Ron Henry(who profits off you applying it) recommends monthly applications as long as the ground isn’t frozen. I think he even said to apply as much as your bank account can handle. I may be paraphrasing a little.
I think if you omitted it completely you wouldn’t know the difference except a larger bank account.

 

Ron Henry(who profits off you applying it) recommends monthly applications as long as the ground isn’t frozen.

Why do you say that? Does Ron Henry have part ownership of Site One or Lesco now? I know that Ron used to recommend Carbon Pro G and feature it in his videos a few years ago but he seems to have moved on to other products since then.

 

I have not seen any improvement with the use of expensive fertilizers that report to add carbon, chicken poop, or whatever to the formula. I have also not seen any poor results from not using them. For me, I get a balanced formula locally from my big box store for a quarter the price per pound of NPK and ignore all the hype with expensive brands. Feed the turf and it will create organic matter through root cycling. I prefer to spend my lawn budget on decent equipment, pre-emergents, and good pest controls.

 

How much Carbon does your soil need? Do you know of a soil test that recommends it? I’m just trying to point out that you are applying stuff to your lawn that doesn’t really do anything positive and your money could be spent better elsewhere.

 

You may be right about homeowners not knowing exactly how much to apply, but studies seem to show it has quite a positive impact on landscapes. A fact sheet from Washington State Univ. mentions these as some of the benefits:

• raising soil pH
• retaining nutrients that might otherwise leach
• binding up bad heavy metals
• helping beneficial microbes
• lowering levels of bad bacteria
• improving aeration
• helping retain moisture

In addition, because biochar can remain in the soil for centuries, it can a permanent positive impact on soil structure. In fact, I would think that applying biochar regularly would make it less necessary to apply as much other nutrients to the lawn over the long term, thereby saving money in the long run.

I have not seen any improvement with the use of expensive fertilizers that report to add carbon, chicken poop, or whatever to the formula. I have also not seen any poor results from not using them. For me, I get a balanced formula locally from my big box store for a quarter the price per pound of NPK and ignore all the hype with expensive brands. Feed the turf and it will create organic matter through root cycling. I prefer to spend my lawn budget on decent equipment, pre-emergents, and good pest controls.

I think the idea is that biochar makes it less necessary to add as much NPK over time because it's a permanent fix to the soil structure. I understand that there are lawn treatment gimmicks out there that just waste money, but my impression was that biochar is the real deal. BTW, last time I bought Carbon Pro-G a few years ago, it was $25/40lb.bag, so it wasn't terribly expensive.

 

I am not saying BioChar or any of the other humic/Carbon products are bad for your lawn/soil but there isn't anything out there stating how much you should add to your soil to get the results that you are looking for. There are a lot of catch words in that document you posted also that state "can" which to me means it may or may not do anything. Also, doing some math, 1 cu/ft of soil weighs roughly 100lbs, given that fact. 1,000 sq/ft of soil at 6 inches deep weighs around 50,000 lbs(100 x 1000 ÷ 2). So in order to get just 1% of the soil as Carbon/Biochar you would need to apply 500 lbs of product and at $25/40lbs you would need 12.5 bags which would cost you $312+tax for every 1,000 sq/ft of lawn you have. I understand that you wouldn't be applying this all at once so the cost would be spread out over time but if you are applying 10lbs/K at a time you would need 50 applications which is a little over 4 years if you are applying it monthly all year long. I'm just curious at what % of saturation do you start gaining the so called benefits of this stuff.

I haven't seen any evidence otherwise that would say this stuff works any better than the traditional NPK + Soil test method that has been used successfully for decades.

Edit I forgot to factor in that most of these Humic/Carbon/Biochar products are not 100% AI so you must factor that into the equation also.

 

I am not saying BioChar or any of the other humic/Carbon products are bad for your lawn/soil but there isn't anything out there stating how much you should add to your soil to get the results that you are looking for. There are a lot of catch words in that document you posted also that state "can" which to me means it may or may not do anything. Also, doing some math, 1 cu/ft of soil weighs roughly 100lbs, given that fact. 1,000 sq/ft of soil at 6 inches deep weighs around 50,000 lbs(100 x 1000 ÷ 2). So in order to get just 1% of the soil as Carbon/Biochar you would need to apply 500 lbs of product and at $25/40lbs you would need 12.5 bags which would cost you $312+tax for every 1,000 sq/ft of lawn you have. I understand that you wouldn't be applying this all at once so the cost would be spread out over time but if you are applying 10lbs/K at a time you would need 50 applications which is a little over 4 years if you are applying it monthly all year long. I'm just curious at what % of saturation do you start gaining the so called benefits of this stuff.

I haven't seen any evidence otherwise that would say this stuff works any better than the traditional NPK + Soil test method that has been used successfully for decades.

Edit I forgot to factor in that most of these Humic/Carbon/Biochar products are not 100% AI so you must factor that into the equation also.

I think you would be better just getting 312 bucks in 1 dollar bills and shredding it and dumping it every 1000 sq ft.

Then some guy would come a long and claim you get better results with 20-dollar bills...

 

Alright, since there seem to be some anti-biochar sentiments floating around in this thread, I'll leave these links here for people to make up their own minds (testing has been done to a variety of vegetation types and is ongoing). As for me, I would consider it a great addition for landscapes for long-term health if one has the budget - not to replace nutrients, but to reduce as much need for them over time. For me, cost is the only real downside (which is why I have only tried CP-G and not Humichar).

• Effects of biochar on waterlogging and the associated change in micro-ecological environment of maize rhizosphere soil in saline-alkali land - "Biochar addition reduces pH, lower bulk density, higher soil organic carbon, increased available nitrogen and available phosphorus, greater relative abundance of eutrophic bacteria, and stronger activities of microbial secretase in the soil."
• Biochar helps hold water, saves money - "In one comprehensively studied plot of sandy soil operated by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Agricultural Water Management Network, Kroeger calculated a specific water savings of 37.9% for soil amended with biochar. Her figures included average rainfall and irrigation levels for the summer of 2019."
• Biochar nearly doubles peanut yield in student’s research - "...biochar neutralized the soil’s acidity, enhanced the soil’s moisture retention, and increased crop growth."
• The Pros and Cons of Biochar in Horticulture - "Biochar reduces fertilizer runoff and potentially reduces fertilizer needs. Most importantly, biochar stores carbon for centuries."
• Innovation at Work: Breaking ground on next-generation agricultural markets - "The potential for the biochar market in the United States is vast, said ARTi Project Manager Melany Estrella said. Biochar can serve farmers with fields measured in hundreds of acres, but it can also benefit gardeners and landscapers working on a much smaller scale."

 

Alright, since there seem to be some anti-biochar sentiments floating around in this thread, I'll leave these links here for people to make up their own minds (testing has been done to a variety of vegetation types and is ongoing). As for me, I would consider it a great addition for landscapes for long-term health if one has the budget - not to replace nutrients, but to reduce as much need for them over time. For me, cost is the only real downside (which is why I have only tried CP-G and not Humichar).

• Effects of biochar on waterlogging and the associated change in micro-ecological environment of maize rhizosphere soil in saline-alkali land - "Biochar addition reduces pH, lower bulk density, higher soil organic carbon, increased available nitrogen and available phosphorus, greater relative abundance of eutrophic bacteria, and stronger activities of microbial secretase in the soil."
• Biochar helps hold water, saves money - "In one comprehensively studied plot of sandy soil operated by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Agricultural Water Management Network, Kroeger calculated a specific water savings of 37.9% for soil amended with biochar. Her figures included average rainfall and irrigation levels for the summer of 2019."
• Biochar nearly doubles peanut yield in student’s research - "...biochar neutralized the soil’s acidity, enhanced the soil’s moisture retention, and increased crop growth."
• The Pros and Cons of Biochar in Horticulture - "Biochar reduces fertilizer runoff and potentially reduces fertilizer needs. Most importantly, biochar stores carbon for centuries."
• Innovation at Work: Breaking ground on next-generation agricultural markets - "The potential for the biochar market in the United States is vast, said ARTi Project Manager Melany Estrella said. Biochar can serve farmers with fields measured in hundreds of acres, but it can also benefit gardeners and landscapers working on a much smaller scale."

Pretty sure the mac daddy has gone over this:

- this is the short answer. The research isn't clear.

Aside: Didn't realize this is an old thread. Sorry for responding to this.

 

I would be all aboard the biochar train if I could buy a yard of it for 100 bucks. But 20-40 bucks for a 40-50 pound bag is out of my price point.
I bet it works well, but the amount you have to put down and the price they charge for the stuff is not reasonable.

 

Nobody ever talks about the downsides of biochar. It's always, it could maybe do this, it could maybe do that if you apply a dump truck load of it to your yard every year. That second article you posted @Phids shows the water savings but never states how much biochar they applied or how much that cost them to temporarily change the soil structure.

It has it's drawbacks and it should not be recommended everywhere. A great point by @Mightyquinn saying that there isn't a soil test recommending biochar besides maybe some of the online ones that are selling you their magic products instead of NPK. Look at some of the drawbacks and calculate how much NPK and/or better ingredients of NPK for your lawn that you could apply. Or look at it like if I don't apply this $70 worth of biochar that I don't know what I'm going to get out of it, I could irrigate $70 worth of water and not stress the plant out during a drought period.

 

@Phids I stand corrected, I read the actual study about the water savings claim. These are the rates they applied their biochar.
Low rate - 92lbs per 1000 sq ft
Medium rate - 501lbs per 1000 sq ft
High rate - 1024lbs per 1000 sq ft

So at the low rate you are having to apply $50 per 1000 sq ft. No thanks!

 

So at the low rate you are having to apply $50 per 1000 sq ft. No thanks!

But that's just considering the water savings benefit, among the other benefits. However, your point about the cost is still a good one, and is probably why it's not more widely used now. I did read about some other drawbacks, such as performance possibly being affected by the source of the biochar (shells, wood, etc.). It does seem like there is quite a lot of ongoing research being done, including ways to increase its positive benefits to the soil. I suspect as more long-term studies are completed, we'll see more manufacturers for residential lawns creating better products with biochar at lower prices.

 

I agree that it will be interesting what research will say. The amount of biochar needed to get the water savings is an astronomical amount for a lawn. Maybe if it doesn't take much to help nutrient uptake then it could be helpful. The more economical thing to do is to throw small amounts of npk out at a time so the grass uses it all instead of it leaching.

 

It may work, but I do think YouTubers and companies are overinflating the results to sell a cheap product to manufacture at high prices.

 

I am guilty of falling for the hype of lots of products out there especially early in my lawn care craziness. If you don’t ask yourself is this really working for the $$$ I am spending you are just blindly throwing money at a perceived problem. You can’t prove a negative though. Once you add any it along with a myriad of other products how do you know which if any have helped? I look at all the humic acid, micros, soil conditioners and other products I have thrown down or sprayed and once I stopped and did the math like above I knew that it would make zero difference for the little amounts used. The same goes for all these micronutrients as well. We are shown before and after pictures but those can be enhanced easily to sell a product. Learned this from years of car care. I test the soil yearly to make sure nothing is too out of whack. Fertilize, cut, aerate and overseed as needed. I don’t bag the grass and mulch the leaves. Weed/pest control is fine tuned to your needs. I believe that if it came from the ground it should go back in. One lesson to take away from all this, if there was a “best” we would all be doing it. There are a myriad of opinions and products out there, all wanting you to join them in a quest for a “perfect” lawn.

 

I am guilty of falling for the hype of lots of products out there especially early in my lawn care craziness. If you don’t ask yourself is this really working for the $$$ I am spending you are just blindly throwing money at a perceived problem.

This gets into the philosophy of lawncare and what your goals are. For me, it would ideally be to have my lawn more or less on "cruise control" over the long term so that I could have good results on minimal inputs, regardless of season, dryspells, etc. Sure, I could dump nitrogen or iron onto my lawn and get a quick fix for a nice-looking lawn in any given week, but that could cause problems down the road, causing me to buy other things to fix it. It just seems to me that fixing the soil is probably a wiser investment long term than only treating the grass itself.

 

60 year landscape veteran here. Biochar works. Started using this 4 years ago on the worst clay soil imaginable in East Tennessee. I apply in the Spring and again late Summer and have reduced fertilizer applications to easily pay for the carbon. My Site One guy said to put down the char two weeks before applying fertilizer, but I have been applying them at the same time for convenience. The results have been very good. I am convinced it works.

 

I'm assuming since you are a 60 year landscape veteran which would make you around 75 years old? You would know how the scientific method works and would have separated off a control area where you didn't put the biochar down and kept the normal program you were on to see what the difference was instead of just a seasonal change, right? Tell us how that went. Thanks!

 

I think all these companies have muddied the playing field with all their marketing of their products since there isn't a huge profit margin in Urea, these companies need to come up with some kind of new gimmick to sell products and right now it's all this Humic/Carbon BS they are pushing. I haven't seen any scientific literature that says that this stuff is worth the cost or that it even works. I think you have to learn the difference between marketing and facts as they are usually never the same.

 

It seems that more folks are starting to do research on this. Here’s an article from a professor at UFL reviewing plant quality w and w/out humic in N applications. It finds that plants fertilized w N and humic, reduced N rates were necessary to maintain a high plant quality rating and it created less clippings at the same time thereby reducing the need for mowing frequency. The authors note that there have been other studies which they reference that have both had similar and different results based on application processes. It’s not too long and and fairly interesting read. I bet we’ll be learning a lot more on these products in the coming years.

Evaluation of Humic Fertilizers Applied at Full and Reduced Nitrogen Rates on Kentucky Bluegrass Quality and Soil Health

Soil health and sustainable management practices have garnered much interest within the turfgrass industry. Among the many practices that enhance soil health and sustainability are applying soil additives to enhance soil biological activity and reducing nitrogen (N) inputs—complimentary...

www.mdpi.com

 

Right, maybe I can cut my spending on N in half and get the same results, but if I'm doing that by spending 10X to put down a bunch of humic...

 

For me it's 2 applications of biochar and one or two of NPK. Not much expense there.

 

Considering the medium rate of 500 lbs/M of biochar, each bag of carbonprog comes with 42% of biochar, 1250 lbs of carbonprog to get the medium rate, 40 lbs bags so 31 bags. 31x U$ 33 =~ U$1020. It may last forever, but the cost doesn't make sense to me. Sorry for my ignorance, but wouldn't charcoal be the same thing as biochar?

https://www.soilfixer.co.uk/biochar-versus-charcoal

Looks like it is.
I thought about crushing charcoal but never put the time and effort to find a simple easy way. Any ideas? That would probably make the cost drop significantly and make biochar viable for lawn care.

 

Considering the medium rate of 500 lbs/M of biochar, each bag of carbonprog comes with 42% of biochar, 1250 lbs of carbonprog to get the medium rate, 40 lbs bags so 31 bags. 31x U$ 33 =~ U$1020. It may last forever, but the cost doesn't make sense to me. Sorry for my ignorance, but wouldn't charcoal be the same thing as biochar?

https://www.soilfixer.co.uk/biochar-versus-charcoal

Looks like it is.
I thought about crushing charcoal but never put the time and effort to find a simple easy way. Any ideas? That would probably make the cost drop significantly and make biochar viable for lawn care.

I think you are correct that the cost is the biggest downside to biochar. If economies of scale make it more widely-produced and cheaper, it will become a more attractive lawn input in the future. From what I have read, biochar and charcoal are similar. However, I think a difference may be in the way they are created (biochar is created through pyrolysis). Also, biochar is negatively charged, but I'm not sure if this holds true for charcoal.

 

I just don't think the costs will ever come down enough to economically justify the benefits you would see by using just Urea or AMS for your Nitrogen source. Also, I noticed that The Andersons helped fund the study, I guess you can take that how you wish.

 

I think that biochar is intended to serve a much different purpose than nitrogen so wouldn't replace it. Biochar improves the soil, but not does directly feed the plant. It's the difference between creating a raised garden and filling it with whatever soil you have in your backyard vs. bringing in bags of "potting soil" from Home Depot. Biochar addresses a longer-term issue, so I can see why it would particularly helpful in agricultural settings. As for residential lawns, it might be less clear.

Crossing back over the the ongoing Shaddox conversation, his philosophy seems to focus only on the here-and-now appearance of a lawn, and to use that as a guide. Because of this, I imagine that Shaddox would not recommend biochar because it seems to be an amendment for the long-term. While I can appreciate that, I have long thought that it would be better to create a lawn with good soil so it can operate on "cruise control" without the need for a lot of other inputs.

 

The porosity, cleanness, etc, may vary with the cooking temperature and source of carbon, but I highly doubt those companies selling biochar are sourcing their carbon from the high-grade material. No way, it would cost even more. I have active carbon for my fish tank here. Bought it in bulk and still a bucked was around $250, it weighed around 5 lbs. They're just using cheap charcoal that goes up to 500ish degrees Celcius. My guess of course, but I don't think we even need it to be the good stuff, but more just to be a huge amount. Like when we use ceramic chips for garden soil. It helps aerate etc. This is going into the dirt, it's not like we need food-grade active carbon or even better phosphorous-free charcoal. Cheap lightweight wood charcoal should be more than enough IMO. But at 500lb/M, not 20lb/M like would be with one bag of carbon prog.

 

This is from the article above: "The science behind biochar is complex: there are many variables associated with both making and using biochar. First, a finished biochar is specific to the material that was burned to produce it. A biochar made from straw is different than one made from coconut husks, yard waste, or wooden pallets."

It also says this: "Do not be tempted by the numerous websites that offer 'home recipes' for making biochar from yard waste. Proper pyrolysis is impossible to achieve at home since oxygen is present and temperatures are too low. Improper cooking also generates carbon dioxide and other pollutants."

It seems like there is still much to study with biochar, but it shows promise. Assuming this continues, more commercial manufacturers are likely to enter the market, leading to lower costs for consumers.

 

I could see if I was putting in a new raised garden bed or willing to till up a garden bed then I would till in some biochar and that would be worth it. To lay biochar on top of my lawn soil seems silly because what it does is hold onto nutrients and water which would then be sitting on top of your soil for a couple years until they work their way down maybe. I could see throwing some biochar out right after an aeration to get some biochar a couple inches down into the soil but that cost is still there for the biochar.

 

 

Front and back yard. 2 years using biochar in front only. Taken today, February 12.

 

I posted some for you on this thread. No tricks, no camera adjustments.

 

By the way- My front yard looks better than any lawn in the surrounding area- by far. That includes the Chem-Lawn ones.

 

What did you apply to the front and back and at what rates did you apply them?

 

FWIW my views haven't changed. The likely answers to some questions:

• Is biochar good for plant life? Yes.
• Is biochar good for lawns? Very likely yes.
• Will biochar have a noticeable near-term impact on my lawn's appearance if I throw it down? Unknown.
• Will other inputs have a greater impact on my lawn's near-term appearance than biochar? Likely, yes.
• Is biochar worth the amount of money it costs? Unknown.

I think it's important to point out that 1) scientific testing on lawns seems to be too little for us to know how residential turf responds to it in different ways, but also 2) lack of scientific results do not mean something is not true, but that's not possible to make a firm (scientific) conclusion either way. If biochar/Carbon Pro-G is aimed at conditioning the soil, though, trying to measure any results are going to be very hard to do.

I recall that one "medical expert" lawn care Youtuber would put lots of Humichar on his lawn with the intent of creating a much richer soil in his yard, and his lawn looked fantastic. It also seemed like a great overall vision for his lawn. However, I really have no idea if biochar in Humichar causes an effect next month, next year, or years down the road. I noticed that he has since sold his house and moved elsewhere, which makes me think that he might have been applying bags and bags of Humichar that only the new owner of his house gets to enjoy. This calls into question whether the money he dumped in to biochar was worth the cost.

 

I'm retired now for 6 years. It 'ain't my first rodeo' and I don't work for ANYONE anymore. I've told you biochar has made a huge difference. Run with it, or leave it alone. You see fewer leaves in the front because... brace yourself- I MOW the front! That's what you get when you have a vibrant and healthy lawn, I guess.

 

You see fewer leaves in the front because... brace yourself- I MOW the front!

And your grass in the back will continue to grow less and less with all the leaves on it. Even if the grass does not need cutting, you need to do something with the leaves. Either mulch with your mower or pick them up and compost them.