How carbon negative/neutral/positive is a farm?

[egbert]

I’ve had a go with the farmcarbontoolkit, as I put in a previous thread. It’s reasonably straightforward to use, but a few questions I struggled with, such as it asks about implement widths without stipulating what implements.
It’s not too bad for calculating how much carbon we emit, but less so for what we sequester. I ended up putting in an estimated figure of 0.1% sequestration which resulted in us being carbon negative by 960 tonnes per year on an organic mostly pp farm.
Without annual soil testing across the range of soils we have, it’s not going to be easy, and this will be expensive.
Lots of questions need answering, such as can soils reach carbon saturation?

Looks to me as if the more there is, the more is cycled out (through creepy crawlies?)
It simply doesn't build indefinitely- except in a few very particular circumstances-, which is the only way, in human terms, that we can claim it as a solution.
The more there is stored therein, the more fragile it is.

And we're trying to counter carbon that's been underground for hundreds of millions of years til we burn it.

Looking at the great and the good at Davos, ....well, we're all stuffed then.

 

[egbert]

For a while I’ve thought that this is one reason that the likes of the NFU may not be very supportive of these types of figures, but it is one that livestock farmers can use against vegans.
CO2 and NO4 are produced when carbon and nitrogen in the soil are exposed to air, so all arable crops will produce it, as will grass reseeds, whereas pp won’t. The exception of course being no-till systems, but what happens to these once glyphosate goes?
Going back to the OP, grazed grass will result in a certain amount of methane being produced along with meat and all the environmental benefits we know comes with livestock. Meanwhile, ungrazed grass will release methane as it rots down in the autumn and produce nothing. No idea what the difference will be between the 2.
With trees, is most of the carbon locked up in the timber, or do the roots sequester into the soil as grass does?
When trees carbon lockup is calculated, does this include the carbon released every year that leaves fall and decay?

Figures for trees can easily be extrapolated pretty well from age old silvicultural calcs, and work out dry weight of timber.
(wet weight, managed broadleaf gain circa 4-10 tonnes per annum per hactare, good conifers easily double -although their average dry tonnage would be less mind)
Leaves and twigs don't figure in these, and as you say, rot away to quickly -unless you were to be hoovering every morsel up and burying it somewhere wet..

Roots don't put much underground long term - I've grubbed about tropical rainforests, temperate boreal forests, Pacific Northwest behemoths, some thousand of years under tree cover...and guess what, the rocks still poke up through.
Nearer to home, go and stumble about in Wistmans Wood nr Two Bridges, and ask yourself how much carbon is stored in the soil there?
There's stuff all soil in which to store it...which gives you the answer.

 

[egbert]

For a while I’ve thought that this is one reason that the likes of the NFU may not be very supportive of these types of figures, but it is one that livestock farmers can use against vegans.
CO2 and NO4 are produced when carbon and nitrogen in the soil are exposed to air, so all arable crops will produce it, as will grass reseeds, whereas pp won’t. The exception of course being no-till systems, but what happens to these once glyphosate goes?
Going back to the OP, grazed grass will result in a certain amount of methane being produced along with meat and all the environmental benefits we know comes with livestock. Meanwhile, ungrazed grass will release methane as it rots down in the autumn and produce nothing. No idea what the difference will be between the 2.
With trees, is most of the carbon locked up in the timber, or do the roots sequester into the soil as grass does?
When trees carbon lockup is calculated, does this include the carbon released every year that leaves fall and decay?

Methane is a total red herring, with it's short cycle time, and its place in the natural cycle anyway.
Challenge that rubbish at every stage.

 

[Clive]

Inconvenient truth is for a arable farm nett zero today would mean no tillage, no synthetic fert or other input use or taking a big % of the farm out of production and planted with trees or perennials etc

not sure many are up for that ? I’ve mentioned this before, how many NFU members support the above ?

what we need is a big tech advance re N fertiliser if this is REALLY ever going to be possible

Livestock farms ironically getting all the bad press re GHG’s have a far better hope of achieving nett zero with perennials and low synthetic input use

 

[Clive]

I attended a really interesting session at OFC about a livestock farm in Ireland that was aiming zero 2025

they had already LIDAR’ed the entire farm to accurately measure biomass of everything including grass, hedges and trees etc which is the only way to really measure this

Adjustments to stocking rates showed nett zero was possible now if extensive enough but they aimed to run same stock numbers and use feed additives (algae) and diet changes to reduce livestock emissions

 

[Muddyroads]

Methane is a total red herring, with it's short cycle time, and its place in the natural cycle anyway.
Challenge that rubbish at every stage.

I quite agree, but we keep hearing that planting trees is the answer. It would be good to have a scientific counter to the argument from those ranging from politicians to the National Trust, to individuals having the ridiculous notion that “carbon offsetting” will allow them to keep flying round the world and carrying on as normal.

 

[Guy Smith]

There is a Netzero working group within the NFU , upon which @Guy Smith sits upon, along side a good friend of mine.

All avenues are being explored and more will be revealed to NFU members at the conference at the end of feb.

https://www.nfuonline.com/nfu-online/business/regulation/achieving-net-zero-farmings-2040-goal/

 

[egbert]

I attended a really interesting session at OFC about a livestock farm in Ireland that was aiming zero 2025

they had already LIDAR’ed the entire farm to accurately measure biomass of everything including grass, hedges and trees etc which is the only way to really measure this

Adjustments to stocking rates showed nett zero was possible now if extensive enough but they aimed to run same stock numbers and use feed additives (algae) and diet changes to reduce livestock emissions

Falling into the myth about methane again.
There isn't going to be much more or less methane in the atmosphere in 10 and 20 years time whatever we do with our cattle. there isn't much more or less now than there was 10-20 years ago from cattle.
Challenge it every time - working on diets for cows to reduce methane is hokum, good only for employing boffins.

Any messing around weighing up how much carbon is in a hedgerow is meaningless when new concrete is being poured, or the forager is chopping maize.

I'm all for pointing out our good bits, but making claims about going carbon neutral is wildly disingenuous.
I could claim it for some of my hill sheep- untilled hill, no quad..the first fossil carbon release is the fuel in the truck taking them away- but not much else.

 

[farmerm]

I doubt any of them are accepted by all in academia.

I don’t accept any of them!

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Falling into the myth about methane again.
There isn't going to be much more or less methane in the atmosphere in 10 and 20 years time whatever we do with our cattle. there isn't much more or less now than there was 10-20 years ago from cattle.
Challenge it every time - working on diets for cows to reduce methane is hokum, good only for employing boffins.

Any messing around weighing up how much carbon is in a hedgerow is meaningless when new concrete is being poured, or the forager is chopping maize.

I'm all for pointing out our good bits, but making claims about going carbon neutral is wildly disingenuous.
I could claim it for some of my hill sheep- untilled hill, no quad..the first fossil carbon release is the fuel in the truck taking them away- but not much else.

Excellent post.

The other rather stupid oversight regarding carbon footprint of farming, is the necessity of producing food.
Different types of farming have the potential to cause different problems but they probably all have a place depending on location and circumstance to be the most efficient in terms of production vs. environmental impact.
With modern technology, we really don't need to travel that much and we certainly need to get away from the capitalist drive to 'consume'.
We do all need to eat.
If you consider a complete system, the right farming in the right place will be more sustainable than the factory produced food alternatives that the conglomerates would like to fill our diets with.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Excellent post.

The other rather stupid oversight regarding carbon footprint of farming, is the necessity of producing food.
Different types of farming have the potential to cause different problems but they probably all have a place depending on location and circumstance to be the most efficient in terms of production vs. environmental impact.
With modern technology, we really don't need to travel that much and we certainly need to get away from the capitalist drive to 'consume'.
We do all need to eat.
If you consider a complete system, the right farming in the right place will be more sustainable than the factory produced food alternatives that the conglomerates would like to fill our diets with.

The interesting thing is, largescale farming (5 acres plus) only feeds about 30% of the worlds population - the same 30% that represents about 75% of the worlds C emissions, doing all the important stuff like commuting 3 hours to the office to play Solitaire

It's only the minority that "need food produced" for them, probably they feel they're are too busy and too superior to grow their own

In this respect, "food production" has a major role in all C emissions globally

 

[delilah]

Looks like you are all determined to burn your brains out doing the math then. When you've finished, have a look at this.

https://www.facebook.com/AnimalRebellion/

Can you find anything in there where they are beating themselves up about the carbon footprint of soya ? Or a detailed lifecycle analysis of quorn v's tofu ? You all like to take the p!ss out of AR, but they could teach you a thing or two about getting your message across.

Someone needs to explain to me quite what you expect to get out of all this navel gazing, because i'm totally bemused.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Looks like you are all determined to burn your brains out doing the math then. When you've finished, have a look at this.

https://www.facebook.com/AnimalRebellion/

Can you find anything in there where they are beating themselves up about the carbon footprint of soya ? Or a detailed lifecycle analysis of quorn v's tofu ? You all like to take the p!ss out of AR, but they could teach you a thing or two about getting your message across.

Someone needs to explain to me quite what you expect to get out of all this navel gazing, because i'm totally bemused.

The actual 'math bit' is both pretty misleading, and also misses much of the point from a producer's point of view.

We host a team of science students on a reasonably regular basis (2-3 × per annum) who like to test our soils as they improve... but the Carbon calculators are largely rubbish by comparison to actually measuring sequestration into the deeper soil horizons and looking at emissions 'in depth'

You get a figure per kg of produce, that's great - but what happens after you send it out the gate?
We aren't quite as "green" as White Oak but we are bloody close, this year we will only use our tractor for drilling covercrops and not making any silage which will massively affect our footprint and profitability (we hope), last audit suggested we sequestered 2.85kg COe per kg of meat produced, this year I want to beat Will Harris.
We get more rain, so it will happen.

 

[delilah]

but what happens after you send it out the gate?

Precisely. As I said earlier, the supermarkets, road haulage federation and the rest of the totally unsustainable food chain beyond the farm gate must be laughing their socks off at threads like this.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Precisely. As I said earlier, the supermarkets, road haulage federation and the rest of the totally unsustainable food chain beyond the farm gate must be laughing their socks off at threads like this.

It's difficult to imagine ANY OTHER WAY to do business, for so many people - not only producers

A large chunk of "the problem" is centralised processing and distribution, but try suggesting that someone with 1500 acres sells most of it and opens a slaughterhouse and sells meat direct... or a barley baron simply dresses and treats seed instead of feeding the monster - necessity is what drives change, and at the present point in time it isn't necessary to add value before produce leaves the farm.
It's all in the "too hard basket"

 

[Oldmacdonald]

Methane is a total red herring, with it's short cycle time, and its place in the natural cycle anyway.
Challenge that rubbish at every stage.

Have you got some pointers to more information about this? Ae you saying the methane content of the atmosphere more or less stays stable?
Is it still not a good idea to try and reduce the methane level?

I thought methane degraded to CO2 and water? So we are still releasing more CO2, but just with the added downside of it being 28 times more warming during its methane phase.

 

[delilah]

Have you got some pointers to more information about this? Ae you saying the methane content of the atmosphere more or less stays stable?
Is it still not a good idea to try and reduce the methane level?

I thought methane degraded to CO2 and water? So we are still releasing more CO2, but just with the added downside of it being 28 times more warming during its methane phase.

Methane isn't a red herring.
Methane from cows is a red herring.
Not our problem, so it is absolute nuts the way the NFU and others are saying "guilty m'lud" and promising to try harder.

 

[Top Tip.]

Methane isn't a red herring.
Methane from cows is a red herring.
Not our problem, so it is absolute nuts the way the NFU and others are saying "guilty m'lud" and promising to try harder.

Exactly,instead of challenging the issue we are rolling over, accepting the issue and trying to solve the impossible.

 

[delilah]

Exactly,instead of challenging the issue we are rolling over, accepting the issue and trying to solve the impossible.

It's a complete farce. Look back on the 3 pages of this thread. How much time, effort and money is the industry wasting on this ? Imagine what could be achieved if we instead diverted all of that into PROMOTING OUR INDUSTRY.

 

[egbert]

Have you got some pointers to more information about this? Ae you saying the methane content of the atmosphere more or less stays stable?
Is it still not a good idea to try and reduce the methane level?

I thought methane degraded to CO2 and water? So we are still releasing more CO2, but just with the added downside of it being 28 times more warming during its methane phase.

as Delilah says...I meant methane from cows.

I had to bone up on some chemistry to get it in my head - and it's still vague how its recycled back into carbon and hydrogen after a cow burps.
But the nuts and bolts are much the same, if a piece of ground is growing grass, whether it's eaten by a cow or not.

And the worrying CO2 release is from combusting hydro-carbon fuels with oxygen. And that includes firing cement kilns, smelting iron, grubbing out the ore...every damn thing.

Put in that context, it can't make a whole lot of difference what eats my grass, rabbits, cows, microbes...it's part of a cycle that's happened whenever grass grows.