Farming and soil science have been all about the chemistry for the last 180 years. Why? Because chemistry could be measured, even as early as the mid-1800s. That doesn’t mean it was used on the farm, but in labs.
Mineral theory was invented by Justus von Liebig in the mid 1800s. His understanding that the soil was essentially a nutrient reservoir was the basis for soil science almost up to the present day. It was really only in the 1970s that we began to accurately measure any type of soil biological activity.
And it’s only been in the last decade that soil biology testing has become affordable, standardized, and scalable. That means relevant to farmers. It’s no wonder agronomy still uses chemical soil science as the norm.
Let’s take a quick tour of the soil science world and how it’s changed over the last 2 centuries. It’s more interesting than you might think.
Mineral theory was invented by Justus von Liebig in the mid 1800s. His understanding that the soil was essentially a nutrient reservoir was the basis for soil science almost up to the present day. It was really only in the 1970s that we began to accurately measure any type of soil biological activity.
And it’s only been in the last decade that soil biology testing has become affordable, standardized, and scalable. That means relevant to farmers. It’s no wonder agronomy still uses chemical soil science as the norm.
Let’s take a quick tour of the soil science world and how it’s changed over the last 2 centuries. It’s more interesting than you might think.
Key Points
- Chemistry dominated agriculture because it was measurable — Liebig’s mineral theory made soil fertility quantifiable, standardized, and industrialized for 180 years.
- Biology was invisible until recently — soil biology couldn’t be measured accurately until the 1970s and wasn’t affordable or scalable until the last decade.
- Chemical agronomy created a fixation‑focused, input‑heavy system — farmers were taught to solve every problem with more fertilizer, more amendments, and more sprays.
- Biology is now measurable, and it changes everything — respiration tests, carbon markets, regenerative agriculture, and soil‑health policy are pushing producers toward biological management.
- BioChar sits at the intersection of chemistry, biology, and structure — it acts as a chemical sponge, a biological habitat, and a physical scaffold that improves aggregation, porosity, compaction, infiltration, and water retention.
- BioChar is the modern, measurable form of the old “humus force” — it reconnects chemistry and biology, giving sand and clay the loam‑like balance farmers have always wanted and making soil behave like a living system again.
Soil Science as Chemistry is Easy to Measure, Control, Industrialize
Before there was soil chemistry, there was “humus forces.” Soil contained a vital, energetic, life-force coming from decomposed organic matter. We couldn’t measure it; we just saw the results. People observed that plants grew better in rich, dark soil, so humus must contain a life force. But how that actually worked was explained as:
- Plants fed directly on humus
- Humus contained a “vital principle”
- Soil fertility came from the quality of humus, not its chemistry
- Humus released invisible forces that stimulated plant growth
This was called Vitalism. That sounds pretty weird in today’s world, but it wasn’t all that far off.
But when Justus von Liebig demonstrated that plants didn’t eat humus but took up mineral ions, the stage was set for chemical agriculture. Humus is mostly carbon, which plants get from CO2, so fertility had to be a chemical phenomenon.
How were chemists able to dismantle ages of human farming knowledge so quickly? Humus forces couldn’t explain crop failures, and they couldn’t be standardized. But chemistry could be measured, standardized, and scaled in production plants.
And the results from adding chemistry to soil were immediate plant health. Humus forces were unquantifiable; you couldn’t build a soil test around them, and the results from adding humus (soil improvement) were slow and subtle for crops.
Industrial agriculture, geologists, and chemists aligned. The new science of Agronomy focused almost entirely on chemistry. On the idea of chemical fixation:
But when Justus von Liebig demonstrated that plants didn’t eat humus but took up mineral ions, the stage was set for chemical agriculture. Humus is mostly carbon, which plants get from CO2, so fertility had to be a chemical phenomenon.
How were chemists able to dismantle ages of human farming knowledge so quickly? Humus forces couldn’t explain crop failures, and they couldn’t be standardized. But chemistry could be measured, standardized, and scaled in production plants.
And the results from adding chemistry to soil were immediate plant health. Humus forces were unquantifiable; you couldn’t build a soil test around them, and the results from adding humus (soil improvement) were slow and subtle for crops.
Industrial agriculture, geologists, and chemists aligned. The new science of Agronomy focused almost entirely on chemistry. On the idea of chemical fixation:
- Zinc gets “fixed” by phosphorus
- Iron gets “locked up” in high‑pH soils
- Manganese oxidizes and becomes unavailable
- Micronutrients bind to iron/aluminum oxides
- Nutrient loss is a chemical equation
This makes total sense when you’re looking at problems in your field that lab results can quantify. And the experts from the labs showed farmers they could fight fixation with:
- more fertilizer
- more foliar sprays
- more amendments
- more inputs
Our modern agriculture is based on the mineral theory of Justus von Liebig in the 1830s. The Green Revolution in the 1940s-1970s was so successful because chemistry made possible standardized chemical inputs for predictable results. Biology didn’t fit in this model.
Measuring Biology Flipped the Switch on Soil Science
Biology isn’t tidy like chemistry. It took about 250 years from the time Antonie van Leeuwenhoek first saw “animalcules” (bacteria) in 1670 with a very crude microscope until the first real introduction of biological soil amendments in the 2000s.
Why did it take so long? Chemistry is simple; biology is complex. And when a farmer can be given a single number on chemical tests for NPK or a range of values that are context-specific for biological activity tied to nutrient availability, it’s hard to trust a range.
Chemistry asks you to buy a product; biology asks you to change your practices.
But biological amendments are becoming more important, and farmers are adopting them because:
Why did it take so long? Chemistry is simple; biology is complex. And when a farmer can be given a single number on chemical tests for NPK or a range of values that are context-specific for biological activity tied to nutrient availability, it’s hard to trust a range.
Chemistry asks you to buy a product; biology asks you to change your practices.
But biological amendments are becoming more important, and farmers are adopting them because:
- respiration tests are standardized
- carbon markets require biological data
- regenerative agriculture is expanding
- farmers see fertilizer inefficiency
- drought resilience demands biology
- soil health is becoming policy
Chemical farming is still dominant. The industrial agricultural complex has a vested interest in keeping that system intact. But even the big chemical companies now have biological soil amendments. The writing is on the wall.
Biochar Sits at the Intersection of Chemistry and Biology
BioChar behaves like a chemical amendment and a biological habitat at the same time, but those two roles “turn on” under different conditions. It behaves like a chemical amendment because it has surface chemistry that interacts with nutrients. It can do amazing things chemically:
- High CEC (cation exchange capacity) → holds positively charged nutrients
- High AEC (anion exchange capacity in some chars) → holds negatively charged nutrients
- Buffers pH
- Reduces nutrient leaching
- Adsorbs ammonium, potassium, calcium, magnesium
- Adsorbs nitrate in some chars
- Adsorbs pesticides and toxins
BioChar is basically a carbon sponge. And that’s great if you want it to soak up everything. But raw, or pure, BioChar will also create a crop failure because all the nutrients needed by the plant are stored away in the pores of the BioChar. This is why charging (enriching the BioChar with nutrients before application on your fields) is so important.
You can think of BioChar as a slow-release nutrient reservoir.
It also fits into the biological model because it provides habitat for biology. Biologically, BioChar is a powerhouse. It:
You can think of BioChar as a slow-release nutrient reservoir.
It also fits into the biological model because it provides habitat for biology. Biologically, BioChar is a powerhouse. It:
- Provides pore spaces for microbes
- Protects microbes from predators
- Creates refugia during drought
- Enhances fungal colonization
- Supports mycorrhizal networks
- Increases microbial respiration
- Stabilizes microbial metabolites
- Extends carbon flow duration
- Improves aggregation through microbial glues (EPS, glomalin)
It’s more valuable as a biological amendment than a chemical amendment. Once you get the biology in your soil, they start increasing the rate of nutrient cycling to your plants. Think of soil microbes as free labor.
The physical benefits of BioChar are often overlooked. Both the chemistry and the biology depend on the physical structure of the soil. BioChar changes that structure in fundamental ways.
The physical benefits of BioChar are often overlooked. Both the chemistry and the biology depend on the physical structure of the soil. BioChar changes that structure in fundamental ways.
How BioChar Changes Soil Structure for Better Plant Health
BioChar improves soil aggregation, increases porosity, and increases water retention in sandy soil. In clay soil, BioChar is also effective in decreasing compaction, enhancing water infiltration, and lowering the soil’s bulk density. The multitude of surface pore structures that BioChar adds to soil is incredibly important for soil health.
The core mechanism for BioChar impact is its highly porous, carbon-rich structure. It acts like a scaffold inside the soil matrix. Degraded soils can begin to bounce back after only a few applications of BioChar. That’s because the physical characteristics enhance the biological and chemical properties of the soil and BioChar. It:
The core mechanism for BioChar impact is its highly porous, carbon-rich structure. It acts like a scaffold inside the soil matrix. Degraded soils can begin to bounce back after only a few applications of BioChar. That’s because the physical characteristics enhance the biological and chemical properties of the soil and BioChar. It:
- Improves aggregation — strengthens soil crumb structure and reduces crusting
- Increases porosity — adds essential micro‑ and macro‑pore space
- Reduces bulk density — makes heavy soils lighter and easier for roots to penetrate
- Decreases compaction — disrupts dense clay plates and opens the soil matrix
- Enhances water infiltration — improves drainage and reduces runoff
- Increases water retention — stores moisture in pore networks, especially in sandy soils
Many producers see greater results in clay or sandy soil. Loam already has adequate soil porosity, water retention, and microbial habitat for optimum plant growth. Wouldn’t it be great for all your property to have the characteristics of loam?
BioChar gives sand and clay the missing physical features of loam by adding a permanent carbon architecture that balances water, air, and structure. Loam is a balanced soil. Dark, rich, and full of fertility.
How does this relate to the history of soil science?
How Biochar Brings Soil Science Full Circle
For thousands of years, farmers knew one thing: Plants thrive in rich, dark, humus‑heavy soil. They didn’t know why, so they described it as a life‑force. Vitalism wasn’t mystical; it was simply pre-measurement biology. Farmers observed biological processes they couldn’t quantify.
The irony: humus forces weren’t wrong — just premature. Modern soil biology shows that humus does influence fertility through:
The irony: humus forces weren’t wrong — just premature. Modern soil biology shows that humus does influence fertility through:
- microbial activity
- carbon structure
- nutrient buffering
- water retention
- aggregation
- fungal networks
Humus forces were an early attempt to describe soil biology without the tools to see it. They were abandoned because they were unmeasurable, not because they were wrong.
The “humus force” was microbial ecology. Liebig was correct: plants don’t eat humus, but microbes do. Plants do uptake mineral ions, and biology controls the availability of those ions. That was the missing piece. Biochar is the bridge between chemistry and biology.
By adding the physical structure of BioChar (carbon), both chemistry and biology function the way you’ve always wanted. BioChar is the modern, measurable form of the “humus force,” the physical, chemical, and biological foundation that makes soil behave like a living system again.
The “humus force” was microbial ecology. Liebig was correct: plants don’t eat humus, but microbes do. Plants do uptake mineral ions, and biology controls the availability of those ions. That was the missing piece. Biochar is the bridge between chemistry and biology.
By adding the physical structure of BioChar (carbon), both chemistry and biology function the way you’ve always wanted. BioChar is the modern, measurable form of the “humus force,” the physical, chemical, and biological foundation that makes soil behave like a living system again.
