Carbon footprint /offset

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
Surely mixed farms are better with grass than trees, look how many trees were blown down a couple of weeks ago, that’s buggered up their carbon storage apart from the obvious that trees don’t produce food
but we all know carbon from felled and fallen trees dont count so just stick them in the woodburner and then claim some carbon credits on the new saplings that replace them...
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
Why is carbon always measured as a percentage, with percentage gain being the mark of success?
For arguments sake, if I have a field which is 3% carbon and I increase the topsoil by 1mm per year and that 1mm is 3% carbon, then surely I’m storing more carbon, even though the percentage amount is still the same?
on deep organic soils its works in the other direction too....
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Cb97ej
To all those planting trees: what is the plan in say 100 years when most of them will have died? Is there a plan? Or are you jist happy to go along with the Emperor's new clothes woolpulling? Genuine question btw.

As for carbon footprinting, is anyone aware of a carbon calculator that actually accounts for methane properly, ie doesn't use GWP100?
A few trees along field boundaries and corners would enhance the landscape. Plant a few a year so in 100 years' time they don't all die on the same day as you suggest would happen. And a dead tree is carbon even if it's not growing any more.
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
Mentioned it before but the volcanoes in Canaries, Iceland and Indonesia (I think there's about 60 going off at present?) puts enough CO2 into the atmosphere to wipe out decades of carbon crediting

All very well, but when a carbon tax comes in, we will all be paying in the UK. Whether they do this abroad is another thing. So knowing where you stand is sensible for every business.

Corp tax is 3% in the canaries too, its still 19% here.
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
When you say footprint, I take it you mean do a proper carbon balance calculation and not just an EMISSIONS calculation? No other industry ABSORBS carbon after all......

Yes - that's what your carbon footprint actually is, in vs out. Just like electric usage if you have solar panels. You are generating as well as consuming.
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
A few trees along field boundaries and corners would enhance the landscape. Plant a few a year so in 100 years' time they don't all die on the same day as you suggest would happen. And a dead tree is carbon even if it's not growing any more.
Nothing wrong with a few trees, they're cycling carbon after all, just a longer cycle than everything else above and below ground. Apart from fossil fuels obvs. Each one ends up as CO2 eventually. Still woolpulling though as pushed by the political classes. THEY have no plan. I just wondered if anyone on here was aware of an actual plan......
 

Soil Capital

Member
Location
United Kingdom
Hello all,

Just going to quote a few messages on this thread that some may find interesting. We are a carbon payment company - called Soil Capital - we handle the process of generating and selling carbon certificates for farmers.


How are mixed farms planning to deal with this?
If you are owner occupier there are more options I think like planting poorer ground with trees etc. What would you do as a tenant when all woods trees etc belong to the land owner estate etc. I am struggling to know what to do here 🤷🏻‍♂️
Do NOTHING

Why should you when there are plenty of other industries a lot “dirtier” than agriculture
When you say footprint, I take it you mean do a proper carbon balance calculation and not just an EMISSIONS calculation? No other industry ABSORBS carbon after all......

There no onus on farmers to do anything with carbon at the moment. That may change in the future, but for now everything is entirely voluntary.

Leading on from what @Bald Rick and @DaveGrohl have stated, there are very few other industries which have the ability to sequester carbon; that's a real unique advantage for agriculture and farmers. If you wish to take advantage of this and monetise it then the option is there through a company such as ourselves at Soil Capital.

I'm very interested to see what will happen in the future, I think everyone see's that people, governments and businesses are becoming more and more aware of it.

As an upland farm there is a lot of ground that does not get ploughed and may only get drilled so I take it the carbon is still stored.

Certainly, reduced cultivations (disturbance) are a huge benefit to a reduction in carbon emissions.


If anyone has any questions then please ask, it's nice to get peoples viewpoint on a relatively new concept such as this.
 

Soil Capital

Member
Location
United Kingdom
We (the farming community) should not entertain selling our carbon credits to the big polluters. We should keep them to ourselves - I don't see a problem trading them between ourselves, that would just help to keep agriculture neutral.
Let the big polluters (airlines and heavy industry, etc) put their own houses in order - don't give them a cheap fix by letting them have our credits.

There is a difference in the way you sell carbon - either by certificate or credit.

Soil Capital Carbon allows a farmer to sell ISO carbon certificates and not carbon credits. Unlike carbon credits, the certificates we issue are not rights to pollute and therefore do not allow a polluting company to offset its emissions and declare itself CO2 neutral. They are mainly used by food companies purchasing raw materials who want to reduce the emissions linked to their supply chain.

Essentially if you generate and sell a carbon certificate rather than a carbon credit, your carbon is sold within your supply chain, and not to an external one such as the airlines or heavy industry that you mention.
 
We (the farming community) should not entertain selling our carbon credits to the big polluters. We should keep them to ourselves - I don't see a problem trading them between ourselves, that would just help to keep agriculture neutral.
Let the big polluters (airlines and heavy industry, etc) put their own houses in order - don't give them a cheap fix by letting them have our credits.
Well said. It’s time agriculture kept the upper hand.
 

N.Yorks.

Member
Hello all,

Just going to quote a few messages on this thread that some may find interesting. We are a carbon payment company - called Soil Capital - we handle the process of generating and selling carbon certificates for farmers.






There no onus on farmers to do anything with carbon at the moment. That may change in the future, but for now everything is entirely voluntary.

Leading on from what @Bald Rick and @DaveGrohl have stated, there are very few other industries which have the ability to sequester carbon; that's a real unique advantage for agriculture and farmers. If you wish to take advantage of this and monetise it then the option is there through a company such as ourselves at Soil Capital.

I'm very interested to see what will happen in the future, I think everyone see's that people, governments and businesses are becoming more and more aware of it.



Certainly, reduced cultivations (disturbance) are a huge benefit to a reduction in carbon emissions.


If anyone has any questions then please ask, it's nice to get peoples viewpoint on a relatively new concept such as this.
You are mad to do this!!!

Have you not seen the data about Nitrous oxide emissions from land that has had soil carbon % increased?
It's dangerous to just focus on Carbon as the consequence of increasing soil carbon may well be increase in NO2 emissions which have a global warming potential approx 300x greater than CO2, and potentially greater net warming potential.

The jury is still out on the whole issue of soil carbon - which is why it hasn't been woven into SFI etc. Yes soil OM increase has been included because of the wider ecosystem benefits - water retention, better soil structure, better drainage, nutrient cycling etc.

It aint as simple as saying more soil carbon is better and it really isn't safe to claim that increased soil carbon can be traded - madness.
 

N.Yorks.

Member
Hello all,

Just going to quote a few messages on this thread that some may find interesting. We are a carbon payment company - called Soil Capital - we handle the process of generating and selling carbon certificates for farmers.






There no onus on farmers to do anything with carbon at the moment. That may change in the future, but for now everything is entirely voluntary.

Leading on from what @Bald Rick and @DaveGrohl have stated, there are very few other industries which have the ability to sequester carbon; that's a real unique advantage for agriculture and farmers. If you wish to take advantage of this and monetise it then the option is there through a company such as ourselves at Soil Capital.

I'm very interested to see what will happen in the future, I think everyone see's that people, governments and businesses are becoming more and more aware of it.



Certainly, reduced cultivations (disturbance) are a huge benefit to a reduction in carbon emissions.


If anyone has any questions then please ask, it's nice to get peoples viewpoint on a relatively new concept such as this.
You may well want to change your claims after watching this, which reviews recent research on the subject:

 

N.Yorks.

Member
How are mixed farms planning to deal with this?
If you are owner occupier there are more options I think like planting poorer ground with trees etc. What would you do as a tenant when all woods trees etc belong to the land owner estate etc. I am struggling to know what to do here 🤷🏻‍♂️
If I was you I'd focus on understanding what your carbon emissions are from the core farming activities, move to inputs that are low/zero C, move to energy from low/no C, then shift cultivations to reduce net GHG emissions. There is evidence that shows higher soil C systems have lower net emissions, than conventional cultivation and agronomy.

How long is your tenancy, that would be a key consideration when deciding to plant trees and benefit from the Woodland Carbon Guarantee - which allows you to trade your sequestered carbon from the trees?
 
Last edited:

Soil Capital

Member
Location
United Kingdom
Fleas on a dog’s back? Already? ^^^^^ 🙄

while we as livestock farmers are scrambling around trying to count carbon in our grassland, woodland and hedges, not a few are busy trying to make a living out of persuading us to part with some of it.

We can help you calculate it and sell it if you wish!

You are mad to do this!!!

Have you not seen the data about Nitrous oxide emissions from land that has had soil carbon % increased?
It's dangerous to just focus on Carbon as the consequence of increasing soil carbon may well be increase in NO2 emissions which have a global warming potential approx 300x greater than CO2, and potentially greater net warming potential.

The jury is still out on the whole issue of soil carbon - which is why it hasn't been woven into SFI etc. Yes soil OM increase has been included because of the wider ecosystem benefits - water retention, better soil structure, better drainage, nutrient cycling etc.

It aint as simple as saying more soil carbon is better and it really isn't safe to claim that increased soil carbon can be traded - madness
You may well want to change your claims after watching this, which reviews recent research on the subject:


Thank you for the video link.

The term 'carbon trading' is a little bit misleading. We don't just focus and record carbon; we actually generate certificates based on carbon equivalents (timestamp 6:45 in your video). This means we directly take into account nitrous oxide emissions as well as carbon sequestration.

The practices which are positive for both of these factors correlate with one another; reduced fertiliser use, nitrofication inhibitors, reduced tillage practices and so on.

"It aint as simple as saying more soil carbon is better and it really isn't safe to claim that increased soil carbon can be traded - madness" - you're correct, however unfortunately carbon trading is the popular phrase rather than something like GHG trading. We have sold €500,000 worth of certificates already - this is something that is live and happening.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Cb97ej
You are mad to do this!!!

Have you not seen the data about Nitrous oxide emissions from land that has had soil carbon % increased?
It's dangerous to just focus on Carbon as the consequence of increasing soil carbon may well be increase in NO2 emissions which have a global warming potential approx 300x greater than CO2, and potentially greater net warming potential.

The jury is still out on the whole issue of soil carbon - which is why it hasn't been woven into SFI etc. Yes soil OM increase has been included because of the wider ecosystem benefits - water retention, better soil structure, better drainage, nutrient cycling etc.

It aint as simple as saying more soil carbon is better and it really isn't safe to claim that increased soil carbon can be traded - madness.
Can you explain a bit more about NO2 please?
 

N.Yorks.

Member
We can help you calculate it and sell it if you wish!




Thank you for the video link.

The term 'carbon trading' is a little bit misleading. We don't just focus and record carbon; we actually generate certificates based on carbon equivalents (timestamp 6:45 in your video). This means we directly take into account nitrous oxide emissions as well as carbon sequestration.

The practices which are positive for both of these factors correlate with one another; reduced fertiliser use, nitrofication inhibitors, reduced tillage practices and so on.

"It aint as simple as saying more soil carbon is better and it really isn't safe to claim that increased soil carbon can be traded - madness" - you're correct, however unfortunately carbon trading is the popular phrase rather than something like GHG trading. We have sold €500,000 worth of certificates already - this is something that is live and happening.
Youve obviously not listened to it all as I decided to listen to it all again and I'm half way through and you've replied at my half way point.

Listen to the arguments and stop trying to protect your own interests...... Just because it's live and happening doesn't mean it is actually correct or the right direction to go in.
 
Last edited:

N.Yorks.

Member
Anyone comes asking, just gonna show them this:

In the work of Guo and Gifford (2002) a meta-analysis was undertaken of data from 74 international land use change and soil carbon storage studies. It measured the effects of land use change in 537 instances and was used to determine the importance of land use and land use change on soil carbon stocks. The analysis showed that there was a decline in soil carbon stocks after land use conversion from grassland to plantation forest (−10 percent), native forest to plantation forest (−13 percent), native forest to cropland (−42 percent), and grassland to cropland (−59 percent). There were significant increases in soil carbon stocks after land use changes from native forest to grassland (+8 percent), cropland to grassland (+19 percent), cropland to plantation (+18 percent), and cropland to secondary forest (+53 percent). The conversion of native forest or grassland to broadleaf deciduous tree plantation had no effect on soil carbon stocks, but conversion to pine or conifer forest reduced soil carbon by between 12 and 15 percent. This analysis of land use change and soil carbon data also suggested that, if a given land use change is responsible for soil carbon losses, then the reverse change could potentially increase soil carbon stocks. But it is important to recognise that it can take decades if not centuries to recover to the original level of soil carbon stocks after disturbance due to land use change (Guo and Gifford, 2002).
"The conversion of native forest or grassland to broadleaf deciduous tree plantation had no effect on soil carbon stocks," from your post...... so planting deciduous trees on grassland would in time sequester more carbon than grassland alone as the tree grows over 100+ years. If it's not burnt and used in construction then that's C locked up even longer.
 

yellowbelly

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
N.Lincs
Fleas on a dog’s back? Already? ^^^^^ 🙄

while we as livestock farmers are scrambling around trying to count carbon in our grassland, woodland and hedges, not a few are busy trying to make a living out of persuading us to part with some of it.
Aye, it all strikes me as been a bit like.........
1639765513058.png
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 35 16.5%
  • Sage

    Votes: 20 9.4%
  • Xero

    Votes: 98 46.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 59 27.8%

Man fined £300 for bonfire-related waste offences

  • 261
  • 0
Written by William Kellett from Agriland

court-640x360.jpg
A man has pleaded guilty at Newtownards Magistrates’ Court to waste offences relating to a bonfire next to the electrical sub-station on the Circular Road in Newtownards, Co. Down.

Gareth Gill (51) of Abbot’s Walk, Newtownards pleaded guilty to two charges under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, for which he was fined £150 each and ordered to pay a £15 offender’s levy

On June 25, 2018, PSNI officers went to Gill’s yard, where they found a large amount of waste consisting of scrap wood, pallets, carpet and underlay.

Discussion with Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officers confirmed the site...
Top