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

[Huno]

I like what you do... its only money after all... enjoy

 

[Clive]

With your pub yields you probably balance at zero in reality... no wasted effort

sadly not a lot “pub” about my yields - they are uk average at best on general low yielding land

 

[Clive]

Be more aware!!!

i will ask next time i speak to somebody from Agreena - happy to take more free £’s if its on offer

 

[Huno]

sadly not a lot “pub” about my yields - they are uk average at best on general low yielding land

2 to 3 tonnes Co2 per Ha i meant!! I didnt mean grain yields.. that has always been pub chat and only the haulier knows the truth there!! That Co2 yield is well on the low side.. very honest of you to share...

 

[Clive]

2 to 3 tonnes Co2 per Ha i meant!! I didnt mean grain yields.. that has always been pub chat and only the haulier knows the truth there!! That Co2 yield is well on the low side.. very honest of you to share...

it’s what the model dayse based on the (honest and audited) data i input

 

[Huno]

PP farmers are probably harvesting 5 to 6 tonnes of CO2 for example.. poor buggers have to then sell it as meat!!

 

[Huno]

It proba

it’s what the model dayse based on the (honest and audited) data i input

It probably nearer 4 tonnes per Ha with your system.. ho..hum...

 

[Henarar]

We’re constantly being told that if the carbon farmers absorb is released again inside 12 months (eg the wheat in a loaf of bread, obv not counting the soy flour in the same loaf) then we’re not allowed to say we have absorbed any carbon at all. Setting aside the utter nonsense of that creative accountancy, why then are we not allowed to count a beef animal that takes 24-36 months to mature? We’ve gone past 12 months after all.

We’ve absorbed that carbon into a mobile carbon store for 2 to 3 years. Someone planting a tree that dies in a few weeks gets money thrown at them for comparison with no comeback.

I have had beef in the freezer for more than a year so

 

[Henarar]

bps was never going to be replaced and that was made clear from the start as i recall

the issue is farmers are unable to accept that fact so have been in denial for the last 4 years

What was ELMS/SFI and the budget staying the same so called spose to be about then ?
if the silly feck whit's would just say what they are going to do instead of fecking about for years then changing there bloody minds then we would bloody well know wouldn't we

 

[Grass And Grain]

Play their game.

1. Plough out the PP.
2. Plant wheat.
3. Join carbon scheme.
4. Plant legume rich sward (no N fert required).

Computer says you've ticked all the boxes. Computer says lots of C sequestered with no artificial N use.

Borrow neighbours Quadtrac and big trailer for hauling cash to bank.

 

[Goweresque]

Play their game.

1. Plough out the PP.
2. Plant wheat.
3. Join carbon scheme.
4. Plant legume rich sward (no N fert required).

Computer says you've ticked all the boxes. Computer says lots of C sequestered with no artificial N use.

Borrow neighbours Quadtrac and big trailer for hauling cash to bank.

You forgot:

5. After your Five year contract is up go back to 1. and start again.

 

[Clive]

You forgot:

5. After your Five year contract is up go back to 1. and start again.

wrong again, you don’t wait 5 years, you do it every year and the contract end date rolls a yr on


SO much lack of understanding around this subject, no wonder the debate gets split / lively !

 

[roscoe erf]

 

[Goweresque]

wrong again, you don’t wait 5 years, you do it every year and the contract end date rolls a yr on

So you're telling us that you could collect £X thousands for CCs in 2022, and plough the whole lot up in 2023?

And you still maintain this isn't a scam?

 

[Soil Capital]

I looked at this cool farm tool. Maybe I am a "fool farming tool" but I can't figure out how to put the food waste digestate that provides all my p&k, and half my N. I'd be interested to know who's "carbon" that is, because sure it's the consumers waste I'm recycling, therefore only "costs" me the carbon of putting it on.....

Exactly!! I can use lime to scrub my C02 emmitter.. called a giant wood burner and put it back into my soils but Cool Farm Tool cant quantify that either!! Take the moron's money is my advice because they havent got a clue all of it is a manipulation tool by finance.. multiples and their suppliers because they are the real planet killers!!

This is an area where we have built upon the CFT. We have expanded the organic matter/manure lists and are happy to add upon as and when we get farmers requesting new manures added.

@teslacoils feel free to give our simulator a go, its simpler and will give a good estimation with much less time invested.

Current fix seems to be plough it out, apply to one of these schemes, then put it back to temporary grass.

You'll get paid for sequestering carbon, even though soils will probably have released a load of C

Suppose if that's how it works, then just got to milk the system. Not our problem.

@Soil Capital is this right?
If I plough out my PP and turn it into arable soils then you will be able to calculate my carbon credits, value them and sell them to your clients?

In the carbon Q and A it was established that in order to sell carbon credits you need to demonstrate additionality.

ie do something by way of land/crop management due to the carbon payment that you wouldn't be doing in the absence of that payment.

Very easy to come up with some bullsh!t story about how your arable system has changed. Quite difficult to show how management of PP has been altered. That's why they don't like PP.

Less potential for lying.

Yes but where is the additionality ?
What management practice have you carried out, due to the carbon credit payment, that you wouldn't have done without it ?

Not that simple, we ask if PP has went through a change of use in the previous 20 years e.g. from PP to Arable. From that we associate some emissions with that change.


This is to discourage a release of carbon from PP which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. So no - its not possible to change PP to temporary grass and claim carbon payments on it without penalty.

One thing I want to stress though is that its not a particular type of farming that we don't agree with or see as better than the other. In the case of PP, its the boundary of our calculator in the background; I have no doubt in future it will be taken into account as research develops.

Additionality in the next post @delilah

 

[Grass And Grain]

This is an area where we have built upon the CFT. We have expanded the organic matter/manure lists and are happy to add upon as and when we get farmers requesting new manures added.

@teslacoils feel free to give our simulator a go, its simpler and will give a good estimation with much less time invested.







Not that simple, we ask if PP has went through a change of use in the previous 20 years e.g. from PP to Arable. From that we associate some emissions with that change.


This is to discourage a release of carbon from PP which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. So no - its not possible to change PP to temporary grass and claim carbon payments on it without penalty.

One thing I want to stress though is that its not a particular type of farming that we don't agree with or see as better than the other. In the case of PP, its the limitations of our calculator (and potentially science) in the background; I have no doubt in future it will be taken into account.

Additionality in the next post @delilah

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?

 

[Soil Capital]

No, it isn't. Not according to the rules under which carbon trading operates anyway.
They don't want improvement, they want action.
Think ELMS .

. There is clear additionality, he's adding carbon to his soil. The fake "additionality" used in these schemes is where farmer A has changed his practices so emits a bit less (but is still a net emitter) and yet gets paid for doing so by a company who claim, legally, that him emitting less "offsets" their ongoing emissions.

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.

This avoids giving an early adopter a perverse incentive of ploughing land up, before reverting back to no till (again, for example).

@Soil Capital
thanks for putting a value on these carbon certificates.
just thought I'd do a quick cross check using Google.

https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/

here ,it quotes the European carbon market as being €84.28 per tonne. (£74.16)
what has happened to the £47 difference from the prices you quoted?

Carbon certificates or credits are not all the same and equal. Credits for example can be used for offsetting (e.g. airlines offsetting flights), whereas cerficiates (which we trade in) can only be used within the supply chain for insetting purposes.

They can have different permanence periods, be x years old, and be generated from different industries. The overall trend of prices is a good indicator as an industry whole, but not entirely applicable to each individual certificate or credit.

The higher price we can get the better - for both the farmer and us.

How is it you can calculate the accumulation of SOC in arable ground but not PP? Surely the protocol for measuring SOC in arable is identical to the protocol for assessing SOC in pasture? Soil doesn’t discriminate… unless it’s a bit of a con?

So, storing “a lot of carbon“ doesn’t warrant any reward? Is this about carbon or is this about money?

The carbon markets only reward adding carbon to the soil, not what is already there. Nothing to do with our programme, but rather a wider market standard.

A personal view, is that we may be paid to protect carbon stores in the future (already happening in many cases?)

Why are we assuming that permanent pasture can’t sequester carbon? Very few of these carbon-con artists are willing to put the effort in to actually sample permanent pastures organic matter and soil depth over time. Lets be honest, they don’t even want to sample soil full stop… they want to work with “models” that suit their economic model.

And that’s before we even start talk about the broader benefits of pasture in terms of water, air and communities that can’t necessarily be valued easily.

Nothing down to our view of carbon sequestration in PP. We use an entirely independent model that unfortunately doesn't take it into account.

We certainly hope we'll be able to take it into account in the future, and its worth noting that this is an early stage industry that is still developing.

And your last point about the wider benefits - you're entirely correct. Carbon is not the be all end all environmental measure; however it is a prominent part.

Yeh, it depends on the required time lag from felling to replanting again.

I really don't understand the rules that they go by. Why are grassland farms being bought up and planted in trees by big companies to offset?

I'm not sure on this, but my best guess would be that they are proving additional sequestration to grassland farms by sequestration through trees.

Whereas on the opposite side, we are paying for emission reduction and sequestration on food producing land.

It's something I am trying to learn.

If I sow wheat early September, the crop will not count for sequestration as the end use will mean carbon released back into the environment.
If I sow cover crops in early September, destroy them in march and sow spring barley, the barley will not count but the cover crops will??

At Soil Capital we take into account stubble to stubble crops and operations. So anything that was planted after last harvest and harvested in '23 could generate a carbon payment.

So you're telling us that you could collect £X thousands for CCs in 2022, and plough the whole lot up in 2023?

And you still maintain this isn't a scam?

Within our programme, we can account for the emissions associated with ploughing. Its not a requirement for a farmer to avoid ploughing.

A farmer that is no till and cover cropping will have a higher sequestration rate than one that is ploughing with cover crops however.

 

[onesiedale]

This is to discourage a release of carbon from PP which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. So no - its not possible to change PP to temporary grass and claim carbon payments on it without penalty.

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

its the limitations of our calculator (and potentially science)

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.

 

[Goweresque]

Within our programme, we can account for the emissions associated with ploughing. Its not a requirement for a farmer to avoid ploughing.

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?

 

[Iben]

proving additional sequestration to grassland farms by sequestration through trees.

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 respiring leaves on them for nearly six months of the year at this latitude.

Another interesting point you make above. PP can't have it's historical carbon capture taken into account, but someone who has been direct drilling for years can?