And I don't think you really did read or study, let alone understand the articles, because if you would have had your "science" up to date, you would not have overlooked the following :
1. In this article, of which my Dutch collegue Thom Kuyper (Alterra, Wageningen University) is a co-author, a review of experiments on "both biochar additions and mycorrhizal abundance subject to management practice" is presented with the following remarks : "A few studies observed negative effects. There is potential for negative effects on mycorrhizal fungi. The species composition of a mycological fungal assemblage can be important to mycorrhizal functioning. Data on this important aspect of the response of mycorrhizal fungi to biochar are not yet available, but present an important priority for future studies."
2. What were you thinking, presenting a case of : "Biochar use in the Poultry Industry" producing chicken s..t as fertilizer ?
3. Microorganisms, more microorganisms, microbal products, microbial fertilizers, biomass waste : since when are microorganisms micro- or macrofungi, i.e. AMF- or ectomycorrhizal symbionts ?
4. Farms, more farms, agriculture, Agro-Environmental Sciences : where are the trees and (natural) forests, you keep referring to ?
5. Correction, there is one review of the effects of biochar and AMF on commercial, economical, short term life cycle forestry of trees, i.e. - surprise, surprise - wood (timber) production and - one could have expected this - of charcoal production .
6. Crops, maize, more maize, corn, tomato and rice. And good to know I can supply my home grown vegetables with an aspirin (or pulverized shoots and bark of Salix) when they are feeling poorly and not growing very well.
7. Who do you think are behind these websites and what is their obvious, not very "hidden" agenda ? And why are the producers and resellers of charcoal so fanatic and focussed on short term "results", as if their life - and not that of trees - and good fortune depends on it ?
Evaluating your "research" findings on the worldwideweb and in assuming you're the true field expert on tree species specific and forest ecosystems and their soil food webs, in which ectomycorrhizal macrofungi play a significant, if not the most important role, I - not being a "Para-Medic Gardener" or "Surgeon Chem-Engineer" - for my part end this "debate" on charcoal with the following conclusions :
- There is no evidence of positive effects of biochar (and commercial AMF-products) on trees or forests other then planted for commercial wood (timber) or charcoal production.
- There is no research at all on the effects of biochar on the soil food webs of tree species specific and (natural) forest ecosystems mainly depending on ectomycorrhizal symbionts.
- How can Quercus, Fagus, Betula, Populus, Salix, Alnus, Tilia, Carpinus, Castanea, Corylus, Pinus, Picea, Abies, Larix and Pseudotsuga, all of them being partners of ectomycorrhizal symbiotic macrofungi, profit from commercial AMF-products (and charcoal) ?
---