Carbon Dioxide

[martian]

Fascinating video from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/...el-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/
It just goes to show how much CO2 that plants worldwide can absorb in a growing season. Unfortunately the levels at this time of year in the Northern Hemisphere are sky high, when plants are dormant. What a coincidence.

Why is it, do you think, that policy makers who are concerned about atmospheric CO2 levels are only concentrating on emissions rather than sequestration? Every summer the levels drop; if farmland was healthy and absorbing and retaining carbon (making it healthier still) then the winter CO2 peaks would decline and quite quickly we wouldn't have a problem. Ploughing releases CO2, no-till locks it up...

 

[marco]

allen williams has regularly achieved close to 1% increase in soil organic matter per year, although starting from pretty low %. using high denisity grazing(mob) world wide would solve the problem of co2(thats assuming it is a problem)

 

[mikep]

Fascinating video from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/...el-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/
It just goes to show how much CO2 that plants worldwide can absorb in a growing season. Unfortunately the levels at this time of year in the Northern Hemisphere are sky high, when plants are dormant. What a coincidence.

Why is it, do you think, that policy makers who are concerned about atmospheric CO2 levels are only concentrating on emissions rather than sequestration? Every summer the levels drop; if farmland was healthy and absorbing and retaining carbon (making it healthier still) then the winter CO2 peaks would decline and quite quickly we wouldn't have a problem. Ploughing releases CO2, no-till locks it up...

Because notill which is a good way to start the process along with a holistic approach is/was in danger of being strangled at birth.
The sector of agriculture that should be a natural ally i.e. The green/Organic/ activist decided that attacking the great demon of Monsanto was more important than actually helping to work towards a better agriculture. These single issue idiots will hopefully go away now for a while and leave those of us who want to progress beyond the us and them attitude to get on with it in peace. I have not met an organic farmer who is in line with official Soil Association policy, they don't use chemicals but can see how others address making strides to reduce their usage. The last thing any of them want is a large scale increase in their numbers for obvious reasons.
Policy makers only respond to popular or simplistic ideas so let's do the visible and cut emissions rather than let's do the sensible and increase sequestration as well. Certainly in the UK the SA who have a far greater ear in government would rather die than support notill with glyphosate. I have asked the question directly to them and they refuse to sanction any way which is not their way and would rather the planet suffers than use glyphosate
The OF&G are far more open to the fact that the answer is a hybrid not just their way.
Notill is also regarded by more mainstream farmers as weird or lazy so the NFU would rather just creep under the umbrella of the Soils Alliance which is a pure and simple SA shell organisation which will only push for SA ideas..
So notill and the associated soil care practiced are alone in the real world with no representation and cannot effectively put forward ideas to the policy makers

 

[fleetg]

Sequestration is difficult to quantify especially if you don't just look at CO2 but also CH4 (in farming). It is definitely something that should be considered. Agroforestry mixed with No-till where you can build OM in the upper layer, build biomass in the trees has a place in the future and I firmly believe farmers could be paid per ton of carbon sequestered over a given period (We are looking at 50ac to be planted in 2018). Overall a shift in diet will be required and de-centralisation of the food system (as is starting to happen with the power network).

 

[Richard III]

Great video @martian , gives one a slightly different perspective on things! It is incredible how much CO2 is being cycled around the whole ecosystem and interesting to spot where the largest emissions pour out from.

 

[mikep]

Sequestration is difficult to quantify especially if you don't just look at CO2 but also CH4 (in farming). It is definitely something that should be considered. Agroforestry mixed with No-till where you can build OM in the upper layer, build biomass in the trees has a place in the future and I firmly believe farmers could be paid per ton of carbon sequestered over a given period (We are looking at 50ac to be planted in 2018). Overall a shift in diet will be required and de-centralisation of the food system (as is starting to happen with the power network).

Fraid your ideas are dead in the water if you ever believe there will be a large scale change in diet and/or lifestyle that isn't catastrophy led.
No politician can hope to be elected by taking about let alone acting upon inconvenient truths.
Mass actions will be driven only by economic considerations and at present these are focused solely on cheap food with a bit of greening on the side.
Some of us will do our bit but ask yourself have you ever heard a politician who had any chance of being elected talk sense in this matter and if you have what chance is there of them keeping their word once elected?

 

[Dead Rabbits]

Fascinating video from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/...el-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/
It just goes to show how much CO2 that plants worldwide can absorb in a growing season. Unfortunately the levels at this time of year in the Northern Hemisphere are sky high, when plants are dormant. What a coincidence.

Why is it, do you think, that policy makers who are concerned about atmospheric CO2 levels are only concentrating on emissions rather than sequestration? Every summer the levels drop; if farmland was healthy and absorbing and retaining carbon (making it healthier still) then the winter CO2 peaks would decline and quite quickly we wouldn't have a problem. Ploughing releases CO2, no-till locks it up...

The perils of the reductionist, linear, parts and pieces western thinking.

 

[hendrebc]

@Kiwi Pete likes carbon

 

[Bury the Trash]

So now we have to try and bury all that crap the luxury travel people churn out......


Ploughing a field is almost a crime ...?.. where as a cut price plane trip on a beano is clever.....

 

[hendrebc]

So now we have to try and bury all that crap the luxury travel people churn out......


Ploughing a field is almost a crime ...?.. where as a cut price plane trip on a beano is clever.....

No one said it was fair or right that farmers get the blame. We have more chance of sinking some carbon into soils than people on a plane can so it seems we have to do something about it

 

[Feldspar]

Ploughing releases CO2, no-till locks it up...

If only it were that simple. It isn't. You must be guided by the scientific evidence on this which is far from clear on this point, at least not the level where you can make a black and white statement like this. You can't pick which bits of research you like that resonate with your interior tendencies (see Jonothan Haidt for discussion on people moral make-up), like the consensus on climate change, whilst at the same time rejecting other bits that don't.

I would say that there is some evidence that your statement is correct, but a lot that isn't. Until we understand the issue better, the language of certainty is not appropriate IMHO.

 

[FARMERJERRY]

Because notill which is a good way to start the process along with a holistic approach is/was in danger of being strangled at birth.
The sector of agriculture that should be a natural ally i.e. The green/Organic/ activist decided that attacking the great demon of Monsanto was more important than actually helping to work towards a better agriculture. These single issue idiots will hopefully go away now for a while and leave those of us who want to progress beyond the us and them attitude to get on with it in peace. I have not met an organic farmer who is in line with official Soil Association policy, they don't use chemicals but can see how others address making strides to reduce their usage. The last thing any of them want is a large scale increase in their numbers for obvious reasons.
Policy makers only respond to popular or simplistic ideas so let's do the visible and cut emissions rather than let's do the sensible and increase sequestration as well. Certainly in the UK the SA who have a far greater ear in government would rather die than support notill with glyphosate. I have asked the question directly to them and they refuse to sanction any way which is not their way and would rather the planet suffers than use glyphosate
The OF&G are far more open to the fact that the answer is a hybrid not just their way.
Notill is also regarded by more mainstream farmers as weird or lazy so the NFU would rather just creep under the umbrella of the Soils Alliance which is a pure and simple SA shell organisation which will only push for SA ideas..
So notill and the associated soil care practiced are alone in the real world with no representation and cannot effectively put forward ideas to the policy makers

Because Glyphosate is a man made chemical it is not approved under Organic rules whether you are SA or O F and g approved so your statement about OF and G supporting a hybrid is rubbish. SA do not approve any chemical products on crops nor do OF and G. organic rules are covered under legal definition so not easy for an organic body to sanction something which is not approved under their own rules.

SA position is that Glyphosate should not be used on grains going into the food chain particularly bread .The head of policy even told a conference in November that the UK should follow science in deciding about future policy of pesticides and not economics or convenience so not sure who you asked about SA policy regarding no-till. You chose to use chemicals , organic farmers chose not to- that really is the end of it.

Organic farmers have always used green manures and fertility breaks which some may say is what Conservation agriculture is doing-- the only difference is the use of a chemical which is not approved in organic farming.
Organic farmers are looking into ways of reducing ploughing because they can see the need for increasing soil health, but they need to find ways of doing it without chemicals. As @Feldspar says it is not totally true to say ''ploughing bad no-till good''.
Some non-organic farmers are worried about a sector of farming being dependant on one chemical, but there are equally a large number of non-organic farmers who will not contemplate getting rid of ploughs and power-harrows, who grow no cover-crops and believe that chemical and fertiliser companies will solve all the problems eventually so need to worry.
Remember that organic farmers have a variety of reasons for their position but customers wanting chemical free food is one of the reasons.

 

[mikep]

Because Glyphosate is a man made chemical it is not approved under Organic rules whether you are SA or O F and g approved so your statement about OF and G supporting a hybrid is rubbish. SA do not approve any chemical products on crops nor do OF and G. organic rules are covered under legal definition so not easy for an organic body to sanction something which is not approved under their own rules.

SA position is that Glyphosate should not be used on grains going into the food chain particularly bread .The head of policy even told a conference in November that the UK should follow science in deciding about future policy of pesticides and not economics or convenience so not sure who you asked about SA policy regarding no-till. You chose to use chemicals , organic farmers chose not to- that really is the end of it.

Organic farmers have always used green manures and fertility breaks which some may say is what Conservation agriculture is doing-- the only difference is the use of a chemical which is not approved in organic farming.
Organic farmers are looking into ways of reducing ploughing because they can see the need for increasing soil health, but they need to find ways of doing it without chemicals. As @Feldspar says it is not totally true to say ''ploughing bad no-till good''.
Some non-organic farmers are worried about a sector of farming being dependant on one chemical, but there are equally a large number of non-organic farmers who will not contemplate getting rid of ploughs and power-harrows, who grow no cover-crops and believe that chemical and fertiliser companies will solve all the problems eventually so need to worry.
Remember that organic farmers have a variety of reasons for their position but customers wanting chemical free food is one of the reasons.

Where to begin.
First I never said OF&G openly support the idea of glyphosate but they are not in the forefront of trying to ban it unlike the SA. They are much more realistic which may be why most of the arable organic farmers are joined to them not the SA.
Secondly there is no such thing as man made bad, natural good. A dose of gastro enteritis would explain that best.
From memory the Organic standards allow some very toxic chemicals to be used, rotenone for one and if you don't think copper sulphate is toxic God help you. How many organic livestock farmers have never used wormers or antibiotics? OK they are not supposed to be used routinely but this is the point, they are there to stop the animal suffering in the parlance. Now ask yourself in a totally organic world without the support of the research carried out for conventional farmers what could you use? Answer sweet FA!
So here we have the interesting situation that the organic movent who are hanging around on the outskirts of farming are acting like a parasite on the back of the bulk of farmers. Now ask any parasite how to keep alive and they would answer "don't kill your host".
You state that is merely that you choose to not use chemicals and we do so that is the end of it? Really? OK so why are the SA pissing into the tent and pushing for our chemicals to be banned?
As stated i know and respect many organic farmers and both they and myself are doing what we think of right. The problem is I wish the organic sector well but it is not reciprocal it seems all the SA want is to ban glyphosate and substitute increased diesel usage as of course diesel, steel and rubber are natural?
Finally you say that your customers want chemical free food and they can get that of course by buying organic. I don't want your excessive diesel fumes in my world can you tell me please how I can avoid that?

 

[FARMERJERRY]

Where to begin.
First I never said OF&G openly support the idea of glyphosate but they are not in the forefront of trying to ban it unlike the SA. They are much more realistic which may be why most of the arable organic farmers are joined to them not the SA.
Secondly there is no such thing as man made bad, natural good. A dose of gastro enteritis would explain that best.
From memory the Organic standards allow some very toxic chemicals to be used, rotenone for one and if you don't think copper sulphate is toxic God help you. How many organic livestock farmers have never used wormers or antibiotics? OK they are not supposed to be used routinely but this is the point, they are there to stop the animal suffering in the parlance. Now ask yourself in a totally organic world without the support of the research carried out for conventional farmers what could you use? Answer sweet FA!
So here we have the interesting situation that the organic movent who are hanging around on the outskirts of farming are acting like a parasite on the back of the bulk of farmers. Now ask any parasite how to keep alive and they would answer "don't kill your host".
You state that is merely that you choose to not use chemicals and we do so that is the end of it? Really? OK so why are the SA pissing into the tent and pushing for our chemicals to be banned?
As stated i know and respect many organic farmers and both they and myself are doing what we think of right. The problem is I wish the organic sector well but it is not reciprocal it seems all the SA want is to ban glyphosate and substitute increased diesel usage as of course diesel, steel and rubber are natural?
Finally you say that your customers want chemical free food and they can get that of course by buying organic. I don't want your excessive diesel fumes in my world can you tell me please how I can avoid that?

I think that you will find that the SA believe that what you are doing is good but they cannot condone the use of Glyphosate-not want you want to hear but still the truth.
O F and G are a certifying company like red tractor so enforce the rules of organic farming, same rules as SA use, and same rules across EU. .
How much of reduced antibiotic use in conventional farming , use of faecal egg counts in conventional farming and use of cover-crops has come about because it has been seen to work organically and can be applied back into conventional systems-a lot of the research can be applied between both types of farming.
SA state categorically, just like the NFU, that we should follow the science on chemical registration so i don't think they are pissing into the tent. They do believe that all chemicals could be used less but so do many farmers, but if it is proven not to be safe ban it. All farming systems should try to be more resilient and less dependent on any bought in inputs. in my view the biggest weakness of conservation Agriculture is its dependence on one chemical, that many of its followers cannot see it working without glyphosate, and as a result will not accept that they could look at other ways to achieve the same ends. Livestock grazing cover crops, crimper rollers, grass breaks are all options, maybe even occasional ploughing to help weed control. some of these are the way that organic farmers control weeds and increase soil organic matter.
Drive around the country and see how many farmers still plough, power harrow (sometimes more than once) recreational till and leave ground bare over winter after maize and root crops- you could criticise their diesel fumes but obviously organic diesel fumes are more polluting!

 

[yellow belly]

I think that you will find that the SA believe that what you are doing is good but they cannot condone the use of Glyphosate-not want you want to hear but still the truth.
O F and G are a certifying company like red tractor so enforce the rules of organic farming, same rules as SA use, and same rules across EU. .
How much of reduced antibiotic use in conventional farming , use of faecal egg counts in conventional farming and use of cover-crops has come about because it has been seen to work organically and can be applied back into conventional systems-a lot of the research can be applied between both types of farming.
SA state categorically, just like the NFU, that we should follow the science on chemical registration so i don't think they are pissing into the tent. They do believe that all chemicals could be used less but so do many farmers, but if it is proven not to be safe ban it. All farming systems should try to be more resilient and less dependent on any bought in inputs. in my view the biggest weakness of conservation Agriculture is its dependence on one chemical, that many of its followers cannot see it working without glyphosate, and as a result will not accept that they could look at other ways to achieve the same ends. Livestock grazing cover crops, crimper rollers, grass breaks are all options, maybe even occasional ploughing to help weed control. some of these are the way that organic farmers control weeds and increase soil organic matter.
Drive around the country and see how many farmers still plough, power harrow (sometimes more than once) recreational till and leave ground bare over winter after maize and root crops- you could criticise their diesel fumes but obviously organic diesel fumes are more polluting!

there are other chemicals that conservation ag could use if glyphosate was not available but glyphosate is by far the most cost effective and benine chemical for the job
for many notill farmers cover crop use has been seen mostly in notill systems oversees usually with glyphosate and herbicide tolerant cropping systems practiced on 10s of millions of acres

any form of cultivation reduces organic matter in the soil the deeper and more intensive the faster the organic matter declines the only way to stop it is not to crop or to apply very large amounts of organic materiel
been there and done it

when uk crop production declined with the advent of the internal combustion engine and the demise of horses for power between 1919 and 1939 the organic matter level in soils increased after 1939 much of this grassland was ploughed up to feed an increasing population by the 1980s cereal cropping in many counties was back to the levels before 1920 when oats powered most personal and farm transport

 

[Richard III]

Because Glyphosate is a man made chemical it is not approved under Organic rules whether you are SA or O F and g approved so your statement about OF and G supporting a hybrid is rubbish. SA do not approve any chemical products on crops nor do OF and G. organic rules are covered under legal definition so not easy for an organic body to sanction something which is not approved under their own rules.

SA position is that Glyphosate should not be used on grains going into the food chain particularly bread .The head of policy even told a conference in November that the UK should follow science in deciding about future policy of pesticides and not economics or convenience so not sure who you asked about SA policy regarding no-till. You chose to use chemicals , organic farmers chose not to- that really is the end of it.

Organic farmers have always used green manures and fertility breaks which some may say is what Conservation agriculture is doing-- the only difference is the use of a chemical which is not approved in organic farming.
Organic farmers are looking into ways of reducing ploughing because they can see the need for increasing soil health, but they need to find ways of doing it without chemicals. As @Feldspar says it is not totally true to say ''ploughing bad no-till good''.
Some non-organic farmers are worried about a sector of farming being dependant on one chemical, but there are equally a large number of non-organic farmers who will not contemplate getting rid of ploughs and power-harrows, who grow no cover-crops and believe that chemical and fertiliser companies will solve all the problems eventually so need to worry.
Remember that organic farmers have a variety of reasons for their position but customers wanting chemical free food is one of the reasons.

Good posts @FARMERJERRY , however I'm still not convinced everyone in charge of the SA shares your views. For example Oliver Dowding tweeted this yesterday :-

https://theecologist.org/2016/may/05/monsantos-roundup-toxic-soil-fungus-ultra-low-doses

If you read the research, it is appalling. They bought the strongest glyphosate they could find from a garden center and poured it onto fungus on an agar plate, surprise surprise, it killed it. However if you extrapolate their data to the levels of glyphosate found in soil solution, they have actually proved that it has a high margin of safety to soil borne fungus!

It's clear Oliver simply wants rid of glyphosate and is not interested in whether or not it is actually safe.

It is going to be very interesting to see how the Sustainable Soils Alliance develops, in theory it has my full support. They have not started too well though, I understand that BASE asked to attend the inaugural event, but were not invited. A No Till friend of mine tried to get a ticket, but found the application procedure too complicated and convoluted for him - he has a Law Degree. Farmers practicing Conservation Ag are heavily focused on soil health, they must surely be included in the initiative.

Personally, I want to see both our systems thrive and move forward to improve our soils for the benefit of all, question is can the SA and CA cooperate for the greater good...................

 

[mikep]

Good posts @FARMERJERRY , however I'm still not convinced everyone in charge of the SA shares your views. For example Oliver Dowding tweeted this yesterday :-

https://theecologist.org/2016/may/05/monsantos-roundup-toxic-soil-fungus-ultra-low-doses

If you read the research, it is appalling. They bought the strongest glyphosate they could find from a garden center and poured it onto fungus on an agar plate, surprise surprise, it killed it. However if you extrapolate their data to the levels of glyphosate found in soil solution, they have actually proved that it has a high margin of safety to soil borne fungus!

It's clear Oliver simply wants rid of glyphosate and is not interested in whether or not it is actually safe.

It is going to be very interesting to see how the Sustainable Soils Alliance develops, in theory it has my full support. They have not started too well though, I understand that BASE asked to attend the inaugural event, but were not invited. A No Till friend of mine tried to get a ticket, but found the application procedure too complicated and convoluted for him - he has a Law Degree. Farmers practicing Conservation Ag are heavily focused on soil health, they must surely be included in the initiative.

Personally, I want to see both our systems thrive and move forward to improve our soils for the benefit of all, question is can the SA and CA cooperate for the greater good...................

The Soils Alliance is totally a SA operation dressed up as an all party movement. I have asked them directly several times if they will support notill and glyphosate as a way to improve soils and they will not. Now maybe an organic organisation cannot do this publicly but the Soil Alliance is supposed to be all party so draw your own conclusions. If you have any doubt look at the list of sponsors it's all the usual suspects.

 

[martian]

If only it were that simple. It isn't. You must be guided by the scientific evidence on this which is far from clear on this point, at least not the level where you can make a black and white statement like this. You can't pick which bits of research you like that resonate with your interior tendencies (see Jonothan Haidt for discussion on people moral make-up), like the consensus on climate change, whilst at the same time rejecting other bits that don't.

I would say that there is some evidence that your statement is correct, but a lot that isn't. Until we understand the issue better, the language of certainty is not appropriate IMHO.

I'll concede that there are lots of different ways of farming which describe themselves as no-till and a lot of them, like the GM soya/corn systems popular over the pond, won't be particularly good at sequestrating carbon. I suspect that a lot of the studies which show no benefit either focus on these or are looking at short-term bursts of no-till in a tillage regime. Having seen with my own eyes dark, carbon-rich lovely crumbly soil on no-till farms around the world, next to their neighbours pale and lifeless ploughed ground, I know what is possible, whatever 'the science' says. I don't think I'm picking bits of research that chime with my desires so much as suspecting that a lot of the research has done its own picking to come up with the results it wants. This is making me sound like a Trump voter...too bad, too too bad

But you are right to say that we can't say 'no-till good', even if there's no doubt that ploughing is bad...

 

[martian]

The Soils Alliance is totally a SA operation dressed up as an all party movement. I have asked them directly several times if they will support notill and glyphosate as a way to improve soils and they will not. Now maybe an organic organisation cannot do this publicly but the Soil Alliance is supposed to be all party so draw your own conclusions. If you have any doubt look at the list of sponsors it's all the usual suspects.

A friend of mine went to the launch of the SSA (he's a forester) and was surprised that there was no mention of no-till, so he put me in touch with them...answer came there none. If they had any real desire to improve the nations soils, then they'd promote no-till for 'conventional' broadacre farming, which would still leave their USP of 'chemical free' organic. However, you can't fail to get the feeling that the SA are more worried that the organic premium will melt away if people start thinking that 'conventional' farmers aren't all evil.

 

[mikep]

A friend of mine went to the launch of the SSA (he's a forester) and was surprised that there was no mention of no-till, so he put me in touch with them...answer came there none. If they had any real desire to improve the nations soils, then they'd promote no-till for 'conventional' broadacre farming, which would still leave their USP of 'chemical free' organic. However, you can't fail to get the feeling that the SA are more worried that the organic premium will melt away if people start thinking that 'conventional' farmers aren't all evil.

Yes it's just the SA trying to steal the initiative with the new minister in residence. The NFU are involved i believe but they area too useless to realise that they are just there as make weights.
Trying to be bothered to engage with NFU but I am not a member and honestly don't think I can as I lost the will to live talking to them years ago.