Fourteen Farms in Two States: What We Learned in Year One of New England Biochar Trials

Across New England, farmers are navigating a growing list of pressures: unpredictable weather, rising input costs, and soils that have been worked hard for generations. Biochar — a carbon-rich material made by heating organic matter in a low-oxygen environment — has emerged as a potential tool for building soil organic matter, improving water retention, and storing carbon long-term. But for many farmers, biochar still feels more like a research concept than a practical option.

That’s exactly the gap AFT set out to bridge with its biochar trials project: Breaking Down Barriers to Biochar Adoption on Farms Coast to Coast. In 2025, in the first year of the project, 14 farms across Maine and Massachusetts applied biochar to working fields, putting theory into practice and generating real-world lessons about what it actually takes to use New England biochar on farms.

This project wasn’t designed as a lab-style experiment. The goal was to see how biochar performs under real farm conditions, with real equipment, real labor constraints, and real weather. Sara Kelemen was the regional lead for the trials, with Caro Roszell, Jeremy Barker Plotkin, and Tasha Brodeur playing integral roles in getting the field trials operational.

Two New England States, Two Approaches

The New England trials include 10 farms in Maine and four in Massachusetts, each selected to reflect different soil types, production systems, and farm goals.

In Massachusetts, the focus is on vegetable farms working with sandy soils and regular tillage. These farms often struggle to build organic matter because frequent soil disturbance accelerates decomposition. One of the core research questions in MA is whether biochar can help increase organic matter levels over time under these conditions.

Maine’s trials take a broader approach. Participating farms include hay and field crop operations growing corn and field peas, diversified vegetable farms, and one site focused on PFAS remediation. The goal in Maine is to explore how biochar performs across a wide range of soil types and production systems, rather than testing a single hypothesis.

Early Lessons from the Field

The trials were intentionally designed to operate under real farm conditions rather than controlled research settings. Getting biochar onto working farms revealed early on that implementation itself would be one of the project’s most important sources of learning.

Not all biochar is created equal, and availability varies widely by region. In Maine, biochar was sourced from Standard Biocarbon and Clean Maine Carbon, both of which manufacture biochar using softwood feedstock from mills in Maine. In Massachusetts, three farms received biochar from White Feather Farm, while a trial on Martha’s Vineyard used biochar produced on-island. Each sourcing decision introduced different material characteristics that affected handling and application.

Biochar also proved challenging to work with in practice. The material is bulky, dusty, and not always compatible with standard farm equipment, requiring farms and project staff to adapt application methods to fit existing systems. Lime spreaders covered ground efficiently but struggled to keep material within trial boundaries. Manure spreaders offered better control but made low-rate applications difficult, while spin spreaders performed poorly when biochar was clumpy or moist. Surprisingly, bucket spreading went faster than expected, especially with a three-person crew.

Across sites, moisture content emerged as a critical variable, and calibration required more time than anticipated. Having backup spreading plans became essential, particularly as weather delays forced teams to pivot quickly to avoid spreading light material under windy conditions.

These logistical challenges reinforced one of the project’s clearest early lessons: New England biochar is not a one-size-fits-all practice. Based on initial observations, the team sees the greatest potential in very sandy soils, where building durable organic matter is especially difficult. It remains less clear whether biochar will provide measurable benefits in heavier soils with already higher organic matter levels.

Cost also remains a significant barrier. Biochar is currently expensive, and without NRCS cost-share support, staff found it difficult to justify application economically. Several team members noted that tracking labor hours more carefully would have been valuable, since operational time is often among the first considerations farmers weigh when evaluating a new practice.

Perhaps most importantly, year one clarified just how much is still unknown. There is no consensus yet on how much biochar to apply, what rate is truly “effective,” or how variables like particle size and pre-charging affect outcomes. Questions remain about nutrient tie-up, long-term volume loss through weathering, and biochar’s potential role in areas such as PFAS remediation or livestock health.

Rather than overpromising results, the project team has approached the work as a long-term effort. Soil testing and yield monitoring will continue over multiple seasons, recognizing that meaningful changes in soil organic matter or nutrient dynamics may take years to emerge. For now, the focus is on building practical knowledge under real-world conditions and sharing lessons that can help farmers make informed decisions moving forward.