A stable climate: grassland or trees ?

[delilah]

This is being touched on in other discussions, but seems sufficiently important in the context of ELMS, meat alternatives, carbon trading and so on to warrant its own thread.

Over a 100 year period, in the UK, which is the more stable and effective store of carbon; an acre of native deciduous trees or an acre of permanent grassland (grazed, by definition, by ruminants) ?
Is there any science, rather than opinion ?

Yes there's the bigger picture of having to import food if you grow trees, but leaving that aside - because in 100 years it may all be grown in a lab anyway - acre for acre, which is the better for maintaining a beneficial/ desirable climate ?

 

[DaveGrohl]

Not having a go but why do we think climate can ever be stable? Or do you mean beneficial/desirable?

 

[delilah]

Last line edited

 

[primmiemoo]

It depends who controls the labs, shirley.

 

[FonterraFarmer]

This is being touched on in other discussions, but seems sufficiently important in the context of ELMS, meat alternatives, carbon trading and so on to warrant its own thread.

Over a 100 year period, in the UK, which is the more stable and effective store of carbon; an acre of native deciduous trees or an acre of permanent grassland (grazed, by definition, by ruminants) ?
Is there any science, rather than opinion ?

Yes there's the bigger picture of having to import food if you grow trees, but leaving that aside - because in 100 years it may all be grown in a lab anyway - acre for acre, which is the better for maintaining a beneficial/ desirable climate ?

I think your wrong either way as the solution is....






Less unnecessary f!@#ing concrete!!!
Just how much unnecessary concrete,tarmac, tarseal and buildings have been constructed over the last 150 years around the world?
How many cities, towns have been built on prime productive land at the complete lack of forward vision and or common sense or the stupidity of politics?
As for the so called meat alternatives, carbon trading and the like, they are nothing to do with the environment, it's all about control and money, or be it manipulated by the so called media.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Which one is left to grow/photosynthesise unimpeded in the springtime?
And are managers walking to check the grazing ruminants or driving?

Acre for acre, well managed grass will sneak ahead, average management puts it behind as it's just too easy now to blow Carbon.
Engines, fertiliser, transportation etc.

That's much less likely to be the case with
deciduous woodlands, which would likely be planted and left alone?
It's mainly the association with fungi that sequesters the bulk of the Carbon into the soil, and of course the liquid pathway of root exudates.

What's best for the soil? Trees/rewilding.

What's best for economic reasons? Permanent, unfertilised pastures.

 

[Danllan]

It depends who controls the labs, shirley.

How much power does Shirley really have? I think it's overstated.

As for the 'best' environmental set-up, how about wooded pasture?

 

[Muddyroads]

Which one is left to grow/photosynthesise unimpeded in the springtime?
And are managers walking to check the grazing ruminants or driving?

Acre for acre, well managed grass will sneak ahead, average management puts it behind as it's just too easy now to blow Carbon.
Engines, fertiliser, transportation etc.

That's much less likely to be the case with
deciduous woodlands, which would likely be planted and left alone?
It's mainly the association with fungi that sequesters the bulk of the Carbon into the soil, and of course the liquid pathway of root exudates.

What's best for the soil? Trees/rewilding.

What's best for economic reasons? Permanent, unfertilised pastures.

But an acre of woodland sequesters next to nothing for the first 10 years, and once it’s mature it pretty much stops. The timber then needs to be cut down and somehow stored to prevent the release of stored carbon. At least the grassland keeps on doing its thing. We are also having to contend with diseases such as sudden oak death and ash die back currently which is going to have a big impact. Who knows what diseases will come in over the next few decades with a warming climate and millions of saplings being imported.

 

[CornishTone]

It also depends on where they want to plant their trees. If, like Cornwall Council, they're trying to aim their trees at areas of permanent pasture (because they're less productive, right?! ) then its a massive own goal. By digging 1,600 little holes per ha to plant the trees, you release soil carbon.

The trees, @ 1600/ha, grow and, before its shaded out completely and dies, the permanent pasture isn't managed correctly/at all and this immediately stops sequestering and starts releasing carbon as it oxidises on the surface, before the trees have even started to sequester anything. The net result is trees on PP are likely to be carbon positive rather than a carbon sink but, few in power will listen as, like CC, they've pledged to plant X number of trees without any idea where they are going to go or how they are going to achieve it.

Silvopasture may be a happy half way house in some places. Lots of benefits for livestock, management and soil health but @ c400 trees/ha, the authorities all of a sudden need a lot more ha's for their 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 trees!

 

[primmiemoo]

How much power does Shirley really have? I think it's overstated.

As for the 'best' environmental set-up, how about wooded pasture?

Shirley is often wiser than credit is extended to, ime.

Actually, wooded pasture is how the holding is here. Around every block of pasture - ranging from ½ acre to over 20 acres - there is a linear area of woodland, containing trees and understorey from wild seedlings to mature trees.

Productive, food producing, open grassland that's sequestering carbon, plus woodland that's sequestering carbon less efficiently in the long term, but providing shelter, giving the livestock variety in their herbivorous diet, and producing fuel for heating for human residents of the holding.
What's there not to like?

 

[Kiwi Pete]

But an acre of woodland sequesters next to nothing for the first 10 years, and once it’s mature it pretty much stops. The timber then needs to be cut down and somehow stored to prevent the release of stored carbon. At least the grassland keeps on doing its thing. We are also having to contend with diseases such as sudden oak death and ash die back currently which is going to have a big impact. Who knows what diseases will come in over the next few decades with a warming climate and millions of saplings being imported.

That's valid enough, sorry my answer wasn't really what people want to hear.
You say that the trees need to be cut down, which puts a different slant on the equation (as does cutting and conserving grass).

Grassland does have greater potential but this is seldom realised due to [mis]management, so in effect it "isn't doing it's thing" all the time.
Maintaining litter/residues seems to be a weird concept that the majority don't/can't grasp, and because it rains often enough that we don't see we're only 6 weeks away from an agricultural drought, we tend to define good management as nice-looking grass.
Diversity roughly translates to "having weeds and old weed grasses" whereas in a woodland these unintended species are embraced for their value and beauty?

That's key to this comparison, as the main strength of an ecosystem lies in its diversity, and it takes a strong resilient ecosystem to sequester very much Carbon.

Yep, trees burn, but grass is often being oxidised due to less than ideal management; it'll be interesting to observe just what changes are made with the warmer period we've entered.

 

[n.w]

But an acre of woodland sequesters next to nothing for the first 10 years, and once it’s mature it pretty much stops. The timber then needs to be cut down and somehow stored to prevent the release of stored carbon. At least the grassland keeps on doing its thing. We are also having to contend with diseases such as sudden oak death and ash die back currently which is going to have a big impact. Who knows what diseases will come in over the next few decades with a warming climate and millions of saplings being imported.

How about short rotation coppice [SRC] willow cuttings are pushed into the ground, no disturbance, cut willow, can be used as fuel, or biochar

 

[Tim Howard]

We are told that the trees of the Amazon are the lungs of the world. When a tree is growing it takes in CO2 and gives of Oxygen, ok I get that but when it dies it releases the CO2 and very little seams to go back into the soil, dose that mean they are carbon neutral unless we store the timber and re-plant?
Would it not be better to grow things that we can actually eat?

 

[Danllan]

Shirley is often wiser than credit is extended to, ime.

Actually, wooded pasture is how the holding is here. Around every block of pasture - ranging from ½ acre to over 20 acres - there is a linear area of woodland, containing trees and understorey from wild seedlings to mature trees.

Productive, food producing, open grassland that's sequestering carbon, plus woodland that's sequestering carbon less efficiently in the long term, but providing shelter, giving the livestock variety in their herbivorous diet, and producing fuel for heating for human residents of the holding.
What's there not to like?

More or less what we have here too, although we don't have such vast prairies as you, 20 acres!

 

[Bury the Trash]

This is being touched on in other discussions, but seems sufficiently important in the context of ELMS, meat alternatives, carbon trading and so on to warrant its own thread.

Over a 100 year period, in the UK, which is the more stable and effective store of carbon; an acre of native deciduous trees or an acre of permanent grassland (grazed, by definition, by ruminants) ?
Is there any science, rather than opinion ?

Yes there's the bigger picture of having to import food if you grow trees, but leaving that aside - because in 100 years it may all be grown in a lab anyway - acre for acre, which is the better for maintaining a beneficial/ desirable climate ?

Dont forget that wood makes useful and most things up till the industrial revolution .
Just an example, fencing posts instead of metal ones imported from 12000 miles away.

 

[CornishTone]

We are told that the trees of the Amazon are the lungs of the world.

Bit of a misnomer that. At best, from a "lungs of the world" perspective, the Amazon accounts for a minute amount of the oxygen we breathe, barely above net 0%. The Amazons real value is that it holds a big ol' chunk of carbon in cycle and stops it being permanently released into the atmosphere. At worst however, when its going through a dry period like it is now, it actually releases huge amounts of carbon as the tree growth slows, CO2 use reduces and oxidation of the under-story/leaf litter takes hold which releases carbon. Not withstanding the fires, which make it considerably worse, the Amazon is releasing as much carbon as the US of A does each year. You can all fight over whether the dry period is as a result of natural cycles or man made climate change, but the Amazon is actually not helping at the moment.

 

[delilah]

Dont forget that wood makes useful and most things up till the industrial revolution .
Just an example, fencing posts instead of metal ones imported from 12000 miles away.

For sure, there's 101 tangential issues in all of this. I'm just keen to drill down in to this one specific issue we face:

If 10 members of the public (or 10 fate deciding politicians) are asked the question "which will best protect us from catastrophic climate change, an acre of grass or an acre of trees ?" then 9 of them will say "duh, trees".

Is there any robust but accessible science on this ?

 

[milkloss]

For sure, there's 101 tangential issues in all of this. I'm just keen to drill down in to this one specific issue we face:

If 10 members of the public (or 10 fate deciding politicians) are asked the question "which will best protect us from catastrophic climate change, an acre of grass or an acre of trees ?" then 9 of them will say "duh, trees".

Is there any robust but accessible science on this ?

probably not and likely won't be. Why would anyone try and disprove something that's going to bankroll them for the next however-many years and besides, trees sounds good to the public.

 

[delilah]

Call me hopelessly naive, but I refuse to believe that there isn't someone, somewhere, studying this from an objective scientific viewpoint.
Here's the hopelessly naive bit: farmings representative bodies will have tracked them down.
Hence me asking on here.

 

[primmiemoo]

More or less what we have here too, although we don't have such vast prairies as you, 20 acres!

Dad regretted taking down a hedge to get that biggest field. Let the gales in