Getting accurate carbon capture data on soils.

[Yale]

Mulling over this today.

In our area we have had two summers which could not be more different.

Last year was particularly dry and this summer an amazing one for growth.

How can scientists accurately give/acquire reliable statistics regarding carbon captured in sympathetically managed soils when conditions vary so much year to year.

I’d perhaps liken it to sailing into the wind or having it behind you.

Discuss.

 

[Jungle Bill]

Mulling over this today.

In our area we have had two summers which could not be more different.

Last year was particularly dry and this summer an amazing one for growth.

How can scientists accurately give/acquire reliable statistics regarding carbon captured in sympathetically managed soils when conditions vary so much year to year.

I’d perhaps liken it to sailing into the wind or having it behind you.

Discuss.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17583004.2019.1633231 Should inform your mulling!

 

[Kiwi Pete]

On the whole, climatic variation is relatively stable in most areas, even though from year-to-year growth is different for part of each year, over a longer timeframe it's within a range. Looking at it year by year, is similar to soil-sampling under cowpats in this respect?

'Most of it' comes down to maintaining groundcover, thus in arid areas there is (usually) so much emphasis on the water cycle to aid maintaining groundcover.

(Without it, you're going to be losing soil, with Carbon in it).
Same goes for very wet climates, however the water cycle is often artificially resurrected (tillage) but this practice also negates groundcover, and causes loss of existing soil Carbon stock, as well as disruption of natural soil behaviour by the inversion aspect.
So the effects of the cumulative losses take much longer to become apparent in non-brittle environments, ie when farming becomes no longer economically viable - it's at its roots a water management problem.

Water, as your OP suggests, is the basis of life, Carbon sequestration is thus reliant on water, this relationship is also a spiral - more water = more C = even more water = even more C sequestered.
The opposite holds true.

So when you think about it as a whole, all "nutrients" are really micronutrients apart from H2O, and C: these are the two I focus my management on, focus on keeping on my landscape; that's where sugar comes from.

 

[GeorgeK]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17583004.2019.1633231 Should inform your mulling!

According to this report, currently the best way to accurately measure carbon content of soil is to take physical samples, and this is an expensive and time consuming task. Taking multiple samples from every field each year is out of the question, the only practical way to get an idea is to monitor a small number of representative sites and extrapolate the data to cover a larger area. Soil type maps could be produced for each field (as soil type affects carbon capture), and along with local weather and practices employed on farm, data from monitor sites could be used to give an indication of carbon capture across the country.
This methodology is not without its problems in my opinion. If 'payment by results' was worked out purely per tonne of carbon captured, a farm on light, drought prone land would have less carbon capture potential and so lower payments. This seems unfair as, for example, their soil may be prone to erosion and farming for carbon capture would help prevent this and provide an important public good. As @Yale points out, in a poor growing year everyone would get paid less.
'Payment by results' could get very complicated!

 

[Yale]

According to this report, currently the best way to accurately measure carbon content of soil is to take physical samples, and this is an expensive and time consuming task. Taking multiple samples from every field each year is out of the question, the only practical way to get an idea is to monitor a small number of representative sites and extrapolate the data to cover a larger area. Soil type maps could be produced for each field (as soil type affects carbon capture), and along with local weather and practices employed on farm, data from monitor sites could be used to give an indication of carbon capture across the country.
This methodology is not without its problems in my opinion. If 'payment by results' was worked out purely per tonne of carbon captured, a farm on light, drought prone land would have less carbon capture potential and so lower payments. This seems unfair as, for example, their soil may be prone to erosion and farming for carbon capture would help prevent this and provide an important public good. As @Yale points out, in a poor growing year everyone would get paid less.
'Payment by results' could get very complicated!

Yes,it’s the complexity of something which in the future is going to be very important for land managers.

In a way I’m not trying whatsoever to ‘poo,poo’ the principle,it’s how to help quantify the benefits to assist land managers in their efforts to farm sustainably.

In the extreme not only do we have the effects of climate change (which has always happened since year dot) but also things like the NorthAtlantic multi decadal oscilation.

This means you can only average things over maybe 30 or 50,even 100 years.

Problem is we have governments piling in to this quantification process and I feel it’s just a case of best guesstimate rather than something quantifiable.

We as farmers need more accurate systems of proving accurate figures to push our agenda or else we are going to be leaving ourselves open to being hijacked with dubious statistics which fit in with certain agendas.

One pressure point is how the Vegan agenda is at odds with the concept of grazed livestock for carbon capture.They are obviously going to try their hardest to enforce a smear campaign.

And this all boils down to having an accurate system of measurement......if this is actually possible.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Carbon is not the problem

I recently had the privilege of flying Walter Jehne from the southern temperate zone of New South Wales, through the deserts of Central Australia to the subtropics of the Northern Territory. About 20 hours of return flight time looking at and talking about Australia’s environments.

www.linkedin.com

Don't wait for the government to wake up to facts - start by your feet

 

[Yale]

Carbon is not the problem

I recently had the privilege of flying Walter Jehne from the southern temperate zone of New South Wales, through the deserts of Central Australia to the subtropics of the Northern Territory. About 20 hours of return flight time looking at and talking about Australia’s environments.

www.linkedin.com

Don't wait for the government to wake up to facts - start by your feet

Thanks Pete.

I would hate to be pigeonholed as a climate change denier,the climate has always changed,what I am ultra sceptical of is the simplification of climate change to exclusively a CO2 and humans problem.

I really like that article as it makes more sense,the Earth has a complex life system,the hydrological system is integral to it.To simply concentrate on Carbon emissions as CO2 is just wrong.

My emphasis is on energy conservation and conservation of resources.Reducing the impact of humans on the planet has to be the number one consideration,wasteful use orf resources like unnecessary air travel and any destruction of natural habitat like the vast tracts of rainforest being lost in the Amazon.

We should make better use of the land we currently have under management,also the population needs to appreciate food and sustainable production methods.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Oh, of course we should.

The main issue is: waiting for someone else to say what needs to happen - we are that "someone".

I agree that Carbon is only a part of it, hence why I try to tie "water" in with it - I read just today that in 1920 there was only a few hundred yards of asphalt in the entire USA, straight away there is a climate change issue in the making, water obviously doesn't infiltrate pavement.
Drainage - again, this speeds up the water and thus raises the surface temperature in relation to its water-holding capacity

There is a very real human element to the acceleration of climate change, but Carbon is only a part of that - it's a whole landscape issue, as much as a consumer issue or a pollution issue

 

[Yale]

If we as an industry can find an efficient method of accurately measuring carbon gain/loss from soil,year on year and identify the main driving forces then we are half way there.

Currently it looks a bit like juggling with jelly.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

That's because so much of the industry is just that - industrial

Thus, they tend to concern themselves with the fundamentals rather than the principles?

 

[Chris F]

Mulling over this today.

In our area we have had two summers which could not be more different.

Last year was particularly dry and this summer an amazing one for growth.

How can scientists accurately give/acquire reliable statistics regarding carbon captured in sympathetically managed soils when conditions vary so much year to year.

I’d perhaps liken it to sailing into the wind or having it behind you.

Discuss.

The soil element is going to be difficult to measure - however it is being done in the states.

What is a lot easier is the carbon footprint for any year. The question however also is whether the two have any correlation. I would say they do.

 

[Yale]

The soil element is going to be difficult to measure - however it is being done in the states.

What is a lot easier is the carbon footprint for any year. The question however also is whether the two have any correlation. I would say they do.

I know it’s being done in various places however it will depend on actual %age accuracy.

I mean,you can take two samples a few metres apart and be a few percent different on the result.

How does help the statistics?

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Which statistics?
Statistics usually miss the point, and this is a classic case; percentages don't really measure tonnes very well.

Say we farm side by side.
Your farm has been farmed regeneratively for 20 years, has two feet of topsoil and tests show around 8% SOM.
My farm "has been farmed properly", has 8 inches of topsoil and also tests around 8% SOM, so I don't feel like a degenerate; 8% is apparently quite good.

Which one stores more Carbon?

Now, say we both head over to a field day at Huw's place, come back home and decide to plant multi-species covercrops, and crack on with that.
We drill our crops, but it is a patchy season for rain, yours just battles on and mine dries out, only some species really grow and others do not.
Rain comes late Autumn, I have erosion issues, my hundred cows finish my covercrop in a week, your hundred cows graze for 6 weeks and then go back around it for another week.
You add another inch to your field, I lose half an inch of soil from mine - and next spring, our soils both test 8% SOM

Who drew down more Carbon for the year, the percentages say that neither of us made any difference. A plastic ruler would tell you more.

 

[GeorgeK]

I know it’s being done in various places however it will depend on actual %age accuracy.

I mean,you can take two samples a few metres apart and be a few percent different on the result.

How does help the statistics?

When has our government ever been interested in the accuracy of data? They are experts in manipulating statistics to prove the effectiveness of their policies. Generous carbon capture numbers from agricultural land will offset the rest of the country's emissions and demonstrate progress towards their 'carbon neutral economy' illusion

 

[Chris F]

I know it’s being done in various places however it will depend on actual %age accuracy.

I mean,you can take two samples a few metres apart and be a few percent different on the result.

How does help the statistics?

That’s the point. I don’t think they will do it by soil analysis.

I think they will just work our inputs verses capture figures. You can sell the balance.

 

[Jungle Bill]

The James Hutton Institute produces an app (SOCIT) which gives a reasonable estimation of soil organic matter anywhere in Scotland from a photo containing a standard colour card and the gps position from your phone. I have sent for a card and will give it a try.