If there is the danger that bio-char could contaminate food and water, the ancient South Americans seemed to cope successfully with it. Maybe the CSIRO could shortcut their research by looking at the vast amount of Brazilian knowledge of Terra Preta and how the soils remain seriously fertile to this day. Why doesn't one of the QCL journos ask them the question. I would be seriously interested in their response.

"Dangerous toxins" = mostly paranoia.

Bio-char is inert, contains no toxins in any form therefore can't release any toxins. Bio-char has similar filtering properties to 'activated charcoal', meaning it will most likely absorb toxins and lock them up.

While the question of toxins is valid, we must work towards improving our soils. Terra Preta soils prove bio-char works and is still working. It is a win/win situation. The problem is, there is no serious manufacturing plants to produce it at a reasonable cost. CSIRO needs to focus on developing bulk Bio-char. It may even fix the climate change issue.

What? Somebody actually trusts the CSIRO? Really? Wow...

I'm not a scientist but logically if there are no toxins to start with, why should there be toxins after a process which doesn't add artificial chemicals?

I agree with the above comments. If there was a problem with Bio Char then surely it would have shown up in the Terra Preta soil. It works so stop trying to reinvent the wheel and creating a job for yourselves to prove something that isn't there. Get on with producing bulk Bio Char as there are farmers wanting to apply it to thier land. What are they going to do with the people that have starting producing and using it already?

CSIRO can stick its biochar where the sun don't shine. They are claiming it is something special that can only be produced by complex means by supposedly clever people like themsleves, and only from waste products like bagasse etc. But in fact, it is just another name for charcoal and the Amazonians did a pretty good job of it without a single CSIRO goon. There is no need for even the traditional charcoal production methods. Most charcoal in the landscape is produced by cold, slow winter hazard reduction burns. Dead or fallen wood gets partially burned in the late afternoon but the lower temperatures and the onset of dewfall then extinguishes the embers leaving charcoal, and charcoal covered wood behind. This can be done in a far more systematic way with low windrows that can be disrupted at dewfall to arrest combustion for subsequent incorporation into the soil. It is the perfect use for our vast infestations of woody weeds and excess regrowth but, as is so often the case, gonzo carbon accounting and incompetent vegetation legislation discourages best practice farming.

This cracks me up. If Labor had biochar as part of their policy, would CSIRO doubt it? I doubt it.

WA Aggie. Do you remember that in 1986 Hawke appointed Neville Wran, the national president of the ALP, as chairman of the CSIRO? The ALP politicians hijacked the science. You have good grounds for doubting it.