Anyone had any experience with carbon offsetting payments. Soil capital in particular?

Soil Capital · Dec 30, 2022

Iben said:
Out of interest. Is there guidelines to say what a cultivation is? What is shallow cultivation and what is deep?

Is there a definition of what a cover crop is or consists of?

Huno said:
10cm is depth limit.. cover crops can be anything as long a satillite tech algorithms show no bare earth

Every programme is different. For us, we still allow ploughing/inversion. But there are clear defintions surrounding min/zero tillage.

For example min till is anything that is non inversion. Zero is avoidance of any tillage beyond placing the seed.

Cover crops like Huno says, can be anything that has a good level of ground cover (i.e. no exposed soil).

Grass And Grain said:
So do you take any account of PP being ploughed out prior to 20 years since?

What I'm getting at is, Someone ploughed out PP in 1990 and released a load of C, wrecked their soils, but they can get paid to put it back.

What's the difference between the farmer who ploughed out the PP in 1990, to the one who ploughed it out last year? They're both going to add carbon back to the soil if, from now on, they farm in an appropriate manner.

The date of ploughing out PP surely makes no difference? It was the exact same procedure. What's the difference if it was ploughed out yesterday, 19 years since, or 22 years since? Is the 20 year figure plucked from thin air, or any basis for it?

onesiedale said:
so, what you are saying is; in soils that are already arable it is ok to continue to work them and release carbon
But soils that are already a huge store and continue to store even more carbon year on year are excluded from your scheme because

you are surely exposing yourself here as having a lack of expertise in soil management principles.
What happens if the corporates who are paying you to administer these carbon credits, actually due some serious due diligence on where their money is going?

Believe me, I want this to work. However, I can't see how the carbon credit schemes can remain so anti-grassland, yet still peddle their money making schemes on arable ground.

@Grass And Grain we are in line with (the independent) Cool Farm Tool on their 20 year rule, which is in line with the latest IPCC science.

The rule is to avoid a perverse incentive, the release of carbon, to then demonstrate heavy sequestration through zero till and arable cropping for example.

@onesiedale The model which our calculations are based upon consider PP as having reached an equilibrium, but arable soils still have potential to store. The reason we don't include PP and issue an emission associated with recently ploughed PP is to avoid the perverse incentive and having a carbon release.

On your second point you're right, my language is incorrect there. The point I was trying to make it that its the boundary of the model we use and science/research around PP may develop as time goes on.

I'm a livestock farmer with PP, sheep and cattle. It's an area which is certainly an irritation of mine. I don't want to give the impression that we believe PP, peat or livestock are 'bad' or should be penalised vs arable, but rather that this is an early market that is developing - and we certainly hope to cater to wider agricultural operations ASAP.

--

More info? Click here.

Soil Capital · Dec 30, 2022

Goweresque said:
My point is that you allow a landowner to sell the CC for 'doing the right things' in year 1 but there is nothing stopping him 'doing all the wrong things' in year 2 and releasing the lot back into the atmosphere. Not only that he gets to keep the money from year one, and no comebacks whatsoever. How exactly is that offsetting some emissions somewhere else in the economy?

I repeat, how is this not a scam?

We ask for a 5 year commitment to the programme, with 10 years permanence in the soil.

We hold back 20% of the certificates generated each year. If the farmer wishes to receive that remaining 20%, they would remain in the programme for 5 years, and stick to any 10 year commitments they have made.

So not a drop in, "do the right things", get all the cash and get out.

And really, we hope the farmer sees the soil, fuel, labour and other benefits to continue with the practices without carbon payments - but that is entirely down to the farmer, if they find its not working for them, that's absolutely fine too, its not for everyone.

Iben said:
As a peasant observer, I have never got my head round the benefit of trees over grass. Deciduous trees when planted are just a stick for the first ten years. Once they get going they have no resp

I lost the second part of your message in this quote, but we don't take any historical sequestration into account but rather our model considers PP as having reached its equilibrium, whereas arable soils can continue to sequester. However the DD farmer will have to continue direct drilling to generate carbon certificates, we can't generate certificates on what they have done previously.

--

More info? Click here.

onesiedale · Dec 30, 2022

Soil Capital said:
The model which our calculations are based upon consider PP as having reached an equilibrium,

this is the bit I don't get. ^^
what do you define as equilibrium?
Surely if soil under grassland is getting deeper each year then the store is being added to.
The reductionist science is not accounting for increased depth, just analysis of samples. Dangerous theory to base a business model on.

Goweresque · Dec 30, 2022

Soil Capital said:
We ask for a 5 year commitment to the programme, with 10 years permanence in the soil.

We hold back 20% of the certificates generated each year. If the farmer wishes to receive that remaining 20%, they would remain in the programme for 5 years, and stick to any 10 year commitments they have made.

So ten years down the line it can all be ploughed up and all the sequestered carbon released back into the atmosphere then? How exactly is this not a scam on the buyers of the CCs who are using them to offset their own emissions? And on the public who will be expecting that if a company is declaring itself carbon neutral because its buying CCs that actually means something permanent, not that it can all be overturned a decade later?

Hindsight · Dec 30, 2022

Soil Capital said:
We ask for a 5 year commitment to the programme, with 10 years permanence in the soil.

We hold back 20% of the certificates generated each year. If the farmer wishes to receive that remaining 20%, they would remain in the programme for 5 years, and stick to any 10 year commitments they have made.

So not a drop in, "do the right things", get all the cash and get out.

And really, we hope the farmer sees the soil, fuel, labour and other benefits to continue with the practices without carbon payments - but that is entirely down to the farmer, if they find its not working for them, that's absolutely fine too, its not for everyone.

I lost the second part of your message in this quote, but we don't take any historical sequestration into account but rather our model considers PP as having reached its equilibrium, whereas arable soils can continue to sequester. However the DD farmer will have to continue direct drilling to generate carbon certificates, we can't generate certificates on what they have done previously.

--

More info? Click here.

Hi, do you mind if I ask a question. I am not a farmer or landowner. But you pay them to sequester carbon. Where do you get your revenue from to pay the farmers and landowners. I am an ordinary bloke who works in the agricultural supply industry as a rep. But I do run a car, pay a mortgage and buy food and goods. A normal sort of consumer. Just wondering how this works - can I presume I am paying for it?

milkloss · Dec 30, 2022

Clive said:
I want Tesco to have to compete with BA etc for my carbon and not just dictate I hand it over as a condition of selling my wheat

So what’s going to happen when they want your carbon but you’ve already sold it? You might think you’re ahead having sold your carbon but might be on the back foot if you need it to sell your grain.

edit: Sorry, ignore me, it’s already been asked.

Goweresque · Dec 30, 2022

onesiedale said:
this is the bit I don't get. ^^
what do you define as equilibrium?
Surely if soil under grassland is getting deeper each year then the store is being added to.
The reductionist science is not accounting for increased depth, just analysis of samples. Dangerous theory to base a business model on.

Its all 'models'. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. Its just a computer program that works on assumptions put in one end and some 'data' churned out the other. Their model assumes PP is in carbon equilibrium, therefore it is, as far as they are concerned. The model has spoken, its word is law..........reality and truth can go hang.

onesiedale · Dec 30, 2022

Goweresque said:
Its all 'models'. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. Its just a computer program that works on assumptions put in one end and some 'data' churned out the other. Their model assumes PP is in carbon equilibrium, therefore it is, as far as they are concerned. The model has spoken, its word is law..........reality and truth can go hang.

and as the saying goes..."all models are designed to fail one day."

Cowlife · Dec 31, 2022

Soil Capital said:
We ask for a 5 year commitment to the programme, with 10 years permanence in the soil.

We hold back 20% of the certificates generated each year. If the farmer wishes to receive that remaining 20%, they would remain in the programme for 5 years, and stick to any 10 year commitments they have made.

So not a drop in, "do the right things", get all the cash and get out.

And really, we hope the farmer sees the soil, fuel, labour and other benefits to continue with the practices without carbon payments - but that is entirely down to the farmer, if they find its not working for them, that's absolutely fine too, its not for everyone.

I lost the second part of your message in this quote, but we don't take any historical sequestration into account but rather our model considers PP as having reached its equilibrium, whereas arable soils can continue to sequester. However the DD farmer will have to continue direct drilling to generate carbon certificates, we can't generate certificates on what they have done previously.

--

More info? Click here.

Is there anything for rewetting bogs etc or is all for arable.

ajd132 · Dec 31, 2022

delilah said:
Care to show us where you first said that ?
No, thought not. You're only just now waking up to the fundamental flaws in the whole carbon thing, and desperately trying to cover your arse by saying 'told you so'. You didn't.

To be fair both Clive and myself have said exactly that on every thread that has popped up about the subject on this forum.
Ive been saying it in board meetings for my grain co-op for the last two years because I don’t want it to happen and don’t want farmers to sleep walk into it. I would send you the minutes but I don’t think you are a member?!

delilah · Dec 31, 2022

@Soil Capital . To put it another way round: How many arable farmers have you turned down ?

delilah · Dec 31, 2022

Soil Capital said:
Additionality is certainly a pillar for generating carbon payments. A farmer must have changed practice in order to have additionality.

Now the flip side of this is that an early adopter of practices (think long term no tiller for example) will have no benefit because they've already changed the practice. What we're able to do at Soil Capital is reward these early adopters by comparing them to a regional/standard baseline and they are able to continue to maintain or improve their practices and receive carbon payments.

Because, reading that, it's all designed such that anyone qualifies whatever their management practices.

delilah · Dec 31, 2022

https://orfc.org.uk/session/the-new...r-nature-based-solutions-panacea-or-disaster/

Grass And Grain · Dec 31, 2022

Soil Capital said:
Every programme is different. For us, we still allow ploughing/inversion. But there are clear defintions surrounding min/zero tillage.

For example min till is anything that is non inversion. Zero is avoidance of any tillage beyond placing the seed.

Cover crops like Huno says, can be anything that has a good level of ground cover (i.e. no exposed soil).

@Grass And Grain we are in line with (the independent) Cool Farm Tool on their 20 year rule, which is in line with the latest IPCC science.

The rule is to avoid a perverse incentive, the release of carbon, to then demonstrate heavy sequestration through zero till and arable cropping for example.

@onesiedale The model which our calculations are based upon consider PP as having reached an equilibrium, but arable soils still have potential to store. The reason we don't include PP and issue an emission associated with recently ploughed PP is to avoid the perverse incentive and having a carbon release.

On your second point you're right, my language is incorrect there. The point I was trying to make it that its the boundary of the model we use and science/research around PP may develop as time goes on.

I'm a livestock farmer with PP, sheep and cattle. It's an area which is certainly an irritation of mine. I don't want to give the impression that we believe PP, peat or livestock are 'bad' or should be penalised vs arable, but rather that this is an early market that is developing - and we certainly hope to cater to wider agricultural operations ASAP.

--

More info? Click here.

Can't think there's any logical reasoning for using 20 years as the line in the sand. Anyway, that's what you've chosen to do, and it's your choice.

Couple of thoughts on PP.....

In regards to PP, as someone said, it's not just %OM, but also increasing volume of topsoil. Thinking of how to expand your scheme out to PP land, a pledge to leave the PP in place (i.e. not plough it out) is an action which increases the amount of stored C vs ploughing. It's exactly the same action as pledging not to plough arable ground. Pledging to not plough arable ground is getting paid to not do an action..... It's exactly the same if someone pledges to not plough their PP.

The other way to think about it is to consider an arable farmer who has a field of pasture. If they plough out the pasture and convert to arable how that C release effects the calculation of their Carbon balance. It would have a negative affect. So if they are getting paid for not ploughing their arable ground, then why shouldn't they also get paid for not ploughing their pasture land. It's the same action, which has a similar deleterious effect. It's EXACTLY the same choice of action.

The other action which may be a good carbon saver for PP might be to establish legume rich swards, as saves a LOT of manufactured N fertiliser.... and all the emissions which go with it.

Also saw last week in the news, addition of manures has been shown by Rothamstead to reduce NO2 emissions from soils. One to look in to.

Huno · Dec 31, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Can't think there's any logical reasoning for using 20 years as the line in the sand. Anyway, that's what you've chosen to do, and it's your choice.

Couple of thoughts on PP.....

In regards to PP, as someone said, it's not just %OM, but also increasing volume of topsoil. Thinking of how to expand your scheme out to PP land, a pledge to leave the PP in place (i.e. not plough it out) is an action which increases the amount of stored C vs ploughing. It's exactly the same action as pledging not to plough arable ground. Pledging to not plough arable ground is getting paid to not do an action..... It's exactly the same if someone pledges to not plough their PP.

The other way to think about it is to consider an arable farmer who has a field of pasture. If they plough out the pasture and convert to arable how that C release effects the calculation of their Carbon balance. It would have a negative affect. So if they are getting paid for not ploughing their arable ground, then why shouldn't they also get paid for not ploughing their pasture land. It's the same action, which has a similar deleterious effect. It's EXACTLY the same choice of action.

The other action which may be a good carbon saver for PP might be to establish legume rich swards, as saves a LOT of manufactured N fertiliser.... and all the emissions which go with it.

Also saw last week in the news, addition of manures has been shown by Rothamstead to reduce NO2 emissions from soils. One to look in to.

20yrs is actually the total period of time to fully restore carbon in soil if you didnt remove any inbetween.. years 5 to 10 are still the max sequestration period and then it tails off again yrs 11 to 20... as mentioned before this data has been around for decades before Cool Farm Tool type algorythms..
If the soil "battery" was empty in yr 1 it could be 80% charged by year 10 and fully charged by year 20 in arable degraded soils..
PP is a battery at about 40% charge hence why it is less appealing to support with carbon credits and probably not worth applying for 20 to 30 quid per Ha to meet the rules..
It just doesnt fit commercially or in reality either

delilah · Dec 31, 2022

So it's a scam because it doesn't include PP, but will stop being a scam if it does include PP ? Gotta love farmers.

Huno · Dec 31, 2022

Huno said:
20yrs is actually the total period of time to fully restore carbon in soil if you didnt remove any inbetween.. years 5 to 10 are still the max sequestration period and then it tails off again yrs 11 to 20... as mentioned before this data has been around for decades before Cool Farm Tool type algorythms..
If the soil "battery" was empty in yr 1 it could be 80% charged by year 10 and fully charged by year 20 in arable degraded soils..
PP is a battery at about 40% charge hence why it is less appealing to support with carbon credits and probably not worth applying for 20 to 30 quid per Ha to meet the rules..
It just doesnt fit commercially or in reality either

Based on the facts above it shows why claiming to be "Regenerative" on grassland with Livestock is a very difficult claim to make compared to certain arable systems.. Carbon cycles that are not adding SOM are not regenerative if they are stripping soils somewhere else to build up PP on grasslands for example.. There is alot of crap in articles these days that ignore the basic science..

Huno · Dec 31, 2022

delilah said:
So it's a scam because it doesn't include PP, but will stop being a scam if it does include PP ? Gotta love farmers.

It is not a scam.. it really works and can be scientifically measured but PP is a poor cousin sadly

Huno · Dec 31, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Can't think there's any logical reasoning for using 20 years as the line in the sand. Anyway, that's what you've chosen to do, and it's your choice.

Couple of thoughts on PP.....

In regards to PP, as someone said, it's not just %OM, but also increasing volume of topsoil. Thinking of how to expand your scheme out to PP land, a pledge to leave the PP in place (i.e. not plough it out) is an action which increases the amount of stored C vs ploughing. It's exactly the same action as pledging not to plough arable ground. Pledging to not plough arable ground is getting paid to not do an action..... It's exactly the same if someone pledges to not plough their PP.

The other way to think about it is to consider an arable farmer who has a field of pasture. If they plough out the pasture and convert to arable how that C release effects the calculation of their Carbon balance. It would have a negative affect. So if they are getting paid for not ploughing their arable ground, then why shouldn't they also get paid for not ploughing their pasture land. It's the same action, which has a similar deleterious effect. It's EXACTLY the same choice of action.

The other action which may be a good carbon saver for PP might be to establish legume rich swards, as saves a LOT of manufactured N fertiliser.... and all the emissions which go with it.

Also saw last week in the news, addition of manures has been shown by Rothamstead to reduce NO2 emissions from soils. One to look in to.

If you plough up PP to grow cereals make sure you do it for 5 years (5 years ago)with as much bag nitrogen as possible for max yields.. Burn all that residual SOM away and then the empty battery can be recharged using Carbon credit generating methods.. It is only a method of asking arable farmers to reverse their historically destructive processes and good farmers recognise these concepts

Grass And Grain · Dec 31, 2022

Huno said:
20yrs is actually the total period of time to fully restore carbon in soil if you didnt remove any inbetween.. years 5 to 10 are still the max sequestration period and then it tails off again yrs 11 to 20... as mentioned before this data has been around for decades before Cool Farm Tool type algorythms..
If the soil "battery" was empty in yr 1 it could be 80% charged by year 10 and fully charged by year 20 in arable degraded soils..
PP is a battery at about 40% charge hence why it is less appealing to support with carbon credits and probably not worth applying for 20 to 30 quid per Ha to meet the rules..
It just doesnt fit commercially or in reality either

The arable farmers are merely putting back the Carbon which they've wrongfully emitted.

Compared to PP, they need to get their soils back to 10% OM before they should get any payment.

The arable farmers are the ones who have emitted loads of C since 1940. They need to buy that back from the PP farmers who've been storing it, before they should be able to get any money.

It's like only paying benefits to those who have historically polluted, and offering nothing to those who've not polluted.

There's no denying the figures. Grassland soils are 10+% OM and increasing in depth. Arable soils struggle for 4% and are shrinking. Take a look at height of fields compared to height of the roads in some of the fen areas. Fields are a few feet down compared to the roads.

These soil carbon payment models are only prepared to pay the worst offenders.

Anyone had any experience with carbon offsetting payments. Soil capital in particular?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page