Next Article in Journal
B Impact Assessment as a Driving Force for Sustainable Development: A Case Study in the Pulp and Paper Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Integrating Community Well-Being into Natural Climate Solutions: A Framework for Enhanced Verification Standards and Project Permanence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
RSEE
Volume 2
Issue 3
10.3390/rsee2030023
rsee-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Exploring the Potential of Biochar in Enhancing U.S. Agriculture

by
Saman Janaranjana Herath Bandara
Department of Economics, Finance and Marketing, College of Business and Social Sciences, West Virginia State University, Institute, WV 25112, USA
Reg. Sci. Environ. Econ. 2025, 2(3), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/rsee2030023
Submission received: 6 March 2025 / Revised: 22 July 2025 / Accepted: 23 July 2025 / Published: 1 August 2025
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Biochar, a carbon-rich material derived from biomass, presents a sustainable solution to several pressing challenges in U.S. agriculture, including soil degradation, carbon emissions, and waste management. Despite global advancements, the U.S. biochar market remains underexplored in terms of economic viability, adoption potential, and sector-specific applications. This narrative review synthesizes two decades of literature to examine biochar’s applications, production methods, and market dynamics, with a focus on its economic and environmental role within the United States. The review identifies biochar’s multifunctional benefits: enhancing soil fertility and crop productivity, sequestering carbon, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving water quality. Recent empirical studies also highlight biochar’s economic feasibility across global contexts, with yield increases of up to 294% and net returns exceeding USD 5000 per hectare in optimized systems. Economically, the global biochar market grew from USD 156.4 million in 2021 to USD 610.3 million in 2023, with U.S. production reaching ~50,000 metric tons annually and a market value of USD 203.4 million in 2022. Forecasts project U.S. market growth at a CAGR of 11.3%, reaching USD 478.5 million by 2030. California leads domestic adoption due to favorable policy and biomass availability. However, barriers such as inconsistent quality standards, limited awareness, high costs, and policy gaps constrain growth. This study goes beyond the existing literature by integrating market analysis, SWOT assessment, cost–benefit findings, and production technologies to highlight strategies for scaling biochar adoption. It concludes that with supportive legislation, investment in research, and enhanced supply chain transparency, biochar could become a pivotal tool for sustainable development in the U.S. agricultural and environmental sectors.

1. Introduction

The rising global demand for renewable energy and sustainable agriculture has driven growing interest in biomass as a key resource. Among its many derivatives, biochar—a stable, carbon-rich solid obtained from thermochemical conversion of organic material under limited oxygen—has attracted attention for its potential applications in soil improvement, carbon sequestration, pollution mitigation, and circular economy development [1,2,3]. Although traditionally known as charcoal, modern biochar encompasses a broader array of feedstocks, including agricultural residues, forestry waste, animal manures, and organic municipal waste [4,5,6].
Biochar’s physical and chemical properties—including porosity, surface area, mineral content, and pH—depend heavily on feedstock composition and pyrolysis conditions such as temperature, residence time, and heating rate [7,8,9]. These factors, in turn, influence its effectiveness in agricultural and environmental applications. Typically composed of over 60% carbon, along with elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium, biochar plays a significant role in enhancing soil structure, water retention, microbial activity, and nutrient availability [10,11,12]. It also has the capacity to reduce nutrient leaching, immobilize heavy metals, and lower greenhouse gas emissions from soils [13,14].
While biochar has a long history of human use—particularly in traditional agricultural systems such as the “terra preta” soils of the Amazon—its modern production and application have expanded into fields such as water purification, construction, animal husbandry, and renewable energy systems [15,16,17,18]. These multifunctional properties have led to increased global interest and investment in biochar technologies.
Despite this momentum, the United States biochar sector remains fragmented, with limited large-scale adoption and commercialization. Key barriers include the variability of product quality, lack of standardized regulations, insufficient market incentives, and inconsistent policy support [19,20,21,22]. Moreover, much of the academic literature has focused on the environmental and agronomic benefits of biochar, while economic assessments, market dynamics, and adoption challenges—particularly in the U.S.—remain underexplored [21].
This review addresses that gap by synthesizing two decades of research on biochar’s applications and market potential, with a specific focus on the United States. The study contributes to the literature by framing biochar not only as an agronomic and environmental input but also as a commodity within a growing circular bioeconomy. By evaluating economic drivers, market structures, regulatory issues, and adoption barriers, this review offers insights into how biochar can be scaled sustainably in the U.S. context.
The objectives of this review are threefold:
  • To identify and describe the use and applications of biochar both globally and within the United States;
  • To examine the structure and drivers of the U.S. biochar market;
  • To assess the future potential for biochar adoption in the United States and highlight enabling factors and barriers.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explores biochar applications; Section 3 discusses production and market implications; Section 4 examines demand and broader market effects; Section 5 analyzes the economics of biochar in the U.S., including a market-focused assessment; and the final section presents the study’s conclusions.

2. Biochar Applications

Biochar has demonstrated significant multifunctionality across a range of sectors, most notably in agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, water treatment, waste management, energy storage, and construction. Its effectiveness lies in its porous structure, high surface area, and capacity to retain nutrients, carbon, and moisture [1,3,6].
In agriculture, biochar contributes to improved soil health by enhancing physical structure, increasing water retention, and boosting nutrient availability. When integrated with organic amendments such as compost or manure, biochar has been shown to improve fertilizer use efficiency and crop productivity [22,23,24]. It also plays a key role in reducing soil acidity and enhancing microbial activity—especially relevant in U.S. regions affected by over-fertilization and soil degradation [25,26].
In horticulture and landscaping, biochar supports sustainable production systems by enhancing soil properties and reducing nitrate leaching. It has improved plant performance in crops such as lettuce and tomatoes, especially under water stress conditions [27,28,29]. These results suggest strong potential for biochar to support controlled-environment agriculture and urban farming systems.
In livestock systems, biochar is emerging as a beneficial feed additive that improves feed conversion efficiency, enhances immunity, and reduces enteric methane emissions [30,31,32]. Its role in manure management is also significant, offering reductions in odor, ammonia volatilization, and nutrient leaching, making it a valuable input in integrated farm systems.
Beyond biological systems, biochar is gaining traction as an affordable and sustainable material in water treatment. Its large surface area and functional groups enable the adsorption of heavy metals and organic pollutants, positioning it as a viable alternative to commercial activated carbon in both drinking water and industrial wastewater treatment [33,34,35].
In waste management, biochar derived from municipal, agricultural, and forest residues is used for landfill remediation, odor control, and as a carbon sink, contributing to circular waste economies [36,37,38]. In the energy sector, biochar is applied in the development of energy-dense materials such as supercapacitors and fuel cells, and its potential as a solid fuel continues to be investigated [39,40,41].
In the construction industry, biochar enhances the properties of cementitious materials by improving durability, reducing thermal conductivity, and lowering the carbon footprint of concrete production [42,43,44]. These emerging applications expand the scope of biochar beyond agriculture and reflect growing interest in its role in climate-smart infrastructure.
Table 1 summarizes the major applications of biochar, outlining their core purposes, advantages, and drawbacks. While biochar presents numerous benefits, technical challenges such as heavy metal contamination and variability in performance across feedstocks and production conditions remain obstacles to large-scale implementation [45,46,47].

3. Biochar Production and Market Implications

3.1. Production of Biochar

Biochar is a stable, carbon-rich material produced primarily through the thermal decomposition of biomass under oxygen-limited conditions. It can be generated in solid form via dry carbonization, pyrolysis, or gasification, and in slurry form through hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) under pressure [53]. Biochar’s porous structure and surface functional groups contribute to enhanced soil water retention, nutrient adsorption, and microbial activity, thereby improving soil fertility and enabling contaminant remediation. These properties underpin its applications in agriculture, carbon sequestration, and environmental management [5,61].
Pyrolysis is the dominant biochar production method, involving heating biomass between 300 and 1200 °C in an inert atmosphere [62]. Pyrolysis is generally categorized into slow and fast processes. Slow pyrolysis operates at 300–700 °C with low heating rates and extended residence times, producing higher biochar yields, especially from lignin-rich, coarse biomass, though it is energy intensive [58,63]. Fast pyrolysis uses rapid heating and short residence times, favoring bio-oil production but also generating biochar [64,65].
Gasification converts biomass into syngas—a mixture of CO, H2, CO2, and CH4—via partial oxidation at temperatures exceeding 700 °C. Biochar yield from gasification is approximately 10% [66]. The choice of oxidizing agent (air, oxygen, steam) influences the syngas heating value, with steam gasification producing higher energy content compared to air gasification [67].
Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) processes biomass in water at elevated temperatures (160–800 °C) and pressures, resulting in hydrochar formation. Lower-temperature HTC favors char production with yields ranging from 30% to 60%, while higher temperatures promote gaseous product formation such as methane [68,69].
In addition to these established methods, emerging non-conventional techniques such as flash carbonization offer alternative approaches to biochar production. These methods operate under distinct conditions, potentially enhancing feedstock versatility and biochar properties. While still in early stages of development, they contribute to broadening the technological landscape and sustainability of biochar production. Table 2 summarizes HTC process parameters and associated yields.

3.2. Biochar Production and Sales

The biochar industry has demonstrated significant growth in recent years. According to the International Biochar Initiative (IBI), the number of companies involved in biochar production and sales nearly doubled from 62 in 2013 to 120 in 2014, out of 204 identified firms in the sector. This expansion is partly attributed to new market entrants and an enhanced online presence through platforms such as Amazon.com and Alibaba.com [22].
Biochar continues to play a prominent role in durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR), with global production reaching at least 350,000 metric tons in 2023. This growth represents a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 91% from 2021 to 2023, reflecting an early-stage industry experiencing rapid scale-up [71]. However, such high short-term growth rates should be interpreted cautiously, as they reflect recent acceleration rather than long-term trends.
Between 2021 and 2023, total industry revenue—which includes biochar producers, distributors, value-added processors, and equipment manufacturers—grew from USD 156.4 million to USD 610.3 million. Specifically, producer revenues increased from USD 54.8 million to USD 330.1 million; distributor and value-added processor revenues rose from USD 7.3 million to USD 38.9 million; and equipment manufacturer revenues expanded from USD 94.4 million to USD 241.3 million (Table 3 and Table 4).
Meanwhile, the IBI’s broader market outlook projects the global biochar sector to maintain a more moderate and sustainable CAGR of 13–17% from 2019 through 2025 [72,73]. This longer-term estimate is based on increasing global food demand and biochar’s proven benefits in improving soil health. The variation between short-term and long-term growth projections reflects the industry’s evolving maturity and different baseline years.
In 2023, biochar production varied by region, with North America leading at 169,564 metric tons annually, predominantly from large-scale producers (>10,000 t/year). Europe produced 60,549 metric tons, mainly from large producers but with significant small-scale contributions. Asia’s production totaled 54,353 metric tons, distributed across large and medium producers. South America contributed 36,247 metric tons, mostly from medium-scale producers, while Africa and Oceania recorded lower outputs of 27,440 and 4153 metric tons, respectively, primarily from medium to small-scale operations. These data illustrate the dominance of large-scale biochar production in North America and Europe, contrasted with more diverse production scales in other regions [71].

3.3. Distribution of Biochar Companies

The distribution of biochar enterprises is predominantly concentrated in North America, particularly in the United States. Since 2013, the share of biochar companies in North America and Europe has slightly declined, while the presence of firms in Australia and Asia has increased. Notably, Asia’s share doubled from 8% to 16% over this period. Despite these diversification trends, South America remains underrepresented, with only three companies in 2013 and one in 2014 [22].
North America maintains market leadership driven by increased awareness of biochar’s long-term benefits in forestry and agriculture, growing investments, and stringent environmental regulations. The United States Biochar Initiative (USBI), established in 2009, operates alongside the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) with a regional focus on the North American market [74].
California is positioned as a key contributor to biochar production due to its abundant forest biomass and supportive policy framework. The state’s estimated biochar production capacity is approximately 1.43 million bone dry tons (BDT) annually, with biochar carbon content around 85%, derived from 14.3 million BDT of accessible forest biomass [75].
The complexity of biochar markets, shaped by ecological, economic, and regulatory factors, complicates the identification of universally optimal markets or practices. Regional and geographical contexts significantly influence market dynamics and application methods [74]. For example, in California, biochar application rates vary widely due to heterogeneous soil types. A conservative average application rate is estimated at 10 BDT per acre, considering reported values range from 0.4 to 20 BDT per acre, with the assumption that biochar effects persist for at least ten years [76,77]. Table 5 summarizes active biochar producers in California for 2021.

4. Biochar Demand and Market Implications

4.1. Industry Landscape: Growth Drivers and Market Barriers

The biochar industry remains in an emerging phase but shows consistent growth, as reported by the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) and other global market analyses [22,74]. The sector encompasses a wide range of activities, including academic research, industrial R&D by multinational corporations, operations of small- and mid-scale producers selling pure and blended biochar products, manufacturing of production equipment, and consulting services. Additionally, the industry includes grassroots-level “do-it-yourself” (DIY) biochar production and community-based projects [22].
For biochar-focused enterprises to maintain profitability, revenues from biochar sales must cover operational costs including equipment, labor, feedstock procurement and preparation, production, post-processing, packaging, distribution, and marketing [22]. Despite promising growth, several barriers may impede market expansion. Capital access for initial investments and scaling production remains a primary challenge, alongside technical, economic, socio-political, and environmental constraints [74]. Producers identify soil-based applications—particularly in agriculture and gardening—as the most promising markets. Other significant applications include soil remediation at mines and landfills, co-composting, and manure management, which offer both environmental and economic benefits [74].

4.2. Biochar Pricing Dynamics

An analysis of biochar sales prices across countries reveals substantial variation, particularly between wholesale and retail markets, and between pure biochar and blended products. Among 92 unique products reviewed, nearly two-thirds were pure biochar. Wholesale prices for pure biochar averaged approximately 50% less than retail prices globally, whereas wholesale blended biochar sold for about 240% less than retail counterparts, highlighting marked price differentials consistent across countries [22]. Table 6 summarizes wholesale and retail prices for pure and blended biochar products in 2015 (USD per kilogram).
By 2024, wholesale biochar prices exhibited a significant range, from USD 600 to USD 2778 per ton, with a modal price near USD 1600 per ton. Bulk purchasers can obtain discounts of 20–40% on orders between 1 and 10 tons. In 2023, the average biochar price was approximately USD 131 per metric ton. Biochar certified as meeting Supercritical vetting criteria commanded higher prices, averaging USD 220 per ton, compared to USD 153 per ton for uncertified biochar.
Recent trends in biochar pricing indicate moderate price stabilization, especially in large-scale wholesale markets, as production capacity and supply chains have matured [22,74]. Between 2014 and 2024, while the average price per ton has decreased in some regions—such as California—from approximately USD 2850 to a range of USD 600–USD 1300, overall price trends remain highly variable across markets and product types [22]. This variation is largely due to differences in biochar feedstock source, production method (e.g., slow pyrolysis vs. gasification), particle size, carbon content, ash content, surface area, pH, and moisture level—all of which influence performance in specific applications [9,10,11,74]. For instance, biochars with higher fixed carbon, lower ash content, and greater porosity typically command premium prices in agricultural or environmental remediation markets. In addition, pre- and post-processing steps such as grinding, pelletizing, or nutrient enrichment further impact pricing. While certification schemes like Supercritical vetting can increase price, specifications related to biochar’s physical and chemical properties remain the primary drivers of price differentiation in the market [22].
The IBI’s 2014 “State of the Biochar Industry” report noted stable global average pricing for both pure and blended biochar between 2013 and 2014, with wholesale pure biochar prices near USD 2 per kilogram. Blended biochar prices increased slightly, while pure biochar prices declined marginally. However, these trends should be interpreted cautiously due to incomplete datasets and limited coverage. Future research should emphasize average prices weighted by sales volume at the country level to better elucidate market dynamics [22].

4.3. Revenue Trends and Economic Performance

The biochar industry has demonstrated significant economic growth. Between 2021 and 2023, revenue from biochar producers increased from approximately USD 54.8 million to USD 330.1 million. Distributors and value-added producers saw revenue growth from USD 7.3 million to USD 38.9 million, while equipment manufacturers’ revenue rose from USD 94.4 million to USD 241.3 million. Overall, total industry revenue surged from USD 156.4 million in 2021 to USD 610.3 million in 2023, underscoring the sector’s expanding economic significance [22,71].
The global biochar market is projected to maintain a robust compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13–17% from 2019 through 2025, driven primarily by increasing food demand and biochar’s efficacy in enhancing soil quality [72,73]. Despite challenges related to market fragmentation, quality standards, and scaling, the economic outlook remains positive as production capacity and market infrastructure improve [71,74].
Recent studies provide further insight into the economic viability of biochar across diverse agricultural systems. A cost–benefit analysis of biochar in cereal production across North-Western Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa showed negative returns in Europe due to high costs and limited yield benefits, while results in Sub-Saharan Africa indicated positive net present value (NPV) outcomes when yield gains persisted over time [78]. In a three-year maize trial in China, biochar combined with reduced nitrogen fertilizer rates improved grain yields by 8.5–18.4% and increased net economic benefits by 15.1–18.4% due to improved soil properties [79].
Field-based applications in the Ethiopian highlands demonstrated that biochar made from water hyacinth, when applied with inorganic fertilizers, increased wheat yields by 6.4% during the dry season and up to 173% in the rainy season, with net returns reaching USD 5351 per hectare [80]. In acidic soils, combining coffee husk biochar, lime, and inorganic fertilizer significantly boosted garlic yields and generated net returns exceeding 950,000 ETB per hectare, with marginal rates of return up to 266,933% [81].
Innovative applications have also shown promise. Biochar-based coated fertilizers reduced nitrogen and phosphorus leaching by over 70% and 44%, respectively, while enhancing crop performance, indicating scalable and sustainable nutrient management solutions [82]. Iron-doped biochar improved nutrient retention, soil quality, and okra yields, making it a cost-effective alternative to conventional fertilizers in intensive vegetable systems [83].
Nonetheless, economic results are not universally positive. For instance, applications in tea plantations yielded environmental benefits like reduced nitrogen losses and enhanced carbon sequestration, but lacked strong economic gains unless supported by higher carbon pricing or increased yields [84]. In tomato production, applying cow bone biochar at 40 t ha−1 improved yields by 294% and extended shelf life by 70%, though the high application rate raised concerns about cost-effectiveness and scalability [85].
In Mediterranean cropping systems, biochar increased corn yields by 38–270% and lavandin volume by 23–25%, with profitability realized within 1–4 years. However, outcomes in vineyards were less conclusive, emphasizing variability based on crop, soil, and biochar characteristics [86].
A global synthesis confirmed the economic and agronomic value of biochar, highlighting yield increases, improved soil properties, and enhanced water efficiency. Yet, standardization and product consistency remain critical obstacles to wider market adoption [87].
In sum, biochar presents strong potential for improving agricultural revenues and resource efficiency, though financial outcomes are highly context specific. Future market success will depend on integration into broader soil fertility frameworks, greater transparency in supply chains, and continued innovation to lower costs or increase value. Supportive policies, including carbon credits, quality certification, and public–private partnerships, will be essential to enhance biochar’s long-term economic performance.

5. Economics of Biochar in the U.S.

Building upon the global market trends and pricing dynamics discussed in Section 4, this section focuses on the economic potential and structural challenges of the U.S. biochar market. It explores production trends, key drivers of market expansion, and regional opportunities—particularly in states like California and Texas—while also addressing barriers to adoption and policy considerations.

5.1. U.S. Biochar Market Trends and Growth Outlook

The U.S. biochar market holds substantial potential, with an estimated capacity exceeding 3 billion tons. Its growth trajectory, however, is shaped by multiple factors including technological developments, quality standards, public awareness, and economic viability. National Forests, located near key agricultural regions, present a strategic source of woody biomass through ongoing forest management and restoration efforts.
Despite more than a decade of emergence, the U.S. biochar industry remains fragmented, comprising both small-scale producers and a few large entities. Recent technological advancements have introduced the possibility of establishing a mid-sized producer segment. However, broad market adoption continues to face barriers such as inconsistent quality standards, unverified product claims, variable pricing, and supply availability [88].
According to a 2023 market analysis report, notable players in the U.S. biochar industry include Black Owl Biochar, Karr Group, Aries Clean Technologies, Pacific Biochar Benefit Corporation, Advance Renewable Technology International (ARTI), Soil Reef LLC, Avello Bioenergy, Oregon Biochar Solutions, New England Biochar, and Chargrow USA LLC. Market growth is primarily driven by increasing demand in agriculture, particularly organic farming, due to biochar’s ability to enhance soil carbon levels, improve microbial activity, and support long-term soil health.
In 2022, the U.S. biochar market was valued at USD 203.4 million and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.3% from 2023 to 2030, reaching an estimated USD 478.5 million. This upward trend is attributed to rising soil acidity associated with intensive fertilizer use, prompting a shift toward sustainable farming practices and increased adoption of organic inputs such as biochar.
Segment-wise, the gasification method dominated the production landscape in 2022, accounting for a CAGR of 11.4%, owing to its co-benefit of syngas generation for renewable energy. Similarly, the animal feed segment witnessed a CAGR of 11.1%, as biochar has been shown to improve feed conversion efficiency, growth rates, and livestock immunity.
Organic agriculture continues to play a critical role in the biochar market’s expansion. Between 2011 and 2021, certified organic cropland in the U.S. grew by 79%, reaching 3.6 million acres, according to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. States like Texas and California exemplify this trend. Texas, ranking fourth nationally in farm revenue (USD 24.9 billion in 2021), leads the U.S. in the number of farms and ranches—247,000 operations spanning approximately 126 million acres.
In 2022, California accounted for 15.7% of total U.S. biochar consumption, largely due to its highly diversified agricultural sector, which produces over 400 commercial crops. The use of biochar in California is expected to expand further, driven by growing awareness of its agronomic benefits. However, due to the state’s varied soil profiles, a standardized application rate remains impractical. A reasonable average application rate may be approximately 10 bone-dry tons (BDT) per acre, based on reported usage rates ranging from 0.4 to 20 BDT per acre and assuming efficacy over a 10-year period [76,77].

5.2. U.S. Biochar Market: Key Factors and Insights

The U.S. biochar market exhibits considerable growth potential, fueled by increasing awareness of biochar’s agronomic and environmental benefits, emerging climate policies, and rising investment in sustainable practices [89]. As a soil amendment, biochar enhances soil fertility, increases carbon sequestration, and improves agricultural productivity—contributing to food security and climate change mitigation [90].
Recent research estimates that converting low-value forest biomass into biochar in the western United States alone represents an investment opportunity exceeding USD 20 billion annually, with the potential to generate up to 70 million carbon credits—comparable to the output of all global forestry and agricultural carbon projects combined [91]. This opportunity is further strengthened by the modernization of biopower facilities and an expanding market that spans from large-scale agriculture to niche applications such as rooftop gardens [92].
Despite its promising trajectory, several barriers hinder the full realization of the biochar market in the U.S. These include limited public awareness, low current demand, high production and retail costs, and a lack of robust policy frameworks [74]. Technological challenges persist, particularly in understanding the long-term environmental impacts of biochar, including its role in carbon sequestration, potential contaminant release, and variability in soil performance. Additionally, knowledge gaps in lifecycle impacts and scalability continue to constrain investment confidence [91].
Access to capital remains a primary obstacle to scaling production, especially for small and mid-sized enterprises. Technical limitations such as insufficient field data, rising production costs due to advanced pyrolysis technologies, and the lack of standardized, transparent biomass supply chains pose further challenges. The non-uniform composition of raw biochar also affects product consistency and commercial viability, with some studies estimating unrealistic payback periods—ranging from 15 to 125 years—even when yield improvements are considered [92].
Nevertheless, the U.S.—as the world’s leading agricultural producer—is uniquely positioned to capitalize on biochar’s dual economic and environmental value. In particular, biochar derived from forest residues offers multiple benefits: mitigating wildfire risks, sequestering carbon, and restoring degraded soils [93]. In the western U.S., production of biochar from forest biomass could generate over 70 million carbon credits annually, supporting fuel thinning and forest resilience efforts [91].
Urban applications also hold promise, especially when using urban wood waste as feedstock. Such systems not only reduce landfill emissions but also improve urban green spaces and environmental quality [91]. Additionally, integrating biochar with eucalyptus cultivation in regions like Florida offers potential for enhanced carbon sequestration and plantation productivity [93]. Portable biochar production units further improve economic feasibility, particularly when supported by government incentives. These systems enable on-site conversion of forest residues into biochar with reduced transportation costs and lower emissions [94].
California represents a particularly promising market due to its large agricultural economy and abundant low-value biomass. The state has witnessed a decline in average biochar prices—from USD 2850 per ton in 2013 to a current range of USD 600–1300 per ton—making biochar more competitive in bulk markets. Additional discounts of 20–40% are available for buyers purchasing between 1 and 10 tons [95]. California’s supportive legislative framework, advanced infrastructure, and active climate programs create favorable conditions for expanding the state’s biochar sector [74].
While the potential benefits of biochar are substantial, the market is also subject to considerable threats. These include competition for biomass resources, which may otherwise be allocated to vital ecosystem services or food production; volatility in pricing and demand; and unresolved sustainability concerns along the biochar value chain [96,97,98,99,100]. Ensuring the long-term financial viability of biochar systems will require addressing these concerns through policy support, technology development, and transparent supply chain management [91,97].
To synthesize these dynamics, a SWOT analysis (Table 7) is presented, summarizing the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing the U.S. biochar market. Furthermore, a conceptual supply chain framework (Figure 1) outlines the flow from feedstock sourcing to market deployment, emphasizing the critical role of infrastructure, pricing, and regulatory alignment in establishing a transparent and sustainable biochar economy.
Table 7 presents a comprehensive SWOT analysis of the emerging U.S. biochar market, highlighting internal strengths and weaknesses alongside external opportunities and threats. The analysis reveals a substantial market potential—estimated at over 3 billion tons—driven by increased demand from organic agriculture and applications in carbon sequestration. However, structural limitations, such as the absence of standardized quality protocols and insufficient market awareness, continue to hinder commercialization. Opportunities lie in leveraging forest biomass, climate policy incentives, and scalable production innovations, especially for decentralized and small-scale systems. Yet, the sector remains vulnerable to threats, including environmental scrutiny, biomass resource competition, and unstable price mechanisms. These interrelated factors underscore the importance of policy development, market transparency, and investment in R&D to ensure long-term viability.
The successful adoption and expansion of biochar within U.S. agriculture is intrinsically linked to the development and integration of a robust and transparent supply chain. As illustrated in Figure 1, the supply chain consists of five interconnected sectors: input, production, processing and refinement, packaging and distribution, and marketing. Biomass feedstocks—including agricultural residues, forestry byproducts, and urban wood waste—enter the system through thermochemical conversion processes such as pyrolysis, gasification, or hydrothermal carbonization. Subsequent stages involve refinement for quality assurance, packaging for market delivery, and branding and promotional strategies to educate consumers and build demand.
Crucially, the entire supply chain is influenced by several cross-cutting factors, namely technological capacity, pricing structures, regulatory frameworks, and stakeholder coordination. While market projections suggest strong potential for growth, persistent barriers remain. These include inconsistent quality standards, limited infrastructure, traceability challenges, and weak policy support—particularly for small- and mid-scale producers. Addressing these structural issues requires coordinated efforts, including the establishment of national standards, investment in supply chain infrastructure, targeted policy incentives, and stakeholder education initiatives. Strengthening the supply chain is vital not only for realizing the economic viability of biochar but also for ensuring its environmental benefits are effectively deployed across U.S. agricultural systems.

6. Conclusions

This narrative review examined the evolving role of biochar in enhancing U.S. agriculture, highlighting its multifunctional benefits, market dynamics, and structural challenges. While the U.S. biochar sector holds significant promise, widespread adoption depends on resolving regulatory, technical, and market-based constraints. The following key conclusions and critical findings offer practical insights for researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders and serve as a foundation for future studies:
*
Biochar shows strong potential for U.S. agriculture and climate goals: The review confirms that biochar can improve soil health, enhance crop productivity, sequester carbon, and contribute to circular economy strategies.
*
The U.S. biochar market remains underdeveloped: Despite global momentum, the domestic market faces challenges including inconsistent quality standards, limited awareness, regulatory gaps, and high production costs.
*
Supply chain development is critical for scaling adoption: The conceptual framework developed in this study highlights the need for coordinated investment in production, refinement, marketing, and stakeholder engagement.
*
California leads U.S. adoption due to supportive policy and biomass availability: Regional efforts provide a model for scaling adoption in other agricultural states.
*
Economic and environmental benefits are interlinked: Biochar can reduce emissions, utilize low-value biomass, and generate carbon credits, but its commercial viability depends on cost competitiveness and supply chain transparency.
*
Critical gaps remain in empirical data: There is a lack of standardized field data on biochar’s long-term agronomic and ecological impacts, especially across varying feedstocks and climates.

Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on conducting longitudinal and field-based studies to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of biochar across diverse agricultural settings. Developing standardized quality protocols and comprehensive lifecycle assessments will be essential to ensure product consistency and environmental integrity. Additionally, there is a need to explore scalable and decentralized production models that can support regional supply chains. Assessing the economic feasibility of biochar under varying policy frameworks and subsidy scenarios will help identify viable pathways for market expansion. Finally, greater attention should be given to understanding consumer perceptions, market incentives, and the role of public–private partnerships in fostering broader adoption.

Funding

This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Evans-Allen, accession #7003783.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lehmann, J.; Gaunt, J.; Rondon, M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—A review. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 2006, 11, 403–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Oni, B.A.; Oziegbe, O.; Olawole, O.O. Significance of biochar application to the environment and economy. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2019, 64, 222–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, W.; Meng, J.; Han, X.; Lan, Y.; Zhang, W. Past, present, and future of biochar. Biochar 2019, 1, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Quicker, P.; Weber, K. Biokohle: Herstellung, Eigenschaften und Verwendung von Biomassekarbonisaten, 1st ed.; Springer Vieweg: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Weber, K.; Quicker, P. Properties of biochar. Fuel 2018, 217, 240–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lehmann, J.; Joseph, S. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 1–928. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, B.L.; Chen, Z.M.; Lv, S.F. A novel magnetic biochar efficiently sorbs organic pollutants and phosphate. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sun, K.; Jin, M.; Keiluweit, M.; Kleber, Z.; Wang, Z.; Pan, B.; Xing, B. Polar and aliphatic domains regulate sorption of phthalic acid esters (PAEs) to biochar. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 118, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sohi, S.; Wade, S.C.; Kern, J. Consistency of biochar properties over time and production scales: A characterisation of standard materials. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2017, 132, 200–210. [Google Scholar]
  10. Yuan, J.H.; Xu, R.K.; Zhang, H. The forms of alkalis in the biochar produced from crop residues at different temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 3488–3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zhao, B.; O’Connor, D.; Zhang, J.L.; Peng, T.Y.; Shen, Z.T.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Hou, D. Effect of pyrolysis temperature, heating rate, and residence time on rapeseed stem derived biochar. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 977–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lehmann, J. Bio-energy in the black. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 5, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chan, K.Y.; Van Zwieten, L.; Meszaros, I.; Downie, A.; Joseph, S. Agronomic values of greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2007, 45, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sadaka, S.; Boateng, A.A. Pyrolysis and Bio-Oil; Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas, U.S. Department of Agriculture and County Governments Cooperating; University of Arkansas: Fayetteville, AR, USA, 2009; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  15. Silber, A.; Levkovitch, I.; Graber, E.R. pH-dependent mineral release and surface properties of cornstraw biochar: Agronomic implications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 9318–9323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Oleszczuk, P.; Jośko, I.; Kuśmierz, H. Biochar properties regarding to contaminants content and ecotoxicological assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, H.; Gao, B.; Fang, J.; Ok, Y.; Xue, Y.; Yang, K.; Cao, X. Engineered biochar derived from eggshell-treated biomass for removal of aqueous lead. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 121, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Abbruzzini, T.F.; Moreira, M.Z.; De Camargo, P.B.; Conz, R.F.; Cerri, C.E.P. Increasing rates of biochar application to soil induce stronger negative priming effect on soil organic carbon decomposition. Agric. Res. 2017, 6, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brewer, C.E.; Chuang, V.J.; Masiello, C.A.; Gonnermann, H.; Gao, X.; Dugan, B. New approaches to measuring biochar density and porosity. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 66, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Crane-Droesch, A.; Abiven, S.; Jeffery, S.; Torn, M.S. Heterogeneous global crop yield response to biochar: A meta-regression analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 044049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jirka, S.; Tomlinson, T. State of the Biochar Industry 2014: A Survey of Commercial Activity in the Biochar Sector; International Biochar Initiative: Norfolk, VA, USA, 2015; Available online: https://biochar-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ibi_state_of_the_industry_2014_final.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2019).
  22. Wang, D.; Jiang, P.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, W. Biochar production and applications in agro and forestry systems: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 137775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Garcia, B.; Alves, O.; Rijo, B.; Lourinho, G.; Nobre, C. Biochar: Production, Applications, and Market Prospects in Portugal. Environments 2022, 9, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Acharya, B.S.; Dodla, S.; Wang, J.J.; Pavuluri, K.; Darapuneni, M.; Dattamudi, S.; Kharel, G. Biochar impacts on soil water dynamics: Knowns, unknowns, and research directions. Biochar 2024, 6, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bohara, H.; Dodla, S.; Wang, J.J.; Darapuneni, M.; Acharya, B.S.; Magdi, S.; Pavuluri, K. Influence of poultry litter and biochar on soil water dynamics and nutrient leaching from a very fine sandy loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 189, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Blanco-Canqui, H. Biochar and soil physical properties. SSSAJ 2017, 81, 687–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. González-Pernas, F.M.; Grajera-Antolín, C.; García-Cámara, O.; González-Lucas, M.; Martín, M.T.; González-Egido, S.; Aguirre, J.L. Effects of biochar on biointensive horticultural crops and its economic viability in the Mediterranean climate. Energies 2022, 15, 3407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Losacco, D.; Tumolo, M.; Cotugno, P.; Leone, N.; Massarelli, C.; Convertini, S.; Ancona, V. Use of biochar to improve the sustainable crop production of cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L.). Plants 2022, 11, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Singh, C.; Pathak, P.; Chaudhary, N.; Vyas, D. Production of biochar using top-lit updraft and its application in horticulture. In Sustainable Agriculture: Technical Progressions and Transitions; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 159–172. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nair, P.S.; Sivani, M.P.; Suresh, S.; Sreekanth, A.J.; Sivasabari, K.; Adithya, K.S.; Dhama, K. Beneficial impacts of biochar as a potential feed additive in animal husbandry. Biochar 2023, 6, 479–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dadhich, A. Engineered biochar as feed supplement and other husbandry applications. In Engineered Biochar: Fundamentals, Preparation, Characterization and Applications; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 319–329. [Google Scholar]
  32. Osman, A.I.; Fawzy, S.; Farghali, M.; El-Azazy, M.; Elgarahy, A.M.; Fahim, R.A.; Rooney, D.W. Biochar for agronomy, animal farming, anaerobic digestion, composting, water treatment, soil remediation, construction, energy storage, and carbon sequestration: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2022, 20, 2385–2485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jeyasubramanian, K.; Thangagiri, B.; Sakthivel, A.; Dhaveethu Raja, J.; Seenivasan, S.; Vallinayagam, P.; Madhavan, D.; Malathi Devi, S.; Rathika, B. A complete review on biochar: Production, property, multifaceted applications, interaction mechanism and computational approach. Fuel 2021, 292, 120243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. United States Biochar Initiative. U.S.-Focused Biochar Report–Assessment of Biochar’s Benefits for the United States of America; Center for Energy and Environmental Security; United States Biochar Initiative: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Li, S.; Wang, X.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Shangguan, Z. Effects of application patterns and amount of biochar on water infiltration and evaporation. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2016, 32, 135–144. [Google Scholar]
  36. Li, S.; Skelly, S. Physicochemical properties and applications of biochars derived from municipal solid waste: A review. Environ. Adv. 2023, 13, 100395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rosik, J.; Łyczko, J.; Marzec, Ł.; Stegenta-Dąbrowska, S. Application of composts’ biochar as potential sorbent to reduce VOCs emission during kitchen waste storage. Materials 2023, 16, 6413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mandal, S.; Ishak, S.; Adnin, R.J.; Lee, D.E.; Park, T. An approach to utilize date seeds biochar as waste material for thermal energy storage applications. J. Energy Storage 2023, 68, 107739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chang, Y.; Yang, X. Research progress of biochar in energy storage. Highl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2023, 69, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Anitha, A.; Devi, N.R. Prospects of biochar as a renewable resource for electricity. In Biochar—Productive Technologies, Properties and Applications; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yadav, R.; Kumar, J. Application of biochar in wood-based industry as low-cost sustainable green technology. In Integrative Strategies for Bioremediation of Environmental Contaminants, Volume Two; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2023; pp. 49–55. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kirova, N.; Markopoulou, A.; Burry, J.; Latifi, M. A Study on Carbon-Neutral Biochar-Cementitious Composites. In Proceedings of the World Congress of Architects, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2–6 July 2023; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 513–526. [Google Scholar]
  43. Suarez-Riera, D.; Falliano, D.; Carvajal, J.F.; Celi, A.C.B.; Ferro, G.A.; Tulliani, J.M.; Restuccia, L. The effect of different biochar on the mechanical properties of cement-pastes and mortars. Buildings 2023, 13, 2900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ravindiran, G.; Rajamanickam, S.; Janardhan, G.; Hayder, G.; Alagumalai, A.; Mahian, O.; Sonne, C. Production and modifications of biochar to engineered materials and its application for environmental sustainability: A review. Biochar 2024, 6, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, C.; Geng, Z.; Cai, M.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Xin, H.; Ma, J. Microstructure regulation of super activated carbon from biomass source corncob with enhanced hydrogen uptake. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013, 38, 9243–9250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dehkhoda, A.M.; West, A.H.; Ellis, N. Biochar based solid acid catalyst for biodiesel production. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2010, 382, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mani, S.; Kastner, J.R.; Juneja, A. Catalytic decomposition of toluene using a biomass derived catalyst. Fuel Process. Technol. 2013, 114, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kastner, J.R.; Miller, J.; Geller, D.P.; Locklin, J.; Keith, L.H.; Johnson, T. Catalytic esterification of fatty acids using solid acid catalysts generated from biochar and activated carbon. Catal. Today 2012, 190, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lehmann, J.; Rillig, M.C.; Thies, J.; Masiello, C.A.; Hockaday, W.C.; Crowley, D. Biochar effects on soil biota—A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1812–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sohi, S.P.; Krull, E.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Bol, R. A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. In Advances in Agronomy; Donald, L.S., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2010; Volume 105, pp. 47–82. [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhang, A.; Bian, R.; Pan, G.; Cui, L.; Hussain, Q.; Zheng, J.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Han, X.; Yu, X. Effects of biochar amendment on soil quality, crop yield and greenhouse gas emission in a Chinese rice paddy: A field study of 2 consecutive rice growing cycles. Field Crops Res. 2012, 127, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ahn, S.Y.; Eom, S.Y.; Rhie, Y.H.; Sung, Y.M.; Moon, C.E.; Choi, G.M.; Kim, D.J. Utilization of wood biomass char in a direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC) system. Appl. Energy 2013, 105, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ahmad, M.; Rajapaksha, A.U.; Lim, J.E.; Zhang, M.; Bolan, N.; Mohan, D.; Vithanage, M.; Lee, S.S.; Ok, Y.S. Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review. Chemosphere 2014, 99, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Houben, D.; Evrard, L.; Sonnet, P. Mobility, bioavailability and pH-dependent leaching of cadmium, zinc and lead in a contaminated soil amended with biochar. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 1450–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Oleszczuk, P.; Hale, S.E.; Lehmann, J.; Cornelissen, G. Activated carbon and biochar amendments decrease pore-water concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hao, W.; Björkman, E.; Lilliestråle, M.; Hedin, N. Activated carbons prepared from hydrothermally carbonized waste biomass used as adsorbents for CO2. Appl. Energy 2013, 112, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhao, X.B.; Xiao, B.; Fletcher, A.J.; Thomas, K.M. Hydrogen adsorption on functionalized nanoporous activated carbons. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 8880–8888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, S.; Asadullah, M.; Dong, L.; Tay, H.-L.; Li, C.-Z. An advanced biomass gasification technology with integrated catalytic hot gas cleaning. Part II: Tar reforming using char as a catalyst or as a catalyst support. Fuel 2013, 112, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gil, M.V.; Martínez, M.; García, S.; Rubiera, F.; Pis, J.J.; Pevida, C. Response surface methodology as an efficient tool for optimizing carbon adsorbents for CO2 capture. Fuel Process. Technol. 2013, 106, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ioannidou, O.; Zabaniotou, A. Agricultural residues as precursors for activated carbon production—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2007, 11, 1966–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, H.; Yan, R.; Chen, H.; Lee, D.H.; Zheng, C. Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis. Fuel 2007, 86, 1781–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Qin, C.; Wang, H.; Yuan, X.; Xiong, T.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J. Understanding structure-performance correlation of biochar materials in environmental remediation and electrochemical devices. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 382, 122977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Abu El-Rub, Z.; Bramer, E.A.; Brem, G. Experimental comparison of biomass chars with other catalysts for tar reduction. Fuel 2008, 87, 2243–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bhandari, P.N.; Kumar, A.; Huhnke, R.L. Simultaneous removal of toluene (model tar), NH3, and H2S, from biomass-generated producer gas using biochar-based and mixed-metal oxide catalysts. Energy Fuels 2013, 28, 1918–1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bhandari, P.N.; Kumar, A.; Bellmer, D.D.; Huhnke, R.L. Synthesis and evaluation of biochar-derived catalysts for removal of toluene (model tar) from biomass-generated producer gas. Renew. Energy 2014, 66, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Meyer, S.; Glaser, B.; Quicker, P. Technical, economical, and climate-related aspects of biochar production technologies: A literature review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 9473–9483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kumar, A.; Jones, D.; Hanna, M. Thermochemical biomass gasification: A review of the current status of the technology. Energies 2009, 2, 556–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hu, B.; Wang, K.; Wu, L.; Yu, S.-H.; Antonietti, M.; Titirici, M.-M. Engineering carbon materials from the hydrothermal carbonization process of biomass. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 813–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Qian, K.; Kumar, A.; Zhang, H.; Bellmer, D.; Huhnke, R. Recent advances in utilization of biochar. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 1055–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cha, J.S.; Park, S.H.; Jung, S.C.; Ryu, C.; Jeon, J.K.; Shin, M.C.; Park, Y.K. Production and utilization of biochar: A review. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2016, 40, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. International Biochar Initiative (IBI). Global Biochar Market Report. 2023. Available online: https://www.biochar-international.org (accessed on 4 July 2025).
  72. Global Biochar Market Forecast 2020–2028. 2020. Available online: https://www.asdreports.com/market-research-report-499098/global-biochar-market-forecast (accessed on 12 January 2021).
  73. Hoffman-Krull, K. Biochar Market Analysis for San Juan County and the Pacific Northwest. 2019. Available online: https://www.nnrg.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Biochar-Market-Research-Paper-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2025).
  74. Thengane, S.K.; Kung, K.; Hunt, J.; Gilani, H.R.; Lim, C.J.; Sokhansanj, S.; Sanchez, D.L. Market prospects for biochar production and application in California. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2021, 15, 1802–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hunt, J.; McIntosh, C. The Big California Biochar Model: Forest Biomass Management, Carbon Drawdown, Drought Resiliency, and Nitrogen Conservation on a Statewide Scale. 2019. Pacific Biochar. Available online: https://pacificbiochar.com (accessed on 21 February 2025).
  76. Dokoohaki, H.; Miguez, F.E.; Laird, D.; Dumortier, J. Where should we apply biochar? Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 044005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Matuštík, J.; Hnátková, T.; Kočí, V. Life cycle assessment of biochar-to-soil systems: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dickinson, D.; Balduccio, L.; Buysse, J.; Ronsse, F.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Prins, W. Cost-benefit analysis of using biochar to improve cereals agriculture. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 81, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhang, Q.; Niu, W.; Du, Y.; Li, G.; Ma, L.; Cui, B.; Sun, J.; Niu, X.; Siddique, K.H.M. Sustainable effects of nitrogen reduction combined with biochar on enhancing maize productivity and nitrogen utilization. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 426, 139613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fentie, D.; Mihretie, F.A.; Kohira, Y.; Legesse, S.A.; Lewoyehu, M.; Wutisirirattanachai, T.; Sato, S. Optimizing cropping systems using biochar for wheat production across contrasting seasons in Ethiopian highland agroecology. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kenea, S.A.; Goshu, T.A.; Chimdessa, K. Evaluating the economic feasibility of combined biochar, lime, and inorganic fertilizer rates for garlic (Allium sativum L.) production in Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia. Int. J. Agron. 2024, 2024, 4551507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cheng, Y.; Wu, M.; Lu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, R.; Li, Y.; Cai, Y.; Xiang, H.; Zhuang, Z.; Qiu, Z.; et al. Optimizing fabrication of coated fertilizers integrated with biochar for enhanced slow-release properties: Mechanisms and cost-effectiveness analysis. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024, 144, 120123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dar, A.; Hafeez, M.; Sarwar, F.; Ain Nul Yaseen, G. Iron-doped biochar, an agricultural and environmentally beneficial fertilizer. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2024, 196, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lin, H.; Guo, S.; Han, Z.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.; Zou, J. Can biochar application improve the net economic benefits of tea plantations? Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 856, 159029, Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Adekiya, A.O.; Ogunbode, T.O.; Esan, V.I.; Adedokun, O.; Olatubi, I.V.; Ayegboyin, M.H. Short-term effects of biochar on soil chemical properties, growth, yield, quality, and shelf life of tomato. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 24965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Aguirre, J.L.; González-Egido, S.; González-Lucas, M.; González-Pernas, F.M. Medium-term effects and economic analysis of biochar application in three Mediterranean crops. Energies 2023, 16, 4131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Schmidt, H.-P.; Kammann, C.; Hagemann, N.; Leifeld, J.; Bucheli, T.D.; Sánchez Monedero, M.A.; Cayuela, M.L. Biochar in agriculture—A systematic review of 26 global meta-analyses. GCB Bioenergy 2021, 13, 1708–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Groot, H. Survey and Analysis of the US Biochar Industry; Dovetail Partners, Inc.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.dovetailinc.org/upload/tmp/1579550188.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2025).
  89. United States Department of Agriculture. Unlock the Secrets in the Soil: Soil Health Key Points; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
  90. Franco, C.R.; Page-Dumroese, D.S. Decreasing the urban carbon footprint with woody biomass biochar in the United States of America. Carbon Footpr. 2023, 2, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Elias, M.; Sanchez, D.L.; Saksa, P.; Hunt, J.; Remucal, J. Market analysis of coupled biochar and carbon credit production from wildfire fuel reduction projects in the western USA. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2024, 18, 1226–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kochanek, J.; Soo, R.M.; Martinez, C.; Dakuidreketi, A.; Mudge, A.M. Biochar for intensification of plant-related industries to meet productivity, sustainability and economic goals: A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 179, 106109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rockwood, D.L.; Ellis, M.F.; Fabbro, K.W. Economic potential for carbon sequestration by short rotation eucalypts using biochar in Florida, USA. Trees For. People 2022, 7, 100187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sahoo, K.; Upadhyay, A.; Runge, T.; Bergman, R.; Puettmann, M.; Bilek, E. Life-cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of biochar produced from forest residues using portable systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Young, P.; Lawrence, J. Biochar Market Profile Report; Worcester Polytechnic Institute: Worcester, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  96. Müller, A.; Schmidhuber, J.; Hoogeveen, J.; Steduto, P. Some insights in the effect of growing bio-energy demand on global food security and natural resources. Water Policy 2008, 10, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cowie, A.L.; Downie, A.E.; George, B.H.; Singh, B.P.; Van Zwieten, L.; O'Connell, D. Is sustainability certification for biochar the answer to environmental risks? Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2012, 47, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Borden, T.R. The Financial Viability and Sustainability Benefits of Converting Slash into Biochar Instead of Open-Burning Following Fuel Treatments in the White River National Forest. Master’s Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. Available online: https://dash.harvard.edu/entities/publication/f4a8ae4b-46a3-463c-bc75-ab4ff0a6e76d (accessed on 4 July 2025).
  99. Steiner, C. Conference Report: Biochar prospects and challenges: Summary of the recent US Biochar Initiative Conference. Carbon Manag. 2010, 1, 23–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Prasad, M.N.V. Biochar Applications for Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Management. In Agroecological Approaches for Sustainable Soil Management; Academic Press: London, UK, 2023; pp. 165–199. [Google Scholar]
Rsee 02 00023 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for “Biochar Supply Chains”.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for “Biochar Supply Chains”.
Rsee 02 00023 g001
Table 1. Primary advantages and disadvantages of various biochar applications.
Table 1. Primary advantages and disadvantages of various biochar applications.
ApplicationPurposeAdvantageDisadvantageReference
CatalystSyngas cleaning, biodiesel production, Fischer–Tropsch synthesisEasy to recycle supported metal, co-catalyst, low costRelative low efficiency and low abrasive resistance compared with commercial catalyst[45,46,47,48]
Soil amendmentCarbon sequestration, soil quality improvementLow cost, sustainable resource, retains water and nutrients, reduces fertilizer consumption, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and nutrient lossesPossible heavy metal and PAHs contaminant[49,50,51]
Fuel cellFuel for fuel cellRenewable fuel compared with coalHigh ash content, relatively low voltage, and power output[52]
Sorbent of contaminantAdsorption of organic contaminants and heavy metals present in soil and waterLow-cost, abundant, and sustainable resource, and oxygenated groups on biochar surface facilitate adsorptionEffectiveness of organic/inorganic contaminants remediation is still uncertain, and persistence of heavy metals[53,54,55]
Storage materialCO2 sequestration, H2 storageLow-cost, abundant, and sustainable resource, high recyclabilityRequire surface treatment[56,57,58,59]
Activated carbonPrecursor for making activated carbonLow-cost, abundant, and sustainable resourceProperties vary with different precursors, and may not produce desired granular or spherical activated carbon[59,60]
Table 2. Operating conditions and product yields of different thermochemical conversions.
Table 2. Operating conditions and product yields of different thermochemical conversions.
ProcessTemperature (°C)Residence TimeCarbon Content of Biochar (w%)Yield (w%)
Biochar
Slow Pyrolysis300–700min–hour9520–35
Fast Pyrolysis300–10000.5–20 s7410–25
Hydrothermal carbonization160–8001–16 h3950–80
Gasification∼750–90010–20 s60.410
Note: Higher biochar yields (e.g., from slow pyrolysis or HTC) may favor soil and carbon sequestration applications, while lower yields from gasification often prioritize energy (syngas) over solid carbon products. Source: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017 [69,70].
Table 3. Biochar production in leading global markets, 2022.
Table 3. Biochar production in leading global markets, 2022.
MarketCurrent Biochar Production
China>300,000 (up to 500,000) t/y and rapidly growing
USA~50,000 t/y and growing
Europe>20,000 t/y and growing
Australia~5000 t/y and growing
Source: Environments 2022 [23].
Table 4. Global revenue generated by the Biochar Industry (millions USD).
Table 4. Global revenue generated by the Biochar Industry (millions USD).
Industry Members20212023
Biochar producers54.75330.13
Distribution and value-added producers7.2538.88
Equipment manufactures94.38241.25
Total revenue156.38610.26
Source: Global Biochar Market Report, 2023 [71].
Table 5. List of active biochar producers in California, 2021.
Table 5. List of active biochar producers in California, 2021.
Biochar Producers, CityYear StartedBiochar Product(s)Commercial Product NamePrimary Application SectorMain Feedstock
Genesis Industries (Redondo Beach2011BiocharBiochar and biostimulantsFarming and gardeningNutshells, urban green waste
Pacific Biochar (Santa Rosa)2014BiocharBlackLiteAgricultureWoody residues
Bioforcetech (Redwood City)2012BiocharSoil mix proOrganic waste managementBiosolids, manure, green waste
Carbo culture (Woodside)2017BiocharCarbon servicesClimate and soil, landscapingForestry waste
Full Circle Biochar/bio365 LLC (San Francisco)2007BiocharBioCore and BioChargeAgricultureWood waste from the timber industry
Blue Sky Biochar (Thousand Oaks2010BiocharSEEK fertilizerAgriculturePine, bamboo
Cool planet energy systems (Camarillo)2009BiocharCoolTerraAgricultureFarm residues
Energy Anew IMC (San Rafael)2005Biochar (solar-powered)BiocharmVegetables, flowers, fruit treesWood chips
Interra energy, INC. (San Diego)2009Biochar, biofuelsInterra PretaAgriculture, biofuelsTrimmings, wood, green waste
All power labs (Berkeley)2007Biochar blendsChartainer, Power PalletLocal carbon networkWoody residues
Phoenix energy (San Francisco)2006Biochar-AgricultureForest and woody residues
Tolero Energy, LLC (Sacramento2009Biochar, activated carbonTolero fuelTransportation, water treatmentUrban biomass residues
Source: Adapted from Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining (2021) [74]. Only biochar-related products are included to align with the agricultural focus of this review.
Table 6. Wholesale and retail prices of pure biochar and blended biochar products (USD/kg), 2015.
Table 6. Wholesale and retail prices of pure biochar and blended biochar products (USD/kg), 2015.
CountryPure WholesalePure RetailNo of PureBlend
Wholesale		Blend RetailNo of Blends
AustraliaUSD 2.22USD 6.7210USD 2.27USD 12.835
CambodiaUSD 1.50USD 4.002--0
CanadaUSD 2.15USD 6.493USD 1.50-1
ChinaUSD 0.49-1USD 0.39-1
GermanyUSD 0.56USD 1.283--0
IrelandUSD 3.00-1-USD 4.001
JapanUSD 0.60USD 1.002USD 0.20-1
Kenya--0USD 1.00-1
MexicoUSD 4.50-1USD 4.50-1
NigeriaUSD 8.00-1--0
Pakistan-USD 1.001-USD 2.001
PhilippinesUSD 0.40-1--0
Russian FederationUSD 0.38-1--0
Sweden--0USD 2.00-1
Switzerland-USD 0.781-USD 0.521
United KingdomUSD 1.39USD 2.203USD 0.77USD 2.603
United StatesUSD 1.50USD 4.2628USD 1.29USD 9.4116
GlobalUSD 2.06USD 3.0856USD 1.55USD 5.2333
Source: A report by the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) [22].
Table 7. SWOT analysis of the U.S. biochar market.
Table 7. SWOT analysis of the U.S. biochar market.
StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreats
Large potential market exceeding 3 billion tons of biochar [1,2,3].Absence of standardized quality protocols and prevalence of unverified product claims [4,5].Abundant woody biomass available from U.S. National Forests [6,81].Competing demands for biomass may undermine ecosystem services and other societal needs [7,87].
Increasing demand for organic and regenerative agriculture [8,9].Limited public awareness and underdeveloped consumer demand [5,74].Opportunities to utilize low-value forest biomass for carbon credit generation [6,10,81].Potential trade-offs between biomass use for energy and food production [87,89].
Advancements in technology enabling scalable, mid-sized production [12].High production costs, elevated market prices, and lack of enabling policy or legislation [13,74].Expansion of the organic agriculture sector, bolstering biochar adoption [8,74].Market volatility due to price fluctuations and inconsistent consumer demand [14,81].
Broad applicability in soil enhancement, carbon sequestration, and yield improvement [1,15,16].Variability in feedstock inputs leading to inconsistent product characteristics [4,5].Growth of decentralized and portable biochar systems supported by federal/state incentives [12,85].Environmental and sustainability concerns that may hinder public and regulatory acceptance [5,18,88].
Positive market trends in key agricultural states such as California and Texas [19,74].Substantial gaps in empirical data on long-term carbon stability and ecosystem effects [20].Supportive climate policies may strengthen market position and encourage innovation [10,74,81].Uncertain biomass supply chains and susceptibility to input price fluctuations [7,14].
Source: Developed by the author.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Herath Bandara, S.J. Exploring the Potential of Biochar in Enhancing U.S. Agriculture. Reg. Sci. Environ. Econ. 2025, 2, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/rsee2030023

AMA Style

Herath Bandara SJ. Exploring the Potential of Biochar in Enhancing U.S. Agriculture. Regional Science and Environmental Economics. 2025; 2(3):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/rsee2030023

Chicago/Turabian Style

Herath Bandara, Saman Janaranjana. 2025. "Exploring the Potential of Biochar in Enhancing U.S. Agriculture" Regional Science and Environmental Economics 2, no. 3: 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/rsee2030023

APA Style

Herath Bandara, S. J. (2025). Exploring the Potential of Biochar in Enhancing U.S. Agriculture. Regional Science and Environmental Economics, 2(3), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/rsee2030023

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop