Can increasing soil carbon also increase soil CO2 back into atmosphere?

[CornishTone]

would I be right in thinking then, roundup kills soil bacteria, this then causes them to decompose and give off their held Carbon? Would that then mean, the unintended consequences of GM/Roundup ready seeds is the death of the soil biome and increased global warming?

I'd say that's a pretty good summary of the theory, yes. Relentless applications seems to cause a collapse in soil biology, so losing all those ecosystem processes that contribute towards carbon cycling and sequestration. (Controversial opinion incoming) A healthy, biologically active soil will shrug off the occasional application of Glyphosate in a rotation with little or no long term effect but, the continued use of it seems to have significant effects on soil biology. Good evidence to suggest, where it gets into the food chain, it has a similar effect on gut biology as well.

 

[CornishTone]

How about lucerne? Fixes nitrogen as well.

Loves a bit o f Lucerne I do! Tricky to get right in a lot of areas of this country though. Where it can be grown well, its a great plant!

 

[C.J]

Also recently heard that as we pull Carbon from the atmosphere, so the oceans give up Carbon, but ultimately, the more we can sequester in the soil the better.

I think the best way to sequester Carbon is with mob grazing and getting the soil biome "buzzing", any cultivation is bad for that, however, we still need to eat grains etc so there has to be a compromise on this, but probably cut out ploughing (mind you I guess you still have to for Potatoes etc), so again, compromise.

CO2 flux depends on sea temperatures - warm seas release CO2 and cold seas absorb CO2

Blue areas are absorbing CO2 and red areas are releasing CO2

 

[wanton dwarf]

I am not sure how Tera Petra soils (in the Amazon) and Bio Char fit in this, maybe, Bio Char holds far more Carbon than anything else in the soil, if we can find a way of getting more of it into the soil in a commercial setting.

Well this would be an answer for putting Carbon into soils commercially.

Creating charcoal on an industrial scale, spreading and ploughing/cultivating the charcoal in soils. But it would probably lead to less carbon being taken from the atmosphere by crops.

Carbon in this form MIGHT stay in soils for a long time - maybe even millenia. But I think there is a warning there. Placing Carbon in an unusable state does not equate with having Carbon Based lifeforms.

Far better IMHO that deserts are turned back into viable vegetation growing regions - but this would require rich people not having Super Yachts, Super Cars, Super Planes and Super Mansions.

I'll end by saying I don't think CO2 does anything like what the CCCP state. If it did then we'd quite easily create CO2 power stations.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Our nutritionist hates roundup for that very reason. Kills the bugs in the soil. No good for biodynamic farming.

The pretense a very very small amount of spray residue can contaminate millions of tonnes of soil is hilarious. We're heading into homeopathic territory and probably beyond.

If Roundup was sprayed at 3.5 litres a Hectare that's applying 0.00035 Litres of Roundup a metre square. If 1 litre of roundup is a kilo, then that's 0.35 grammes of roundup to contaminate 1+ tonne of soil.

Of course there won't be 100% of active Roundup per litre either.

Pull the other one.

 

[N.Yorks.]

It's really interesting to note that any farming system that enhances soil carbon can increase Nitrous Oxide emissions which means that the benefit for reduced global warming is wiped out.

Seems farming to increase Carbon isn't the silver bullet it's being touted as. Totally agree that increased soil OM/C leads to other benefits but don't think you can go and sell tonnes of carbon sequestered to other purchasers in a 'market'.

Yes more carbon can be captured but in parallel more nitrous oxide has been created out of the soil effectively nullifying any climate benefit.

 

[CornishTone]

The pretense a very very small amount of spray residue can contaminate millions of tonnes of soil is hilarious. We're heading into homeopathic territory and probably beyond.

If Roundup was sprayed at 3.5 litres a Hectare that's applying 0.00035 Litres of Roundup a metre square. If 1 litre of roundup is a kilo, then that's 0.35 grammes of roundup to contaminate 1+ tonne of soil.

Of course there won't be 100% of active Roundup per litre either.

Pull the other one.

Litres of product is irrelevant. It's the active that does the job so, a generic 360g/L Glyho @ 3.5L/ha = 1,260g/ha (0.126g/m2) of active. If that amount can kill all plants on 10,000m2 , why is it so preposterous to assume the same amount might have some affect on the biology in 1t of soil?

The irony being of course, and despite the attention it gets in the press, glyphosate doesn't have the biggest impact on soil biology. SU's are considerably more damaging by all accounts. GRDC did some work on this a few years ago and I'm damned if I can find it now.

 

[Warnesworth]

Litres of product is irrelevant. It's the active that does the job so, a generic 360g/L Glyho @ 3.5L/ha = 1,260g/ha (0.126g/m2) of active. If that amount can kill all plants on 10,000m2 , why is it so preposterous to assume the same amount might have some affect on the biology in 1t of soil?

The irony being of course, and despite the attention it gets in the press, glyphosate doesn't have the biggest impact on soil biology. SU's are considerably more damaging by all accounts. GRDC did some work on this a few years ago and I'm damned if I can find it now.

I think most of the active's used on broadacre crops are more toxic to soil biology than glyphosate according to the list I have, but it's all about pragmatic use and focusing on the bigger picture.
Yes, I am sure that some actives we use regularly may have a deleterious effect on the soil biology but if the trend shows improvement in soil functionality even when used, then that's ok.
Interesting that no-one has mentioned the really biggie, artificial N.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Litres of product is irrelevant. It's the active that does the job so, a generic 360g/L Glyho @ 3.5L/ha = 1,260g/ha (0.126g/m2) of active. If that amount can kill all plants on 10,000m2 , why is it so preposterous to assume the same amount might have some affect on the biology in 1t of soil?

The irony being of course, and despite the attention it gets in the press, glyphosate doesn't have the biggest impact on soil biology. SU's are considerably more damaging by all accounts. GRDC did some work on this a few years ago and I'm damned if I can find it now.

If you think 0.126 grammes of chemical can kill off the biology in 1 tonne of soil then it must be the most toxic chemical on the planet.

Never mind the fact it isn't sprayed on the soil in the first place .. it's on the weeds.

FFS you lot have been caught hook line and sinker.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Interesting that no-one has mentioned the really biggie, artificial N.

Let's just imagine that N created by plants, bacteria and lightning is "Okay Yah" but magically artificial N is toxic ...

 

[Warnesworth]

Let's just imagine that N created by plants, bacteria and lightning is "Okay Yah" but magically artificial N is toxic ...

N itself isn't toxic, but as someone mentioned above, its about imbalance and adding large amounts of N to the soil creates imbalance. Which in turn can lead, in the right circumstances, to a loss of carbon.

 

[bactosoil]

If you think 0.126 grammes of chemical can kill off the biology in 1 tonne of soil then it must be the most toxic chemical on the planet.

Never mind the fact it isn't sprayed on the soil in the first place .. it's on the weeds.

FFS you lot have been caught hook line and sinker.

effect on soil biology don't have to be great to trigger a much bigger chain of events, so while I can understand on face value a very little of something cannot logically have an effect it actually really can . Take quorum sensing a indisputable driver in soil health , it really doesnt take much to break the bacterial communication path ways , some times this is beneficial such as disruption bio film formation but sometimes its not good for soil health ,
too little is really understood in soil health for any of us to say something cannot be

 

[wanton dwarf]

effect on soil biology don't have to be great to trigger a much bigger chain of events, so while I can understand on face value a very little of something cannot logically have an effect it actually really can . Take quorum sensing a indisputable driver in soil health , it really doesnt take much to break the bacterial communication path ways , some times this is beneficial such as disruption bio film formation but sometimes its not good for soil health ,
too little is really understood in soil health for any of us to say something cannot be

If this was the case then there would be obvious areas of "Soil Health" where the "Despised Chemicals" were not in use.

We'd see areas of marked improvements in crop yields, crop quality and plant health.

However, this is not the case. Quite the reverse in fact.

 

[wanton dwarf]

effect on soil biology don't have to be great to trigger a much bigger chain of events, so while I can understand on face value a very little of something cannot logically have an effect it actually really can . Take quorum sensing a indisputable driver in soil health , it really doesnt take much to break the bacterial communication path ways , some times this is beneficial such as disruption bio film formation but sometimes its not good for soil health ,
too little is really understood in soil health for any of us to say something cannot be

I'd also point out that Bacteria can and do create chemicals that kill off other bacteria and fungi indiscriminately.

This is where we get anti biotics from.

 

[DaveGrohl]

It's really interesting to note that any farming system that enhances soil carbon can increase Nitrous Oxide emissions which means that the benefit for reduced global warming is wiped out.

Seems farming to increase Carbon isn't the silver bullet it's being touted as. Totally agree that increased soil OM/C leads to other benefits but don't think you can go and sell tonnes of carbon sequestered to other purchasers in a 'market'.

Yes more carbon can be captured but in parallel more nitrous oxide has been created out of the soil effectively nullifying any climate benefit.

As this thread (and others) is showing there's a Hell of a lot more to this climate bollox than just carbon/carbon dioxide. Politicians and the media are misleading the population down an utterly stupid alleyway. It's the modern way, pander to the lowest common denominator. Then, once you get a bandwagon rolling it takes a Hell of a lot to alter its course. What a time to be alive indeed.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

N itself isn't toxic, but as someone mentioned above, its about imbalance and adding large amounts of N to the soil creates imbalance. Which in turn can lead, in the right circumstances, to a loss of carbon.

am I right in thinking, excess N, means the bacteria in the soil need a N:C ration, so "eat" the Carbon held in the soil as they use the Nitrogen, then eventually these excess bacteria die or are eaten and the Carbon they metabolised from the soil is given off as CO2, this is how excess N causes a loss of soil organic matter.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

effect on soil biology don't have to be great to trigger a much bigger chain of events, so while I can understand on face value a very little of something cannot logically have an effect it actually really can . Take quorum sensing a indisputable driver in soil health , it really doesnt take much to break the bacterial communication path ways , some times this is beneficial such as disruption bio film formation but sometimes its not good for soil health ,
too little is really understood in soil health for any of us to say something cannot be

I wonder how many tonnes of covid-19 virus is on the planet at this point in time....

surely it must be gigatonnes, to have the power to ground aircraft

cascading and compounding effects "is" nature

 

[delilah]

As this thread (and others) is showing there's a Hell of a lot more to this don't plough bollox than just carbon/carbon dioxide. Clive and co are misleading the policymakers down an utterly stupid alleyway. It's the modern way, pander to the lowest common denominator. Then, once you get a bandwagon rolling it takes a Hell of a lot to alter its course. What a time to be alive indeed.

Edited that for you. .

 

[N.Yorks.]

would I be right in thinking then, roundup kills soil bacteria, this then causes them to decompose and give off their held Carbon? Would that then mean, the unintended consequences of GM/Roundup ready seeds is the death of the soil biome and increased global warming?

Cellular life that dies in the soil is consumed by another so there might be short term spike in CO2, problem with soil ecology is that it is so complex.

This happens with frozen soils, where some organisms are killed by freezing but as soon as there is a thaw they are broken down by other microbes, causing CO2 spike.

The estimate is 7 trillion organisms in a cubic meter of topsoil..........Much work to be done before we get what is going on in every situation.