van Zwieten et al. (2009) has demon-
strated the potential for biochar to reduce emissions of N2O
from soil. Current work using soils from the Burdekin
region (sugarcane growing) in Queensland, Australia, and
bagasse and trash biochars are demonstrating very signifi- Fig. 1 The production of nitrous oxide from control and bagasse
biochar amended soils incubated with and without nitrogen
cant potential for reducing emissions of this potent GHG
amendment
from soil.
Experimental microcosms containing soils derived from
the Burdekin cane region in Queensland, Australia were
used to demonstrate the GHG reduction potential of bio-
char. Soils were amended with biochars derived from dif-
ferent feed-stocks (trash, in field juicer residue, bagasse
and mill mud) to a rate of 10 t/ha equivalent, and compared
to control (unamended) soil. Nitrogen was applied at either
0 or 165 kg/ha to all treatments. The atmosphere in the
microcosms was analysed at days 1, 2, 4, 7 and 14. The
microcosms were flooded at day 21, and the atmosphere
was sampled again at days 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 35, 42 and
49. Results for nitrous oxide emissions from the bagasse
and trash biochars are depicted in Figs. 1 and 2 respec-
tively. The control soil lost 0.26 % of total nitrogen as N2O
in the 28 days following flooding. This rose to 0.72 %
when 165 kg/ha of N as urea was added. All of the N loss
as N2O was following flooding.
Incorporation of either biochar into the system effectively
Fig. 2 The production of nitrous oxide from control and trash
reduced N2O production to nil in the unfertilised soils. In the biochar amended soils incubated with and without nitrogen
fertilised soil bagasse biochar significantly reduced N2O amendment
emissions (0.54 % of total N) compared to both control
(0.72 %) and trash biochar (0.88 %) amended soils. the blocking factor. Treatments included; control (standard
farming practice), papermill biochar at 5 t/ha, council
Field Assessment of Biochar in Sugarcane greenwaste biochar at 5 t/ha, council greenwaste biochar at
10 t/ha and lime (1.5 t/ha). Note the chemical properties of
A field trial testing biochar was set up on the Tweed Valley these biochars are different to the properties of the sugar-
northern NSW. Plots were 30 m long and contain three cane derived biochars shown in the previous section.
rows of cane. The outside rows of the cane were used as Yield from the first season (2008) following planting is
buffers, and the inside row was used for soil analyses, GHG shown in Table 3. Yield measurements were assessed
emissions testing and yield data. At the ends of each row, using standard commercial harvesting equipment, and
an additional 2 m buffer was used between plots. Treat- weights of bins were recorded at the completion of each
ments were allocated to experimental units in a randomised 30 m harvest length. Although no significant differences
complete block design using the three rows of five plots as were seen with yield or leaf nutrient analysis in the first

123
Sugar Tech (Oct-Dec 2012) 14(4):321–326 325

Table 3 Yield (kg fresh weight) from field plots in 2008 mitigation options: A review. Australian Journal of Soil
Research 41: 165–195.
Treatment Yield (kg) SD N in leaf tissue SD Demirbas, A. 2004. Effects of temperature and particle size on bio-
(% dry matter) char yield from pyrolysis of agricultural residues. Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 72: 243–248.
Papermill biochar 5 t/ha 433 28 2.13 0.05 Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E.
Greenwaste biochar 5 t/ha 450 100 2.13 0.05 Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U.
Greenwaste biochar 10 t/ha 416 76 2.10 0.1 Lohmann, S. Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy,
and X. Zhang. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate
Control 433 76 2.00 0.05
system and biogeochemistry. In Climate change 2007: The
Lime 1.5 t/ha 416 76 2.00 0.10 physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, eds. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen,
Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L.
harvest, these trials are expected to continue until 2012, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
with annual harvesting. It is well recognised that the ben- Denmead, O.T., B.C.T. Macdonald, T. Naylor, W. Wand, B. Salter, I.
efits of biochar application on crop yield may not be White, S. Wilson, D.W.T. Griffith, and P. Moody. 2008. Whole
expected immediately, but develop over time as soil CEC of season greenhouse gas emissions from Australian sugarcane
soils. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane
increases upon biochar oxidation (Chan and Xu 2009). Technologists 30: 105–114.
Downie, A., Klatt, P., Downie, R., and P. Munroe. 2007. Slow
pyrolysis: Australian demonstration plant successful on multi-
Conclusion feedstocks. In Bioenergy 2007 Conference. Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W.
Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga,
The research and trials to-date have shown the slow pyrolysis R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz, and R. Van Dorland. 2007.
of sugar cane bagasse and cane trash will provide the energy Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In
to generate 1 MWe for each 2 tonnes of material on a dry Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
basis. The research also shows that much of the nutrient Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. Solomon, S.,
value of trash/bagasse is retained in the pyrolysed product. Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B.,
This biochar can be returned to the fields as carbon for long Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
term carbon sequestration and in the future, carbon credits. A Press.
Gaunt, J.L., and J. Lehmann. 2008. Energy balance and emissions
significant reduction in the emissions of nitrous oxide and associated with biochar sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy
other GHG’s from agricultural lands following the applica- production. Environmental Science and Technology 42:
tion of varying biochar, product is reported. 4152–4158.
Glaser, B., L. Haumaier, G. Guggenberger, and W. Zech. 2001. The
Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the efforts and ‘Terra Preta’ phenomenon: A model for sustainable agriculture
contribution of Richmond Land Care Inc. and the Burdekin Bowen in the humid tropics. Naturwissenschaften 88: 37–41.
Integrated Floodplain Management Advisory Committee in support- Ioannidou, O., and A. Zabaniotou. 2007. Agricultural residues as
ing the project. The Australian Government is acknowledged for their precursors for activated carbon production—A review. Renew-
support by providing funding (NR08-11) through their Caring For able Sustainable Energy Review 11: 1966–2005.
Our Country projects (NR08-11). IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. 2006
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Hayama,
Japan. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/
References 2006gl/index.html.
Krull, E.S., Baldock, J.A., Skjemstad, J.O., and R.J. Smernik. 2009.
Brown, R. 2009. Biochar production technology. In Biochar for Characteristics of biochar: Organo-chemical properties. In
environmental management: Science and technology, eds. Leh- Biochar for environmental management, eds. Lehmann, J.,
mann, J., Joseph, S. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. ISBN: Joseph, S., 53–65. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. ISBN:
9781844076581. 9781844076581.
Chan, K.Y., L. Van Zwieten, I. Meszaros, A. Downie, and S. Joseph. Kuzyakov, Y., I. Subbotina, H. Chen, I. Bogomolova, and X. Xu.
2007. Agronomic values of greenwaste biochar as a soil 2009. Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil
amendment. Australian Journal of Soil Research 45: 629–634. microbial biomass estimated by 14C labelling. Soil Biology &
Chan, K.Y., L. Van Zwieten, I. Meszaros, A. Downie, and S. Joseph. Biochemistry 41: 210–219.
2008. Using poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Austra- Lehmann, J., J. Gaunt, and M. Rondon. 2006. Bio-char sequestration
lian Journal of Soil Research 46: 437–444. in terrestrial ecosystems—A review. Mitigation and Adaptation
Chan, K.Y., and Z. Xu. 2009. Biochar: Nutrients properties and their Strategies for Global Change 11: 403–427.
enhancement. In Biochar for environmental management, eds. Turn, S.Q., C.M. Kinoshita, and D.M. Ishimura. 1997. Removal of
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 67–84. London: Earthscan Publications inorganic constituents of biomass feedstocks by mechanical
Ltd. ISBN: 9781844076581. dewatering and leaching. Biomass and Bioenergy 12: 241–252.
Dalal, R.C., W.J. Wang, G.P. Robertson, and W.J. Parton. 2003. US EPA. 2000. Office of Transportation and Air Quality NVFEL
Nitrous oxide emission from Australian agricultural lands and Library, Traverwood Crive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

123
326 Sugar Tech (Oct-Dec 2012) 14(4):321–326

Van Zwieten, L., Bhupinderpal Singh, Joseph, S., Kimber, S., Cowie, slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance
A., and Y. Chan. 2009. Biochar reduces emissions of non-CO2 and soil fertility. Plant and Soil 327: 235–246.
GHG from soil. In Biochar for environmental management, eds. Yanai, Y., K. Toyota, and M. Okazaki. 2007. Effects of charcoal
Lehmann J., Joseph S., 227–249. London: Earthscan Publica- addition on N2O emissions from soil resulting from rewetting
tions Ltd. ISBN: 9781844076581. air-dried soil in short-term laboratory experiments. Soil Science
Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Morris, S., Chan, Y.K., Downie, A., and Plant Nutrition 53: 181–188.
Rust, J., Joseph, S., and A. Cowie. 2010. Effects of biochar from

123