Advertisement

Participatory trials of on-farm biochar production and use in Tamale, Ghana

  • Christoph Steiner
  • Imogen Bellwood-Howard
  • Volker Häring
  • Kwame Tonkudor
  • Foster Addai
  • Kofi Atiah
  • Abdul Halim Abubakari
  • Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic
  • Bernd Marschner
  • Andreas Buerkert
Research Article

Abstract

Urban agriculture is characterized by fast rotation of cropping cycles and high inputs and outputs on relatively small areas of land. Depletion of soil organic carbon and low nutrient use efficiency are severe agricultural constraints in the sandy soils of West Africa. We hypothesized that such an intensive system would provide ideal preconditions for the use of biochar, that biochar would enhance yields in urban horticulture, and that farmers would be able to produce biochar for on-farm use in Tamale, Ghana. Therefore, we studied the opportunities and challenges of biochar using a semi-participatory research approach. Working with 12 participant farmers, we defined research questions which were relevant to their livelihoods and collected qualitative and observational data, which determined the selection of variables to measure quantitatively. Different quality parameters such as leaf color and stiffness of lettuce were important to farmers and marketers when assessing the agronomic benefits of biochar. By adding biochar to their normal agricultural practice farmers were able to increase lettuce yields by 93%. This remarkable increase might be partially caused by farmers’ improved management of biochar plots: they concentrated their resources where they expected to yield the largest returns. Using a simple top-lit updraft gasifier, a special chimney for rice husk carbonization, it was relatively simple for farmers to produce biochar in the field, with an efficiency of 15–33%. These stoves’ payback times were between 1 and 2 months. Yet, rather than the efficiency of the carbonization technology, often emphasized in biochar research, the availability of feedstock and labor considerations determine the technology selected by farmers for biochar production. This is a novel approach to considering the economic realities of farmers in a semi-participatory appraisal where farmers both produce and apply biochar. This is crucial in order to understand and identify meaningful and economically viable uses of biochar.

Keywords

Biochar Lettuce Organic carbon Rice husk Soil fertility Urban agriculture West Africa 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the participant farmers at the New Dam site in Tamale (Ghana), the marketers who bought their lettuce and particularly the facilitator farmer Mr. Shani. This work was carried out as part of the UrbanFoodPlus Project “African-German partnership to enhance resource use efficiency in urban and peri-urban agriculture for improved food security in West African cities", funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) under the initiative GlobE – Research for the Global Food Supply, grant number 031A242- A, B, C.

References

  1. Bationo A, Kihara J, Vanlauwe B, Waswa B, Kimetu J (2007) Soil organic carbon dynamics, functions and management in West African agro-ecosystems. Agric Syst 94(1):13–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BiocharPlus (2015) Educative Brochure: BiocharPlus - Energy, health, agricultural and environmental benefits from biochar use: building capacities in ACP countriesGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer CE (2012) Biochar characterizatoin and engineering. Dissertation, Iowa State University, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. de Ridder N, van Keulen H (1990) Some aspects of the role of organic matter in sustainable intensified arable farming systems in the west-African semi-arid-tropics (SAT). Fertilizer Res 26(1):299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01048768 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ding Y, Liu Y, Liu S, Li Z, Tan X, Huang X, Zeng G, Zhou L, Zheng B (2016) Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 36(2):36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0372-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diogo RVC, Buerkert A, Schlecht E (2010) Horizontal nutrient fluxes and food safety in urban and peri-urban vegetable and millet cultivation of Niamey, Niger. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 87(1):81–102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-009-9315-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enders A, Hanley K, Whitman T, Joseph S, Lehmann J (2012) Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Bioresour Technol 114:644–653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Harris K, Das KC, Bibens B (2008) Effect of low-temperature Pyrolysis conditions on biochar for agricultural use. Trans ASABE 51(6):2061–2069.  https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.25409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gyasi E, Fosu M, Kranjac-Berisavljevic G, Mensah A, Obeng F, Yiran G, Fuseini I (2014) Building urban resilience: Assessing urban and peri-urban agriculture in Tamale, Ghana. Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  10. Häring V, Manka’abusi D, Akoto-Danso EK, Werner S, Atiah K, Steiner C, Lompo DJP, Adiku S, Buerkert A, Marschner B (2017) Effects of biochar, waste water irrigation and fertilization on soil properties in west African urban agriculture. Sci Rep 7(1):10738.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10718-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffmann V, Probst K, Christinck A (2007) Farmers and researchers: how can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development? Agric Hum Values 24(3):355–368.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9072-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kapur PC (1985) Production of reactive bio-silica from the combustion of rice husk in a tube-in-basket (TiB) burner. Powder Technol 44(1):63–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-5910(85)85022-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimetu JM, Lehmann J, Ngoze SO, Mugendi DN, Kinyangi JM, Riha S, Verchot L, Recha JW, Pell AN (2008) Reversibility of soil productivity decline with organic matter of differing quality along a degradation gradient. Ecosystems 11:726–739.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-008-9154-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuzyakov Y, Subbotina I, Chen H, Bogomolova I, Xu X (2009) Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by 14C labeling. Soil Biol Biochem 41:210–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lal R (2009) Challenges and opportunities in soil organic matter research. Eur J Soil Sci 2:158–169.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01114.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lambrou Y (2001) A typology: participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management. Working document. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Future Harvest M4 - Citavi, Cali, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Le Bissonnais Y, Arrouays D (1997) Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and erodibility: II. Application to humic loamy soils with various organic carbon contents. Eur J Soil Sci 48(1):39–48.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1997.tb00183.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mugwe J, Mugendi D, Mucheru-Muna M, Merckx R, Chianu J, Vanlauwe B (2009) Determinants of the decision to adopt integrated soil fertility management practices by smallholder farmers in the central highlands of Kenya. Exp Agric 45(1):61–75.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479708007072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mukherjee A, Zimmerman AR, Harris W (2011) Surface chemistry variations among a series of laboratory-produced biochars. Geoderma 163(3–4):247–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Watts DW, Amonette JE, Ippolito JA, Lima IM, Gaskin J, Das KC, Steiner C, Ahmedna M, Rehrah D, Schomberg H (2012) Biochars impact on soil-moisture storage in an ultisol and two aridisols. Soil Sci 177(5):310–320.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SS.0b013e31824e5593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Predotova M, Gebauer J, Diogo RVC, Schlecht E, Buerkert A (2010) Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from urban gardens in Niamey, Niger. Field Crop Res 115(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pretty JN (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev 23(8):1247–1263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(95)00046-f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scoones I, Thompson J (2009) Farmer first revisited: innovation for agricultural Research and Development. Practical Action Publishing, WorwideshireCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steiner C (2016) Considerations in biochar characterization. In: Guo M, He Z, Uchimiya SM (eds) Agricultural and environmental applications of biochar: advances and barriers, SSSA special publication, vol 63. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, pp 87–100.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaspecpub63.2014.0038.5 Google Scholar
  25. Steiner C, Glaser B, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Blum WEH, Zech W (2008) Nitrogen retention and plant uptake on a highly weathered central Amazonian Ferralsol amended with compost and charcoal. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171(6):893–899.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200625199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Steiner
    • 1
  • Imogen Bellwood-Howard
    • 2
  • Volker Häring
    • 3
  • Kwame Tonkudor
    • 4
  • Foster Addai
    • 4
  • Kofi Atiah
    • 3
  • Abdul Halim Abubakari
    • 5
  • Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic
    • 4
  • Bernd Marschner
    • 3
  • Andreas Buerkert
    • 1
  1. 1.Organic Plant Production and Agroecosystems Research in the Tropics and SubtropicsUniversität KasselWitzenhausenGermany
  2. 2. Institute of Social and Cultural AnthropologyUniversity of GoettingenGöttingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Soil Science and Soil EcologyRuhr-University Bochum BochumGermany
  4. 4.UDS InternationalUniversity for Development StudiesTamaleGhana
  5. 5.Department of Forestry and Forest Resource ManagementUniversity for Development StudiesTamaleGhana

Personalised recommendations