AU2011306661C1

AU2011306661C1 - Soil treatment process

Info

Publication number: AU2011306661C1
Application number: AU2011306661A
Authority: AU
Inventors: Stephen Terrence Walsh
Original assignee: Sita Logistics Ltd
Current assignee: Sita Logistics Ltd
Priority date: 2010-09-21
Filing date: 2011-09-20
Publication date: 2015-07-09
Anticipated expiration: 2031-09-20
Also published as: GB2497240A; GB201015794D0; GB201304998D0; AU2011306661B2; WO2012038740A1; GB2497240B; AU2011306661A1

Abstract

Compositions for adding to soil that comprise an energy source, a phosphate solubilising microbe population and biochar, and methods of enriching soils that have an initial pH of 5.5 to 7.5.

Description

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 1 Soil Treatment Process The present invention relates to a process for treating and enriching soils and compositions suitable for such 5 purposes. In particular, the invention relates to a process for treating topsoils suitable for growing agronomically important crops destined inter alia for animal or human consumption and compositions therefor. 10 The growth of the human population worldwide has placed strains on the use of farm land for the production of arable crops, particularly in areas of the world where human populations are very large, such as in India, Africa and China. The available arable land area suitable for the 15 production of crops is shrinking. Furthermore, the presence of micronutrients and minerals in the remaining arable land needs to be constantly replenished to provide soils that are capable of sustaining plants inter alia for food and feedstuff purposes. 20 One of the essential minerals that plants require for root growth is phosphorus in a soluble form that plants are able to take up and readily assimilate. In conventional farming practice soluble phosphate is provided as 25 available P 2 0 5 which is typically derived from commercially available single superphosphate (SSP) or triple superphosphate (TSP). Commercially available SSP is made by reacting sulphuric acid with rock phosphate and results in a mixture of gypsum and mainly monobasic calcium 30 phosphate. The product contains from 16-20% available P 2 0 5 , that is to say, soluble phosphate. Commercial quantities of TSP are also made by reacting concentrated phosphoric CV) acid (instead of sulphuric acid) on rock phosphate. The product contains about 45 - 50% available P205 35 (hereinafter 'soluble phosphate'). Both SSP and TSP are only about 40-60% soluble and 70-80% soluble in water, respectively.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 2 Other forms of phosphate that are available for exploitation are seabird deposits, referred to as 'guano', and bone meal. However, world reserves of guano are now largely depleted due to commercial exploitation of them. 5 Bone meal is finely ground bone that is used as an organic fertilizer for its content of soluble phosphate and nitrogen (about 23%-30% soluble phosphate and 2%-4% nitrogen); it is a more expensive form of soluble 10 phosphorus than superphosphate. Bone meal typically requires the use of microbes/bacteria in the soil in order to make the nutrients in the fertilizer more readily bio available. That use can result in irregular release of phosphorus/calcium if the release of such minerals in 15 soluble form is left to a soil population composed of native microbes. Sterile potting soil for use in commercial and domestic greenhouses typically does not contain microbes capable of 20 releasing mineral nutrients from minerals that may be present. A problem with adding soluble phosphate such as SSP and/or TSP and other micronutrients to soils as assimilable 25 chemical additives is that the level of such minerals (e.g. phosphate) is essentially dependent on the solubility of the added chemical. In the case of soluble phosphate provision, there exists a need to find a more efficient means of providing more assimilable phosphate to 30 the soil wherein the availability of it and of other micronutrients useful for plant growth and yield is more sustained and constant. 'Biochar' is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass in the absence of oxygen, typically from waste biomass. It 35 differs from charcoal in that its primary use is not for fuel, but for bio-sequestration of atmospheric carbon. Agricultural feed stocks such as animal manure, weeds, crop byproducts such as rice hulls, and forest waste may WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 3 be pyrolysed at low temperatures to produce inter alia this char product. The biochar captures about 50% of the carbon found in the agricultural feedstock, and can be used as a soil additive. 5 Biochar production provides a means for carbon to be drawn from the atmosphere and represents a solution for reducing the global impact of farming on greenhouse gas production. Biochar can be used to store carbon in the ground, and at 10 the same time its presence in the earth can improve water quality, increase soil fertility, raise agricultural productivity and reduce pressure on old-growth forests. The addition of biochar per se to soil types has been 15 known for centuries. Terra preta or "black earth" (also known as "Amazonian dark earth" or "Indian black earth") is a type of very dark, fertile anthropogenic soil found in the Amazon basin. Terra preta owes its name to its very high charcoal content, and was made by adding a mixture of 20 charcoal, bone, and manure to the otherwise relatively infertile Amazonian soil over many years. However, Terra preta although clearly useful suffers from certain drawbacks: for example, the rate of solubilisation of plant-assimilable phosphate from added bone is likely to 25 be patchy or slow; the components of the microbe population are not optimised for use in soil types having a pH in the range of 5.5 to 7.5. Agrichar, a form of biochar marketed by Best Pyrolysis 30 Inc., has shown considerable promise as a soil additive in Australia where crop biomass has been reported as having been increased threefold for wheat and twofold for soybean when applied at the rate of 10 tonnes/hectare. However, Agrichar does not appear to provide a solution per se to 35 the use of and/or replenishment of minerals and other micronutrients to topsoil.

-4 In one or more aspects the present invention may advantageosly provide a more efficient means adding plant assimilable phosphate and other micronutrients to soil. In further aspects the present invention may advantageously provide a better structured soil environment and improved bioavailabilitv of nutrients for improved plant rooting and yield in temperate, sub tropical and tropical environments where soils typically suffer from weathering, mineral deficiencies such as phosphate deficiency, soil pH imbalances, metal ion toicities (e.g. aluminium toxicity) and the like that limit soil productivity. These and other aspects of the present invention will become evident from the following description and examples. The inventor has now found that by adding biochar along with microbes and a suitable energy source for the microbes that soil structure can be improved and soil integrity can be restored to weathered areas where the soil integrity has broken down or is in the process of breaking down. Furthermore th9 inventor has found that soil fertility can be improved and maintained more effectively over time. According to a first aspect of the invention there is provided a composition for adding to a soil wherein tne soil has an initial pH or 5.5 - 7.5 that comprises: (i) a phosphate solubilising microbial population PSMP); (ii) an energy source for the microbial population (PMP) of (i) and (iii) biochar. In another aspect, the present invention provides a composition for adding to a soil wherein the soil has an initial pH of 5.5 7.5 that comprises: 11 'r~IiiecxmecNRorth!DCCREC12N04O' e'Icx1A2/2U 24A (i) a phosphate solubilising microbial population (SMO comprising at least one species selected from the genera Bacillus and / or Glomus; (ii) an energy source for the microbial population of (i) wherein the energy source is selected from starch or protein or a combination thereof; and ( iii) oiochar. In another aspect, the present invention provides a process for enriching a soil having an initial pH of 5.5 to 7.5 that comprises the following steps: i) adding one or more inorganic phosphates at a concentration of from 5 - 112 g/m'<; ii) adding topsoil mixed with organic matter and/or compost at an amount of 50-2500 g/m'; iii) adding an energy source in lquid form selected from starch or protein or combination thereof; iv) adding at least one phosphate solubilising microbial population (PSMP) comprising at least one species selected from the genera Bacillus and/or Glomus at a rare of 0.001 g to 0.1 g/m t (dry weight); and v) adding biochar. In another aspect, the present invention provides soil medium for use in germination of seeds and rooting of seedlings that comprises in admixture: i) one or more inorganic phosphates at a concentration of prom 5 to 112 g/litre; ii) organic matter and/or compost at an amount of 50-2500 g/litre; iii) an energy source selected from starch or protein or combination thereof; iv) at least one phosphate solubilising microbial population (PSMB) comprising at least one species selected from the genera Bacillus and Glomus at a concentration o 0.001 to 0.1 g/litre dry weight; and v) biochar particles, kresdneevnr\;x,\Potb\CCEC?4274@ IAe-W1 -4B The skilled artisan will appreciate that the term "energy source" may also be referred to as "microbial food" in the art. The PSMP may comprise at least one species f a bacterium or at least one species of a fungus or a combination WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 5 thereof. Species of bacteria and fungi of use in the invention are those that are capable of acting on an inorganic and/or organic substrate to release phosphorus containing compounds in soluble form from such substrates. 5 Preferably, the PSMP comprises at least one species of bacterium and at least one species of fungus. Suitable species of bacteria may be selected from bacterial genera such as Alcaligenes, Acinetobacter, Azospirillum, Bacillus, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Flavobacterium, 10 Paenibacillus, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Burkholderia, and Serratia. Preferably there are at least two species of bacteria, which may be, for example, selected from species of the Bacillus genus such as Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus coagulans, species of the Azospirillum genus such 15 as Azospirillum brasilense, species of the Pseudomonas genus, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas aurantiaca, Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas poae, and Pseudomonas trivialis, species of the Rhizobium 20 genus such as Bradyrhizobium and Rhizobium leguminosarum, and species of the Paenibacillus genus (formerly considered as Bacillus genus) such as Paenibacillus lautus. The types of bacterial species that are used in compositions of the invention will depend inter alia on 25 where the composition is to be applied, and on what kind of crop plant that is destined to be planted in soils to which compositions of the invention have been or are to be applied. Preferred combinations include Baccilus megaterium and B. subtills or B. coagulans together and 30 optionally in combination with Pseudomonas striata. The species of mycorrhizal fungus suitable for use in the invention is any species that is capable of augmenting levels of available nutrients in the soil with further organic and inorganic nutrients that are assimilable by a 35 crop plant. Suitable species of mycorrhizal fungus for use in the present invention include those that are capable of colonising a host plant's roots, either intracellularly as in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), or extracellularly WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 6 as in ectomycorrhizal (ECM) or ericoid mycorrhizal (EM) fungi. AMP are mycorrhizae whose hyphae enter into the plant S cells, producing structures that are either balloon-like (vesicles) or dichotomously-branching invaginations (arbuscules). The structure of the arbuscules greatly increases the contact surface area between the hypha and the cell cytoplasm to facilitate the transfer of nutrients 10 between them. Examples of genera of AMP of use in the invention include Glomus, Gigaspora, Acaulospora and Sclerocystis. Glomus species are particularly useful. Suitable species include Glomus fasciculatum, G. intraradices, G. claroideum; G. intra, G. clarum, G. 15 brasilianum, G. deserticola, G. monosporus, G. mosseae, C.tortuosum, G, sinuosum, Gigaspora margarita, Gigaspora gigantean and Acaulospora longular. Ectomycorrhizae (EcM) are typically formed between the 20 roots of around 10% of plant families, mostly woody plants including the birch, dipterocarp, eucalyptus, oak, pine, and rose families, and fungi belonging to the genera Basidiomycota, Ascomycota, and Zygomycota. Ectomycorrhizae consist of a hyphal sheath or mantle covering the root tip 25 and a hartig net of hyphae surrounding the plant cells within the root cortex. Outside the root, the fungal mycelium forms an extensive network within the soil and leaf litter. Nutrients move between different plants through the fungal network. Genera of EcM of use in the 30 invention include Suillus, Boletus, Lactarius, Laccaria, Pisolithus and Rhizopogon. Examples of species of EcM genera for use in the invention include Pisolithus tictorus, Laccaria laccata, L. bicolor, Rhizopogon villosuli, R. rubescens, R. fulvigleba, R. luteolus, and 35 R. amylopogon. Ericoid mycorrhizas (EM) are the third of the three more ecologically important types of mycorrhizal fungus that WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 7 have a simple intraradical (i.e. it grows in cells) phase, consisting of dense coils of hyphae in the outermost layer of root cells. There is no periradical phase and the extraradical phase consists of sparse hyphae that do not 5 extend far into the surrounding soil. Ericoid mycorrhizae are known to have saprotrophic capabilities and these are thought to enable plants to receive nutrients from not yet-decomposed materials via the decomposing actions of their ericoid partners. A suitable genus of EM of use in 10 the present invention is Pezizella. Preferably compositions of the invention include at least one species of the genus Glomus and at least two species selected from the Bacillus and Pseudomonas genera. 15 Compositions of the invention typically comprise PSMP cultures that when added to the soil, are added at a level of 0.001 g to 0.1 g/m 2 . The man skilled in the art will appreciate that 20 compositions of the invention may be provided in dry form that may be re-constituted with a liquid or may be provided in liquid form per se depending on the end purpose. When compositions of the invention are to be transported over long distances, or are to be stored in 25 warehousing, barns, sheds, and even on shelving or in sacks placed on the ground, dry forms of compositions of the invention may be more advantageous. Compositions of the invention include an energy source 30 that is typically made up of starch (e.g. sourced from rice or maize) and/or a protein (e.g. sourced locally from sources as diverse as fish meal, fish waste, soya meal, milk curd, animal waste and animal blood) and/or sugars (e.g. sourced from molasses). The composition may also 35 contain mineral constituents, such as soluble nitrate, soluble sulphate (e.g. CuSO 4 , trace metal ions such as selenium (Se), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn) and/or other minerals depending on the WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 8 native soil type and mineral content thereof to which the composition is being added. In use, the energy source will typically be in liquid form 5 in a composition of the invention. PSMP, for example, in the form of a culture may be added at 0.001 to 0.1 g/litre to a liquid energy source. The liquid energy source or food source may then be added at from 0.9% to 1.5% of the total volume, preferably from 0.9% to 1.4% of the total 10 volume, of a solution of organic matter of choice, such as fermented organic matter. Where the composition of the invention is in a non-liquid, particulate form, the microbiological inoculant may be 15 added at a rate of 0.001 g/m 2 to 0.1 g/m 2 dry weight of the energy source or microbial food. The energy source may comprise microbiological inoculant: energy source in a dry weight ratio from 1:5 to 1:150, more preferably from 1:10 to 1:100, and most preferably from 1:70 to 1:80. The dry 20 weight ratio of inoculant:energy source may be selected as appropriate depending on the soil conditions to which the energy source is to be supplied. The source of starch may be from any plant source but is typically from a crop plant source such as rice, maize, 25 wheat, barley, sorghum, potato, sweet potato, yam or other root crop source. In Asian and African countries preferred starch sources are rice and sorghum. The eukaryotic cell source may be any plant or animal source, such as alluded to herein provided that the 30 protein is available in compositions of the invention in a dried form or in a predominantly liquidised form or in a liquid form, depending on end purpose. Sugars of use in the invention are those that are readily 35 derivable from plant sources using conventional procedures employed in the art, such as molasses from sugar cane and/or sugar beet, sorghum syrup, corn syrup and the like. Such sugar-containing materials may also contain mineral WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 9 ions such as calcium, copper, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, iron, and manganese. Thus as a further aspect of the invention there is provided an energy composition that comprises: 5 i) At least one energy source selected from starch from a plant source; protein from a eukaryotic cell source; and sugars; and ii) PSMP. Preferably the energy source in this aspect of the 10 invention comprises: 1) starch from a plant source; 2) protein from a eukaryotic cell source; and 3) sugars. 15 The starch, protein, sugars and PSMP may all be readily obtained from sources known in the art. PSMPs may also be sourced from any suitable commercial sources such as from Nitrofix laboratories, Kolkata, India; Green Miracle, Sara Buri Province, Thailand, and Plant Works, Kent UK. 20 Alternatively PSMPs may be sourced from the decomposition of vegetable matter, in particular so-called 'green manures' selected from such sources as ferns of the genus Azolla (Southeast Asia), tyfon (a brassica species), velvet bean, soybean, alfalfa, sunn hemp, fenugreek, 25 lupine, buckwheat, vetch (e.g. hairy vetch), clovers (e.g. sweet clover, berseem clover, crimson clover), mustard, fava bean, tithonia, seaweed, rye and oats depending on geographical region. An energy composition (with or without PSMPs) may be added to such vegetable matter, to 30 enhance the rate of decomposition. As a still further preferment the energy source of the energy composition also comprises added minerals. The starch, protein, sugars, PSMP and minerals may be 35 added together in a solution wherein the components are present in certain percentages by volume of the solution. The percentages by volume of starch, of protein and of sugars may each be in the range 1 to 1.5%.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 10 If present as a component of the added energy source, the PSMP, for example, in the form of a culture may be added at 0.001 to 0.1 g/litre to a liquid energy source or S liquid microbial food which may then be added at 0.9% to 1.5% by volume of the total volume of an organic solution, preferably added at 0.9% to 1.4% of the total volume of an organic solution, such as a fermented organic solution as herein described, and as contemplated for use in the 10 present invention. Minerals, preferably in the form of mineral ions may also be added depending on the soil type to which the fermented organic matter is to be applied. Biochar may be readily made from organic waste by 15 subjecting it to a pyrolysis treatment in the absence of oxygen. The kind of organic waste that may be used as a starter material for making biochar includes brushwood, hardwood, dried plant matter, animal manure such as cattle manure, pig manure, buffalo manure, poultry litter, human 20 waste, so-called green waste, wood waste, straw, paper sludge, distillers grain, woody weeds, nut shells, grass such as switch grass, rice hulls and the like. The formed biochar is then typically comminuted into particles of a desired volume mean diameter (VMD) size, such as a VMD in 25 the range up to 50 mm, more preferably from 1 mm to 50 mm or any size thereinbetween. Preferably, the VMD is from 1 mm to 20 mm, and most preferably the VMD is from 1 mm to 10 mm. It is thought that the VMD should be sufficiently small such that solubilised phosphorus and other minerals 30 adsorbed to the biochar particles are readily available to plants that are capable of assimilating them. Insoluble phosphorus in the form of rock phosphate or the insoluble elements of SSP or TSP as alluded to above are also adsorbed to the biochar particles where it is acted on by 35 any added PSMP which turns it into a soluble, available form of phosphorus for assimilation into plants.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 11 The biochar may be added to liquid or particulate non liquid compositions of the invention in amounts from 0.5 to 50 g/litre, preferably from 0.5 - 10 g/litre. The biochar may be added to particulate non-liquid S compositions of the invention as an inoculum, admixed therewith, and then added to the soil or biochar may simply be added to the soil directly. When introduced onto the topsoil, the amount of biochar applied should be in the order of 10 g/m2 to 1000 g/m 2 . 10 Preferably, the amount of biochar applied is from 200 g/m 2 to 800 g/m 2 and more preferably from 100 g/m 2 to 300 g/m 2 . The man skilled in the art will appreciate that the amount and size of biochar particles that are to be applied to the soil will be dependent on the type of soil that is to 15 be enriched and the crop plants that are to be grown in the soil. In a further aspect of the invention there is provided a process for enriching a soil having an initial pH of 5.5 to 7.5 that comprises the following steps: 20 i) adding one or more inorganic phosphates at a concentration of from 5 - 112 g/m 2 ; ii) adding topsoil mixed with organic matter and/or compost at an amount of 50-2500 g/m 2 ; iii) adding an energy source in liquid form comprising 25 starch, protein, and sugar, or any combination of at least two thereof; iv) adding at least one phosphate solubilising microbial population (PSMP) to soil at a concentration of 0.001 g to 0.1 g/m 2 ; and 30 v) adding biochar. Suitable inorganic phosphates include rock phosphate, SSP and TSP as alluded to herein. Where the inorganic phosphate source is in an insoluble form (such as in the 35 case of rock phosphate or insoluble SSP or TSP fractions), it is preferably in particulate form wherein the particles have a volume mean diameter (VMD) of up to 4 mm. Preferably still, the VMD is from 0.001 mm to 4 mm, WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 12 preferably from 0.001 to 3 mm (for example 0.01 mm), and most preferably from 0.001 to 1 mm. Naturally, the man skilled in the art will appreciate that the VMD of the particles may be of any size within the range 0.001 mm to 5 4 mm. Typically, the inorganic phosphate of choice is adsorbed on to biochar. Preferably the amount of inorganic phosphate is from 5 to 60 g/m 2 . The organic matter of ii) may be natural organic matter 10 (such as animal manure) or it may be fermented organic matter (such as fermented urine from for example, bovine animals; or fermented fluids derived from well-rotted leaf material) which may also comprise mineral salts. 15 Typically, the organic matter from any kind of source whether it is an organic unfermented or fermented source is added as a liquid at an application of from 50-2500 ml/m 2 . Suitable other forms of organic matter and fermented organic matter may comprise compost, blood, fish, or green 20 manure, or biosolids from anaerobic digestion. Typically, the energy source is added in any suitable ratio from 1:5 to 1:150, as weight of microbiological inoculant: weight of liquid, more preferably from 1:10 to 1:100 or in any ratio that is appropriate to the soil conditions to which 25 the energy source is to be supplied. Typically, the PSMP is added as a liquid inoculant to the energy source prior to addition to either the soil or to biochar. Suitable PSMPs are as defined herein. 30 The biochar may be added either by itself or mixed with topsoil as provided for under ii) above. The biochar is added in the form of particles as hereinbefore described. Optionally, mulch may be added to soil after v) in the form of leaf litter, straw, bark chippings, and the like 35 to a depth of up to 200 mm, preferably to a depth of 100 mm, more preferably to a depth of 50 to 60 mm, and most preferably at a shallower depth, such as 20 - 30 mm, for example, 20 mm or 30 mm, prior to or after sowing seed.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 13 The mulch may be un-rotted or partially rotted, with un rotted mulch being preferred. Naturally, the man skilled in the art will appreciate that 5 the various steps i) through to v) as outlined above may be performed on the soil in any sequence. However, for reasons of practicality, individual components as provided for under i) through to v) may be mixed all together and provided as a single soil additive to soils of interest. 10 Alternatively, certain components, such as the energy source, biochar and PSMP may be mixed together and then applied to the surface of the added mixed topsoil of ii) (that contains the added inorganic phosphate of step i)), above. In a further alternative, the energy source, 15 biochar and PSMP may be mixed together along with the inorganic phosphate of step i) and then applied to the surface of the added mix of topsoil and organic matter of ii) or indeed, may be admixed with it, and then the whole composition may be added as a single layer to the soil 20 that is to be enriched. In a still further alternative, the steps i) to v) may be added to the soil in the sequence in which they appear above. Optionally, mulch may then be added, forming a layered addition to the soil. The layering on the topsoil using whichever order or method of 25 addition of components i) to v) that the farmer chooses may be repeated over time. By providing such layered additions to the soil, structured topsoil may be achieved over time and thus soil integrity may be re-introduced to soils that have suffered a breakdown in their natural 30 integrity. In a further aspect of the invention there is provided a soil medium for use in the germination of seeds and rooting of seedlings that contains in admixture: 35 i) one or more inorganic phosphates at a concentration of from 5 to 112 g/litre; ii) organic matter and/or compost at an amount of 50-2500 g/litre; WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 14 iii) an energy source selected from starch, protein, and sugars or any combination of at least two thereof; iv) at least one phosphate solubilising microbial population (PSMP) at a concentration of 0.001 to 0.1 5 g/litre; and v) biochar particles. The inorganic phosphate may be selected from rock phosphate, SSP and TSP or a mixture thereof, and may be in the form of particles having a VMD of up to 4 mm as 10 explained above. The at least one PSMP may be selected from at least one bacterium species and/or at least one mycorrhizal fungus as explained above. The biochar particles may have a VMD of up to 50 mm. 15 The individual component parts i) to v) of the soil medium are as herein defined for other aspects of the invention. In a further aspect of the invention there is provided a kit of parts that includes a i) a first container that contains a PSMP inoculant; 20 ii) a second container that contains an energy source for the PSMP of i); iii) a third container that contains biochar. The PSMP inoculant may contain at least one microbe in 25 dried form or at least one microbe species in a liquid medium. Preferably, the PSMP inoculant contains at least one bacterium species selected from bacterium species defined herein, and of use in the enrichment of soil and one species of mycorrhizal fungus as described herein. If 30 the PSMP inoculant is in dried form the one or more bacterial species may be in a dried lyophilised form or in a freeze-dried form and the mycorrhizal fungus present in the form of spores. Thus, as a further aspect of the invention there is provided a PSMP inoculant that 35 comprises in admixture at least one bacterium species preferably in dried form and at least one mycorhizzal fungus, preferably in spore and/or dried hyphae form as described herein. The man skilled in the art will WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 15 appreciate that such dried forms of bacteria and spores are considered dormant. The components of the dried PSMP inoculant may be activated, that is to say, their dormancy may be broken, by the addition of water or other suitable S fluid that is not deleterious to the viability of the PSMP prior to mixing with other components in other containers of the kit. Alternatively, the PSMP inoculant may comprise a PSMP inoculant in liquid form wherein the one or more bacterial species may be present in a liquid medium, such 10 as maintenance medium and the mycorrhizal fungus may be present in a fourth container as spores or dried hyphae. The second container may contain an energy source as described hereinbefore in dried or liquid form. Suitably, 15 the energy source can be provided in dried or-desiccated form which may be admixed with water prior to use. The energy source in the second container may also comprise a further dry additive that is rock phosphate and/or a desiccated form of SSP or TSP. Whether the contents of the 20 first and second containers are in liquid form or dried form, the first container may be present in the form of airtight sachets or sacks or hard plastic containers. The second container may be in the form of airtight sacks or be in the form of hard plastic containers of appropriate 25 volume and of the type commonly employed in agricultural settings. The third container typically contains comminuted biochar of a pre-selected VMD suitable for use on soil. The actual 30 containers employed in a kit of the invention may be plastic airtight sacks in the case of the biochar for ease of use in an agricultural setting. A kit of parts of the invention may comprise in a further 35 alternative a fifth or sixth container that holds dry solid phosphate in insoluble (rock phosphate, insoluble fractions of SSP and/or TSP) or soluble form (soluble WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 16 fractions of SSP and/or TSP). Thus in a preferment, the kit of parts of the invention comprises: i) a first container that contains a phosphate solubilising microbial population (PSMP) inoculant, 5 consisting of bacteria; ii) a second container that contains an energy source for the PSMP of i); iii) a third container that contains biochar; iv) a fourth container that contains phosphate; and/or 10 v) a fifth container that contains mycorrhizzal fungus spores or hyphae. Naturally, the man skilled in the art will appreciate that there are a number of ways in which component parts of compositions of the invention may be stored in kit form 15 ready for delivery and storage in an agricultural setting. The kinds of plants that are able to benefit from soils treated with compositions of the invention include monocotyledon species and dicotyledon species of any crop 20 plant that may be grown in temperate, sub-tropical and tropical climate zones, or under cover, for example in greenhouses and under so-called poly-tunnels and the like. Included are plant species such as broad leafed plants e.g. mustard leaf (Brassica juncea), other members of the 25 Brassicaceae, such as edible Brassica oleracea types such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, cauliflower and bok choi, tomato (Solanum esculentum), members of the Cucurbitaceae such as cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) and melons (such as Cucumis melo spp. and Citrullus lanatus), aubergines 30 (Solanum melongena), peppers (e.g. of the genus Capsicum, such as Capsicum annuum cv, Capsicum chinense cv), squashes of all kinds such as Cucurbita maxima, Cucurbita mixta, Cucurbita moschata, Cucurbita pepo and the like, tea (Camellia sinensis), Vaccinium species such 35 as blueberry (e.g. Vaccinium corymbosum), cranberry (e.g. Vaccinium oxycoccos or Oxycoccos palustris), huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium) and bilberry (e.g. Vaccinium myrtillus), Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa), kiwi fruit WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 17 (Actinidia deliciosa), persimmon (genus Diospyros such as Diospyros kaki; and Diospyros lotus), Mamey sapote (Pouteria sapota) and shea (Vitellaria paradoxa), the major dietary lipid source sub-Saharan Africans and root 5 crops such as potato (Solanum tuberosum), yam (Dioscorea spp.), and sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Monocotyledon crops such as rice (Oryza sativus), wheat (Triticum spp.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), maize (Zea mays), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and rye (Secale cereale) may also 10 benefit from applications of compositions of the invention to soils where such plants are grown. There now follow examples and figures illustrating the invention. It is to be understood that the teaching of the 15 examples and figures is not to be construed as limiting the invention in any way. Examples Section 20 Materials Phosphate solubilising microbial culture: Pseudomonas striata, Bacillus coagulans, and Bacillus megaterium applied at 0.001 g/m 2 dry weight (all available from Nitrofix Laboratories, Kolkata, India). 25 Rock Phosphate at 5 g/m 2 (sourced from West Bengal-India) Leaf Mulch applied to a depth of 30 mm. Organic matter (composted cow manure) applied at 250 g/m 2 Applied energy source for microbes: rice starch applied at a ratio of 1:10 by weight of phosphate solubilising 30 microbial culture Weekly application of fermented bovine urine (x3): 100 ml diluted 6:1 with water = 700 ml x3 applications = 2100 ml. Char added at 300 g/m 2 . Duration of test: 45 days 35 Crop: Corchorus capsularis (Jute) WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 18 Mean Mean Synergy Wt Control Wt No. Wt No. Wt Row Plants (g) Plants (g) 1 5 32 6.4 7 41 5.86 2 3 32 10.67 6 28 4.67 3 4 16 4 8 27 3.38 4 5 55 11 6 35 5.83 5 4 34 8.5 2 6 3 6 8 88 11 5 16 3.2 7 3 32 10.67 8 44 5.5 8 5 70 14 6 17 2.83 9 7 40 5.71 17 87 5.118 10 9 53 5.89 9 44 4.89 Total 53 452 74 345 Mean 8.53 4.66 Similar experiments were carried out in the UK and Asia on a wide variety of edaphic and climatic conditions and 5 using locally relevant crops and various admixtures of phosphate, phosphorus solubilizing microbial populations, organic matter and biochar resulting in considerably enhanced crop yield as summarised below. The experiments were designed to test the compositions and processes of 10 the present invention on all four types of food crops, namely, (a) Root crop, (b) Fruit Crop, (c) Grain Crop, and (d) Leaf Crop. Table 1 below depicts a summary of the whereabouts of experiments involving these crops. The results showed the presence of significant synergies from 15 the combinations and processes of the present invention with clear agronomical benefits and universal application across a wide range of soil and climatic conditions.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 19 Table 1. Test Crops and Locales of Field Experiments. Type of Crop Leaf Crop Root Crop Grain Fruit Crop Crop Species 1. 1. 1. Tested Spinacia Raphanus Oryza Lycopersi con oleracia sativus sativa esculentum 2. var. 2. Capsicum Corchorus indica anuum capsularis Locale 1) 1) UK, 1) 1). India Thailand, Thailand, India 2) UK UK India 2) India Experiment 1) U-2, T- 1) U-1, 1) 1-2 1) 1-4 No. 2. T-1 2) U-3 2) I-1 Experiment U-1: U.K Materials 5 m Crop: Radish (Raphanus sativus) * Area= 1sq. metre * 40 grams rock phosphate sq.metre-30% * 140g Organic Matter (O.M). * O.M 1=Seaweed 10 0 O.M 2=Blood meal a G.M 3=Composted cow manure * 200 grams Biochar particle size <50mm VMD. e 30g PSMP culture-UK Isolate Glomus microbial density; dry weight >0.001 sq. metre 15 * Water inputs identical in all treatments and replicate plots, soil pH=6.6 WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 20 Methods A layer of 40 grams of rock phosphate (30%) was applied to the treatment area. Inputs applied in admixture; S e 210 grams of active carbon (Biochar) a 140 grams of organic matter * 30 grams of PSMP culture e Total 420g sq. metre 1D Planting a Duration 43 days a Seeds were sown at 25 cm intervals * 30mm layer of mulch was applied. Test Design 15 Table U-lA. Layout of Study plots with replications (A = Biochar, B = No Biochar T1 = Bloodmeal; T2 = Seaweed; T3 = Cow Manure) TI A TlB T2A T2B T3A T3B COMPONENTS COMPOST NO NO NO NO YES YES SEAWEED NO NO YES YES NO NO BLOODMEAL YES YES NO NO NO NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Biochar PSMP YES YES YES YES YES YES WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 21 Results Table U-1B. A Summary of Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots. Treatment Number Total Tuber(g) Mean Mean biomass(g) biomass(g) Tuber(g) T1A 193 7218 3897 37,398964 20.19171 TlB 184 6456 3537 35.086957 19.222826 T2A 223 6961 3985 31.215247 17.869955 T2B 236 6622 3519 28.059322 14.911017 T3A 187 4325 2294 23.128342 12.26738 T3B 212 6507 3521 30.693396 16.608491 5 Experiment U-2 :U.K Materials e Test Crop - Spinach (Spinacia oleracia) a Area = 1.5 sq. m. 10 a RP= 75 grams Rock Phosphate (30% e Organic manure (OM) 210 grams of three types a O.M 1= Composted chicken manure a O.M 2= Soya meal * O.M 3= Blood meal 15 * 30 grams PSMP; UK isolates; Glomus intraradices, Glomus mosseae dry weight >0.001 /sq. m. a 210 g Biochar <50mm VMD * Water inputs identical in all treatments and replicate plots, soil pH=6.6 20 Methods A layer of 75grams of rock phosphate (30%) was applied to 16 X 1.5 sq. metre treatments; this was replicated three times (48). 25 Inputs applied in admixture; * 210 grams of Biochar 0 210 grams of organic matter (including starter/cell energy) * 30 grams of PSMP culture; microbial density >0.001 30 sq. metre of; C. intraradices, C. mosseae WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 22 Total 525g per treatment/1.5 sq. metre Planting Duration 43 days, seedlings were spaced at 25 cm 5 intervals, 30mm layer of mulch was applied. Test design Table U-2A. Layout of Study plots with replications (A = Biochar+PSMP, B = No PSMP, C = No Biochar, D = No 10 Biochar+No PSMP; Tl= Chicken Manure+Bloodmeal + Soya; T2 = Chicken Manure+Bloodmeal; T3 = Chicken Manure+Soya; T4 = Chicken Manure) Results 15 The results indicate that the difference in yield (g/sq.m) seems to be statistically no different (Table U-2C). Table U-2C. Values of t for Significance of Difference between Treatments in Mean Leaf Biomass Yield BioChar BioChar No BioChar + PSM + No PSM PSM (A) (B) (C) BioChar + No PSM (B) 0.7 No BioChar + PSM (C) 1.52 0.97 No BioChar + No PSM (D) 1.00 0.32 -0.71 20 However, tests for total (above-ground + roots) biomass indicate a significant increase in total leaf biomass output in the BioChar (A) plots than in No-BioChar (C) treatments. The difference is significant on 95% 25 confidence interval (t=1.68, p<0.05). This means that for spinach, the leaf biomass is not significantly increased with BioChar and PSM treatments, but the total biomass is significantly increased.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 23 C U) E- 2 >H 2 2 2 2 r C 0 0 0 0 D H 2 H 2 2 2 2 > 2 ~~cC U)U) ) ~1 Q U 0 0 c oo U) rd 0 0 0 0 H O 0 > 2 2 2 2 H- 2 2 C) U) U)En U) E 0 0 0 H 0 HD H > 2 2 2 2 >H 2 H m 1o z U)H C 0 0 U)C 0) U) U U)~ ~~ 0 0 H H E Cy') U) CN H 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ed 0 0 OQ 0 ra r O H 0 0I 0d C 0 U) U) U) U N H 0 0w 0 H H o o o to U L)U)U OD CD 1 4-U) U) U) U) U 4 , OP rd O4 0 O p ( H o H:0 0 0 >q m HZ > 2 H 2 2 2 0 I m 04: -1C D C' 0.4 U A IU O[A0 Ok f O r U O OW W2MQ a O HO 0| A T C D O O 0 00 00 - U WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 24 Results Table U-2B. A Summary of Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots. S Treatment Number Total Leaf Mean Mean biomass biomass biomass Leaf (g) (g) (g) biomass (g) TIA 49 1156 1114 23.59 22.73 TlB 40 508 482 12.7 12.05 TIc 50 265 249 5.3 4.98 T1D 71 767 728 10.80 10.25 T2A 57 650 615 11.40 10.78 T2B 43 740 703 17.21 16.35 T2C 46 316 300 6.86 6.52 T2D 43 749 703 17.42 16.35 T3A 39 555 526 14.23 13.48 T3B 50 723 661 14.46 13.22 T3C 45 627 588 13.93 13.06 T3D 39 555 526 14.23 13.49 T4A 53 1138 1025 21.47 19.34 T4B 52 882 836 16.96 16.07 T4C 45 631 610 14.02 13.55 T4D 40 412 9.77 390.86 10.30 WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 25 Experiment U-3: U.K Materials a Test Crop: Capsicum- (Capsicum anuum) 5 * Area=1.5 sq. m. * RP=75 grams Rock Phosphate (30% * Organic Manure (OM) of three types: 210 g * O.M 1= Composted Chicken manure e O.M 2= Soya meal 10 e O.M 3= Blood meal a 30 9 PSMP; UK isolates; Glomus intraradices, Glomus mosseae dry weight >0.001 sq. metre * 210 g Biochar <50mm VMD * Water inputs identical in all treatments and 15 replicate plots * Soil pHf= 6.6 Methods A layer of 75grams of rock phosphate (30%) was applied to 20 16 X 1.5 sq. metre treatments; this was replicated three times (48). These inputs were applied in admixture; e Total inputs 735g; * 4209 OM (2lg x 2 applications) 25 * 210g Biochar <50mmVMD * 30 grams PSMP; UK isolates; Glomus intraradices, Glomus mosseae Planting 30 0 Duration 16-18 weeks * Seeds were sown at 45 cm intervals. * 30mm layer of mulch was applied. * A second application of the OM (210 g) was applied to the Capsicum at onset of flowering. 35 WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 26 Test design Table U-3A. Layout of Study plots with replications (A = Biochar+PSMP, B = NO PSMP, C = No Biochar, D = No Biochar+No PSMP; Tl= Chicken Manure+Bloodmeal + Soya; T2 5 = Chicken Manure+Bloodmeal; T3 = Chicken Manure+Soya; T4 = Chicken Manure) Results 10 The results clearly indicate highly significant increase in total fruit output in the test plots than in No BioChar plots, regardless of the O.M. input regimes. Table U-3C below shows that the fruit yield in BioChar alone (B) and BioChar + PSM (A) treatments than control 15 plots with No BioChar (both C and D). Table U-3C. Values of t for Significance of Difference between Treatments in Mean Fruit Yield BioChar BioChar No RioChar + PSM + No PSM PSM (A) (B) (C) BioChar + No PSM (B) 0.90 No BioChar + PSM (C) 2.51** 1.61 No BioChar + No PSM (D) 2.81** 1.86* 0.37 20 *p<0.05 **p<0.01 WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 27 o 0 ~~~r~ 0 4 0 0 H 2 H 2 2 2 2 2 2 UU ~ 4 0 0 0 0 0 [C E- O O1 O O O [4 Or Cl 0W 4 0 0 0 [4 H 2 H 2 2 2 2 H 2 [- [4 z4 u Z S0 0 0 C)U))U) Cl [ 0 00 0 [w 0 w U 4 [4i [A [4 [4 0 0 0 [ 0 [ co o v [\ [ 0 0 0 0 O 0 E H- 2 2 >1 2 H 2 le2 () U)[oCl IN [4 0 0 0 0 [ 4 [ cm 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 H 2 2 i2 2 2 2 :0 [ 0 0 [4 0 0 0 [ u cn In -1 4 0 0 0 [ Qz ~C U) [4 In [ 0 0 H H 2 H 2 Hl 2 2 2 U-[-[ [4 O ) H [ 0 [4r 0 [4 0 0 [4 H 2 H 2 H 2 2 H If) t(n [) [ U H 2 O O 2- O H >- 2t H 2 O[ 0 0 [4 0 4 ) 1- [4 H H 2 H 2 H 2 Ho >I 0000~C 0l O 0 tfl CD C C 0 CD 0 0 0 H [ L5Et L --I UN u 4 [N wD [4) n uQ WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 28 Results Table U-3B. A Summary of Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots. 5 Treatments Number of Number of Total Mean Fruit plants Fruits Fruit Weight (g) Weight (g) TIA 27 49 3970 81.02 TiB 27 42 3678 B7.57 TIC 27 34 3082 90.64 TID 27 37 3401 91.92 T2A 27 58 4728 81.52 T2B 27 42 3114 74.43 T2C 27 35 2711 77,46 T2D 27 20 1374 68.70 T3A 27 30 3016 100.53 T3B 27 35 3530 100.86 T3C 27 21 1931 91.95 T3D 27 28 2391 85.39 T4A 27 40 3557 88.92 T4B 27 35 2916 83.31 T4C 27 23 1834 79.74 T4D 27 21 1465 69.76 WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 29 Experiment T-1; Thailand Materials e Test Crop: Radish (Raphanus sativus) # Area 1 sq. metre 5 e Rock Phosphate (25%) - 40 g/ sq. m. * O.M 100 grams Two types combined * O.M 1= Composted chicken manure e O.M 2= Soya meal * 150 grams Biochar <50 mm VMD 10 e 1 g PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. Subtilis; dry weight >0.001 g sq. m. * Water inputs identical in all treatments and replicate plots * Soil pH= 6 .19 15 Methods The admixture was applied to the soil before planting seeds. 1. 40 g of Rock phosphate (25%) powder was applied to 6 20 treatment plots, each of 1 sq. m. size; This was replicated three times. 2. Organic Manure (O.M) of 2 types -100 g of two types combined. a 0.M 1= Composted chicken manure 25 v 0.M 2= Soya meal 3. 150 g Biochar <50mm VMD 4. PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. Subtilis; 1 g dry weight >0.001 g sq. metre.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 30 Planting * Seedlings were spaced at 25 cm intervals (= 16 plants /sq.m) * 30mm green mulch was applied on the topsoil at the 5 time of germination of seeds. " Duration 45 days Test design Table T-1A. Layout of Study plots with replications (A/B/C 10 = Chicken Manure 60+Soya 40, D/E/F = Chicken Manure 80+Soya20. TI - No Biochar; T2 = No PSMP; T3 Biochar+PSMP) WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 31 p~ o4 w U)mU) c cnl 0 0 U)U) U ) - 0 > 0 H > o tU) U) O r0 0 0 w r Ei z 2 > 4 >-, a vi U) U) H 1 c w 0 H - C)H 'A U) U) '1) nct 0 ) 0 w0 0 Hz 0 0H z ( n U) U Cl) 0w 0 HF wA H0 H O 'A H rA rH rA 0~~ w)U) r4 0 0 0 w E- - Q H H A 0 0 0o io 'A 0 r 0 0 0 O S A H 0 o o H,0 N w) O w v 0 N O ) O U) NO H H O HA O O Ha O A O ) O O)i H HA 0 H 0 O H C) U)CU) U 0 0 O r0 0 0A p l C) 0n 0 e0 il 2I J 2i m o Ap IAI p < WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 32 Treatments Number of Mean Root Root Crop Harvested Crop biomass Yield Items (g/sq.m) TIA 31 198.09 6141.1 T1B 27 261.70 7066.1 T1C 28 174.78 4894.0 TlD 29 163.38 4738.2 TlE 34 198.83 6959.0 TlF 32 159.69 5110.4 Pooled T1 191.80 34908.1 T2A 30 209.33 6280.3 T2B 15 255.89 7165.3 T2C 26 165.50 4303.4 T2D 27 193.48 5224.2 T2E 28 321.20 4818.0 T2F 30 178.60 5358.3 Pooled T2 212.48 33149.1 T3A 33 231.57 7642.1 T3B 32 221.16 7077.4 T3C 29 162.21 4704.2 T3D 27 190.52 5144.2 T3E 26 289.96 7539.6 T3F 32 137.44 4398.3 Pooled T3 203.93 36505.9 This experiment sought to find out the distinctive contributions of different O.M regimes, PSMP and Biochar 5 in combination as well as separately - to crop yield components. A summary of the results is given in Table T 1B.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 33 Table T-lB. Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots. An examination of the difference between different 5 treatments reveal that the yield from Biochar treatments (T3) is significantly superior to that of "No-char" (T1) treatment. However, the yield values of T3 and "No PSMP" (T2) treatments are statistically no different (Table T 1C). 10 Table T-lC. Significance of Differences Between Means of Treatments in Crop Yield. T3-T1 T2-Tl Df 359 334 T 1.92 0.21 P <0.03 NS 15 Experiment T-2: Thailand e Test Crop: Spinach (Spinacia oleracia) * Area 1 sq. m. * R.P 50 grams sq. metre (25%) * Organic manure (O.M.) of two types - 120 g 2@ O.M 1= Composted chicken manure e OM 2=Soya meal * 170 g Biochar <50mm VMD e 1 g PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, R. Subtilis; dry weight >0.001 9 sq. metre 25 Water inputs identical in all treatments and replicate plots * Soil pH= 6.19 WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 34 Methods A layer of 50 grams of rock phosphate (25%) was applied to each of the 3 replicate plots of 6 X 1 sq. m. These inputs were applied in admixture; 5 a O.M 120 grams 0 O.M 1=Compost (chicken manure) * O.M 2 =Soya meal * 170 grams Biochar <50mm VMD * 1 gram PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. subtilis; 10 dry weight >0.001 g sq. metre. Planting * Seedlings were spaced at 25 cm intervals 15 0 30mm mulch was applied e Duration 45 days Test design Table T-2A. Layout of Study plots with replications 20 TREATMENTS TlA TlB TlC T2A T2B T2C COMPONENTS COMPOST NO NO NO YES YES YES 90grams COMPOST YES YES YES NO NO NO 70grams SOYAMEAL 30 NO NO NO YES YES YES grams SOYAMEAL 50 YES YES YES NO NO NO grams Biochar YES YES NO YES YES NO PSMP YES NO YES YES NO YES WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 35 Results Table T-3B. Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots Treatments Number Total Total Mean Mean biomass(g) leaf biomass leaf (g) TIA 114 2647 2486 23.22 21.81 TIB 101 2147 2006 21.25 19.86 TIC 109 2508 2382 23.01 21.85 T2A 106 2007 1877 18.93 17.71 T2B 77 1602 1509 20.80 19.59 T2C 108 2115 1980 19.58 18.33 5 Experiment I-1: India Materials 10 Test Crop: Edible Jute (Corchorus capsularis) * Area: 4 sq. m. divided in 2 treatment plots (2 sq.m. each), each with 10 replicate subplots. * Rock Phosphate 5 grams/ sq. m. (25%) * Organic Manure (O.M.) of two types 15 0 G.M 1= Composted cow dung -160 g * O.M 2= Decomposed cattle urine 100 ml/1 sq.m. (diluted with water at 1:5 ratio). 0 300 g Biochar <50mm VMD e 1 g. PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. coagulans. 20 Pseudomonas striata dry weight >0.001 g sq. metre. 0 Duration 45 days a Water inputs identical in all treatments and replicate plots * Soil pH= 6.70 25 Methods 1. A layer of 5 g of rock phosphate (25%) was applied to 2 treatment plots, each with 10 replicates, each of 0.2 sq.m. size.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 36 2. Composted cow manure (O.M 1) and Rock phosphate were mixed with soil prior to sowing. 3. Decomposed cow urine (O.M 2) was applied (1) before planting, (2) after 30 days of sowing of seeds. 5 4. 300 g Biochar <50mm VMD applied before transplanting on topsoil on each replicate plot. 5. 1 g PSMP culture Bacillus megaterium, B. coagulans. Pseudomonas striata dry weight >0.001 g /sq. metre. 6. 30 mm thick green mulch was spread on top of soil 10 after germination of seedlings. Planting * Seeds were sown at 10 cm x 10 cm spacing (= 100 15 plants/sq.m.) Test design The object of the study was to determine the role of 20 Biochar in grain yield. Table I-IA. . Layout of Study plots with replications (T1 = No Biochar T2 = Biochar) WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2Ol11051770 3 '7 INJ U) U)l U) Ml U) u) V) D4 [w u) V) U4 U) CA 04U) co U) H >>1 Z C-']V) U) ) 54 V) ) U) H- w N w 04 )M U U) 04 a)0 4 HII a) U WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 38 Results The results of the experiment are summarized in Table I-lB below. 5 I-lB. Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots. Total Mean Yield Treatments No. of Biomass Biomass Yil Plants (g) per Plants ( ) P lan t TIA 7 41.3 5.91 206.5 TiB 6 28.2 4.70 141.0 TIC 8 27.4 3.40 137.0 TID 6 35.1 5.85 175.5 TiE 2 16.3 8.15 81.5 TIF 5 16.7 3.34 83.5 TIG 8 44.2 5.52 221.0 TlH 6 17.6 2.93 88.0 T1I 17 87.1 5.12 435.5 T1J 9 44.2 4.91 221.0 TI Pooled 74 358.1 4.84 1790.5 T2A 5 32.1 6.42 160.5 T2B 3 32.3 10.77 161.5 T2C 4 16.4 4.10 82.0 T2D 5 55.1 11.02 275.5 T2E 4 34.5 8.62 172.5 T2F 8 88.1 11.012 440.5 T2G 3 32.3 10.77 161.5 T2H 5 70.1 14.02 350.5 T21 7 40.2 5.74 201.0 T2J 9 53.4 5.93 267.0 T2 Pooled 53 454.5 8.57 2272.5 The statistical significance of the difference between means of the two groups was determined by using pairwise 10 two-tailed t-test (Table I-iC).

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 39 Table I-IC. Significance of Difference between T1 and T2 in Mean Panicle Density and Yield Mean Biomass Yield (g) per Plant (g/ sq.m.) df 19 19 t 3.35 4.35 P <0.01 < 0.01 5 Experiment 1-2: India * Test Crop: Rice (Oryza sativa var. indica) * Area: 15 sq. m. divided in three treatment plots, each with 5 replicates of 1 sq.m. 10 * Rock Phosphate 40 g/ sq. m. (25%) * Organic Manure (O.M.) of two types * O.M 1= Composted cow dung -160 g a O.M 2= Decomposed cattle urine 100 ml/i sq.m. (diluted with water at 1:5 ratio). 15 * 150 g Biochar <50mm VMD e 1 g. PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. Subtilis dry weight >0.001 g sq. metre. * Duration 186 days * Water inputs identical in all treatments and 20 replicate plots. * Soil pH= 6.61 Methods 1. A layer of 40 grams of rock phosphate (25%) was applied 25 to 3 treatment plots, each with 5 replicates, each of 1 sq.m. size. 2. Composted cow manure (O.M 1) and Rock phosphate were mixed with soil prior to transplantation of seedlings. 3. Decomposed cow urine (0.M 2) was applied (1) before 30 planting, (2) after 30 days of transplanting of seedlings.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 40 4. 150 g Biochar <50mm VMD applied before transplanting on topsoil on each replicate plot. 5. 1 g PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. subtilis; dry weight >0.001 g /sq. metre. 5 6. 50 mm thick green mulch was spread on top of soil after transplanting of seedlings. Planting 0 Seedlings were planted at 25 cm x 25 cm spacing ( 10 16 plants/sq.m.) Test design The object of the study was to determine the role of Biochar and PSMP in grain yield. 15 Table I-2A. . Layout of Study plots with replications (T1 = No Biochar T2 = Biochar) Components TlA TlB TlC T1D TIE T2A T2B T2C T2D T2E OM YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Biochar No No No No No YES YES YES YES YES PSMP YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 41 Results The results of the experiment are summarized in Table I 2B. 5 Table I-2B. Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots. Treatments Mean Total Grain Yield Panicle Grains/Hill Biomass (g/ Density (g) per sq.m.) Hill T1A 82.0 485.6 8.59 137.556 TIB 77.7 471.4 8.061 128.985 TiC 74.7 350.0 7.84 125.462 TlD 90.4 542.6 9.11 145.855 TIE 73.5 463.7 9.13 146.174 Ti Pooled 81.2 457.5 8.40 134.463 T2A 78.7 435.7 10.06 161.030 T2B 87.3 458.5 10.18 162.859 T2C 94.1 517.6 9.78 156.517 T2D 92.4 523.6 10.37 165.B71 T2E 80.5 439.7 9.94 158.993 T2 Pooled 86.6 470.9 10.06 161.054 The crop output from Biochar plots (T2) was significantly greater than either "No-Biochar" (TI) plots. The 10 significance of the difference between the treatments was determined using pairwise two-tailed t-test (Table I-2C).

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 42 Table 1-2C. Significance of Difference between TI and T2 in Mean Panicle Density and Yield. Difference between Mean Panicle Density Yield Means (g/sq.m.) Df 9 9 T 3.24 17.19 P < 0.05 < 0.01 5 Experiment 1-3 Materials a Test Crop: Radish (Raphanus sativus) 10 a Area: 15 sq. m. divided in three treatment plots, each with 5 replicates of 1 sq.m. a Rock Phosphate 409/ sq. m. (25%) * Organic Manure (O.M.) of two types * O.M I= Composted cow dung -160 g 15 a O.M 2= Decomposed cattle urine 100 ml/i sq.m. (diluted with water at 1:5 ratio) * 150 g Biochar <50mm VMD e 1 g. PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. Subtilis dry weight >0.001 g sq. metre. 20 e Duration 45 days * Water inputs identical in all treatments and replicate plots e Soil pHi= 6.61 25 Methods 1. A layer of 40 grams of rock phosphate (25%) was applied to 3 treatment plots, each with 5 replicates, each of 1 sq.m. size. 30 2. Composted cow manure (O.M 1) and Rock phosphate were mixed with soil prior to sowing of seeds.

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 43 3. Decomposed cow urine (O.M 2) was applied (1) before sowing, (2) 30 days after sowing. 4. 150 g Biochar <50mm VMD applied before sowing on topsoil on each replicate plot. 5 5, 1 g PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. Subtilis; dry weight >0.001 g /sq. metre. 6. 50 mm thick green mulch was spread on top of soil after germination of seedlings. 10 Planting Seedlings were planted at 25 cm x 25 cm spacing (= 16 plants/sq.m.) 15 Test design Table 1-3A. Layout of Study plots with replications (T1 = No Biochar T2 = No PSMP T3 = Biochar+PSMP) WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2Ol11051770 44 U) U) U) U) (n U) H >- H U) En ul U) U) U r4 0 0 >i >-IH > U) U) U wl 0 w 0 04 W 0 C 0N 0 m U) U 4-J 0 H0)H H~ 0) U U)r M WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 45 Results The findings are summarised in Table I-3B below. 5 Table I-3B. Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots. Treatments No. Harvested Total biomass Mean Yield (g) (g/ sq.m.) T1A 9 181 20.11 T1B 5 80 16 TIC 9 143 15.89 TlD 7 92 13.14 TiE 8 151 18.87 T1 Pooled 38 647 17.03 T2A 9 168 18.67 T2B 8 88 11 T2C 7 111 15.86 T2D 8 86 10.75 T2E 9 97 10.77 T2 Pooled 41 550 13.41 T3A 8 158 19.75 T3B 7 126 18.02 T3C 7 189 27.01 T3D 9 180 20.03 T3E 6 211 35.17 T3 Pooled 37 864 23.35 The crop output from Biochar plots (T3) was significantly greater than either "No-char" (T1) or "No-PSMP" (T2) 10 plots. The significance of the difference between the treatments was determined using pairwise two-tailed t-test (Table I-iC).

WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 46 Table I-3C. Significance of Difference between Treatments in Mean Yield. Difference between Means T1 -T3 T2-T3 Df 9 9 T 9.19 14.51 P < 0.01 <0.01 5 Experiment 1-4: India Materials e Test Crop: Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) 10 * Area: Experimental land area of 30 m x 6 m. This land was divided into three treatment plots, each of size 10 m x 2 m. Each treatment plot divided into 5 replicate subplots of size 2m x 2 m each. e Rock Phosphate 40 g/ sq. m. (25%) 15 0 Organic Manure (O.M.) of two types 0 0.M 1= Composted cow dung -160 g * O.M 2= Decomposed cattle urine at 100 ml/l sq.m. (diluted with water at 1:5 ratio) . 6 150 g Biochar <50mm VMD 20 * 1 g. PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. subtilis dry weight >0.001 g sq. metre. * Duration 120 days. 0 Water inputs identical in all treatments and replicate plots 25 * Soil pH- 6.73 WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 47 Methods 1. A layer of 40 grams of rock phosphate (25%) was applied to 3 treatment plots, each with 5 replicates, each of 1 5 sq.m. size. 2. Composted cow manure (O.M 1) and Rock phosphate were mixed with soil prior to sowing of seeds. 3. Decomposed cow urine (O.M 2) was applied (1) before sowing, (2) 30 days after sowing. 10 4. 150 g Biochar <50mm VMD applied before sowing on topsoil on each replicate plot. 5. 1 g PSMP culture-Bacillus megaterium, B. Subtilis; dry weight >0.001 g /sq. metre. 6. 50 mm thick green mulch was spread on top of soil 15 after germination of seedlings. Planting a Seeds were sown at 25 cm x 25 cm spacing (= 16 20 plants/sq.m.) Test design Table I-4A. Layout of Study plots with replications (Tl = 25 No Biochar T2 = No PSMP T3 = Biochar + PSMP) WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2Ol11051770 48 U~) co U) m - rri w 14 >~fi fri m In U U) F4 >i frIq zr CIO U) U 14 W W N 1-4 1 N Z U) En E-' Z N4 r4 P 0 U) U) N4 Nq FN -0 U) C ) 14 CQ E ) U EA4U) 0 U E4 n Z N W) U 10U C U WO 2012/038740 PCT/GB2011/051770 49 Results The Results of the experiment is summarized in Table 1-4B. Treatments No. of Fruits Total Fruit Mean Yield Harvested Biomass (g) (g/ sq.m.) T1A 86 1926.2 481-11 TIB 65 1620.3 405.00 TIC 38 1202.5 300.50 TlD 57 1178.1 294.52 T1E 84 7377.1 344.25 T1 Pooled 330 7304.2 1825.8 T2A 69 1509.2 377.25 T2B 51 985.6 246.25 T2C 48 831.7 207.75 T2D 78 2069.0 517.25 T2E 76 1996.1 499.05 T2 Pooled 317 7241.5 1811.25 T3A 84 1573.2 393.30 T3B 91 1668.2 417.01 T3C 54 1180.3 295.25 T3D 43 1342.1 33.6.50 T3E 76 1612.4 403.10 T3 Pooled 348 7377.2 1844.3 5 Table I-4B. Crop Output and Biomass Yield from Study Plots. The crop yield from Biochar plots (T3) was significantly 10 greater than either plots with "No PSMP" (T2) or with "No Charcoal" (T1). The significance of the difference was determined by using pairwise two-tailed t-test (Table I 4C). 15 Table 1-4C. Significance of Difference between Treatments in Mean Fruit Yield.

-50 Difference T - T3 T2 -T3 between Neans Df 367 336 T 12.93 20U.59 P j 0< 1 <00 The reference in this specification to anv prior publication (or information derived from it), or to any ,atter which is known, is not, and should not be taken as an acknowledgment or admission or any form of suggestion that that prior publication (or information derived from it) or known matter forms part of the common general knowledge in the field of endeavour to which this specification relates. Throughout this specification and the claims which follow, unless the context requires otherwise, the word comprisee, and variations such as "comprises" and Thomprising", will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated integer or step or group of integers or steps but not the exclusion of any other integer or step or group of integers or steps.

Claims

2. A composition according to claim 1 wherein the energy source comprises protein
3. A composition according to claim 2 wherein the energy source comprises protein and starch.
4. A composition according to any one of claims 1 to 3 wherein the biochar is in the form of particles and the volume mean diameter thereof is up to 50 mm,
5. A composition according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the amount of biochar that is added to the soil lies in the range or 10 to 1000 g/n2. E. A process for enriching a soil having an initial pH of 5.5 to
7.5 that comprises the following steps: i) adding one or more inorganic phosphates at a concentration of from 5 - 112 g/ ; ii) adding topsoil mixed with oranic matter and/or compost at an amount of 50-2500 g/m; iii) adding an energy source in liquid form selected from starch or protein or combination thereof; iv) adding at least one phosphate solubiliing microbial population (PSMP)comprising at least one species selected from the - 52 genera Bacillus and/or Glomus at a rate of 0.002 g to 0. g/ (dry weight); and v) adding biochar. A process according to claim 6 wherein the energy source comprises protein
8. A process according to claim 7 wherein tne energy source comprises protein and starch. 9 A process according to any one of claims 6 to 8 wherein the insoluble phosphate is in the form of particles having a VMD of up to 4 mm.
10. A process according to any one of claims 6 to 9 wherein the ratio of microbiological inoculant: energy source is in the range 1:5 to 1:150 by dry weight.
11. A process according to any one of claims 6 to 10 wherein the PSMP comprises at least one species of bacterium selected from tbe genus Bacillus and a mycorrhizal fungus.
12. A process according to any one of claims 6 to 11 wherein the biochar is in the form of particles that have a 1D of up to 50 mm.
13. A process according to any one of claims 6 to 12 comprising a further step: vi) adding mulch at a depth up to 200 mm
14. Soil mediuI for use in germination of seeds and rooting or seedlings that comprises in admixture: i) one or more inorganic phosphates at a concept action of from 5 to 112 g/litre; ii) organic matter and/or compost at an amount of 50-2500 g/litre; iii) an energy source selected from starch or protein or combination thereof; -mee -to oi, r1bf.CCAR Cda600 ,7- 1.d--6,0 ,2Uj_ -53 iv) at least one phosphate solubilising microbial population (PSMP) comprising at least one species selected from the genera Bacillus and Glomus at a concentration of 0Q01 to 01 gflitre dry weight; and v) biochar particles,
15. A soil medium according to claim 1 wherein the energy source comprises protein.
16. A soil medium according to claim 15 wherein the energy source comprises protein and starch.
17. A soil medium according to any one of claims 14 to 16 wherein the phosphate solubilising microbial population comprises an inoculant composition that comprises in admixture; i) at least one bacterium species selected from the genera Bacillus; and ii) at least one mycorhizzal fungus that is selected from arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ectomycorrhizal fungi.
18. A soil medium according to claim 17 wherein the at least one bacterium species of i) is in dried form and the mycorrhizal fungus species of ii) is in the form of spores and/or dried hyphae,
19. A composition according to claim 1 substantially as hereinbefore described with reference to any one of the Examples.
20. A process according to claim 6 substantially as hereinbefore described with reference to any one of the Examples.