Maximising Output Per Acre is The Way to Reduce Carbon Footprint

[DrWazzock]

Well isn’t it?
If you can grow 4t per acre of wheat then isn’t the carbon footprint per ton less by virtue of the fact you’ve spread the fixed part of the carbon cost in growing the crop over more tons.
This fact begs the question of what to do with marginal land. It would suggest it should be first in the eco scheme queue.
It would suggest that any “scheme” or option that reduces yield on better land is actually counterproductive in reducing carbon footprint of the commodities we produce.
Take the paymevt for non use of insectides for example. If this reduces yield substantially then all those other carbon based inputs are to some extent wasted and the footprint of the product is higher.
As such I’m wary of “extensification”. I’m wary of low output systems. I’m wary of a host of options that actually push us to lower output spring cropping meaning more land is needed to maintain the same output and carbon footprint of the product actually rises. In particular we are in danger of losing highly productive winter sown cereals to the poor relation that is spring cropping, the way these schemes are devised.
I’m not sure we being encouraged in entirely the right direction.

 

[yellowbelly]

You're probably right.
The only question would be the extra carbon you'd need if you were pushing the N itrogen up to get your 4 ton/acre.
You'd need to be able to do simultaneous equations or somesuch to work it out

......additional question.....

WTF is a carbon footorunf

...is it just a small carbon footprint

 

[delilah]

What carbon footprint ? All you are doing with such intensive/extensive hand wringing is feeding the narrative that the farmer has the capability to impact climate change. We really don't. Not at an individual farm level anyway. If you want to find an argument for intensive production, then it is at a macro level. Any reduction in UK output leads to an increase in imports.

 

[DrWazzock]

You're probably right.
The only question would be the extra carbon you'd need if you were pushing the N itrogen up to get your 4 ton/acre.
You'd need to be able to do simultaneous equations or somesuch to work it out

......additional question.....

WTF is a carbon footorunf

...is it just a small carbon footprint

Yes I was told that for every pound you spend on fertiliser you get £4 back (within reason) so if the same holds true for carbon then there’ll be an optimum much like the nitrogen economic optimum return graph thing that I never really understood. And I’d say without lifting up my calculator that 4t of winter wheat must be better than 2t of spring wheat on the carbon front from one acre. So is an an over wintered cover really holding its own on the carbon front of it leads to lower yield for the same amount of running about with drills, sprayers, spreaders and other machinery. I don’t know TBH. But thought it something worth considering.

Typo which I thought I’d edited out.

 

[DrWazzock]

What carbon footprint ? All you are doing with such intensive/extensive hand wringing is feeding the narrative that the farmer has the capability to impact climate change. We really don't. Not at an individual farm level anyway. If you want to find an argument for intensive production, then it is at a macro level. Any reduction in UK output leads to an increase in imports.

I’m not knocking extensive systems that have to be extensive such as upland grass etc. I’m having a slight dig at some of these arable options that can only reduce yield. Let’s hope that yield reduction is worth it eh?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I would say you should ask Defra.
If they are spending £billions on incentivising sustainable farming, they should surely know.
But I don't think they do.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

What carbon footprint ? All you are doing with such intensive/extensive hand wringing is feeding the narrative that the farmer has the capability to impact climate change. We really don't. Not at an individual farm level anyway. If you want to find an argument for intensive production, then it is at a macro level. Any reduction in UK output leads to an increase in imports.

You are probably correct.
But nationally, everybody doing the best options in the best places compared to doing less optimum options, would make a difference.
SFI is at high risk of doing the opposite.

 

[DrWazzock]

I just have a gut feeling that a decent crop of winter barley with big root mass and straw returned either directly or via muck would actually be better than an over wintered cover which forces us into spring barley with half the yield of grain and straw. Yes there’s a gain of sequestered carbon on the overwintered cover but a loss of carbon sequestered by the spring barley compared to the winter barley. You’ve had more running about with machinery to drill the cover then the spring barley, spraying off the cover etc. Wonder if this has been audited?
I can see that marginal land would probably be better used building carbon not cropping, but good land probably serves us best by continuing to maximise crop output.

 

[yellowbelly]

Yes there’s a gain of sequestered carbon on the overwintered cover but a loss of carbon sequestered by the spring barley compared to the winter barley

There won't be much loss of carbon sequestration - your winter barley will be in the ground over winter, just like the cover crop in the spring barley scenario.

 

[DrWazzock]

I suppose what I’m also saying is that marginal land like ours which was pressed into arable during the Napoleonic Wars really ought to be returned to mostly grazing as unreliable cereal yields lead to produce with a higher carbon footprint due to droughtiness etc. Whereas it would seem insane intuitively for my neighbours on the good wheat land to do anything that reduces their productive potential. A lot comes down to soil type, gradient etc.
There’s a lot more thought needed than just picking the easiest or best paying options if this new initiative is to work for the country. And I doubt it will unless some good hard and realistic assessments of soil grade and topography are considered.

 

[teslacoils]

Probably.

But marginal land better for solar, dog walking, golf courses, BMX tracks, etc.

This whole food notion needs putting in the bin - land should be used to maximise personal income, council taxes and government income. Once the nimbys realise we can't grow pineapples and can import plenty of wheat, the best thing to do is to get land maximising it's income. This means building stuff. But who cares if it earns loads more?

 

[Hindsight]

I suppose what I’m also saying is that marginal land like ours which was pressed into arable during the Napoleonic Wars really ought to be returned to mostly grazing as unreliable cereal yields lead to produce with a higher carbon footprint due to droughtiness etc. Whereas it would seem insane intuitively for my neighbours on the good wheat land to do anything that reduces their productive potential. A lot comes down to soil type, gradient etc.
There’s a lot more thought needed than just picking the easiest or best paying options if this new initiative is to work for the country. And I doubt it will unless some good hard and realistic assessments of soil grade and topography are considered.

Careful Dr W as what you are saying leads to the WarAg deciding which land to crop and which not. Thought you are (were?) a libertarian who believes in personal freedoms and government should but out!

 

[Suffolk Serf]

Totally. That's why chicken and pork have a relatively low carbon footprint and show continual improvement.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

I would have thought that reducing the carbon footprint would have been the surefire way to reduce the carbon footprint?

I mean there's nothing to justify to anyone BUT you could count it how you like to count it.
Does a trip to town for a part count as a shopping trip or a trip to town for a part?

That's where the simplistic "just divide theoretical by output" thingy falls over - because it can't have a lower output than locally-grown is one of my favourite becauses. Becauses just don't work in practice the way they could

 

[DrWazzock]

Careful Dr W as what you are saying leads to the WarAg deciding which land to crop and which not. Thought you are (were?) a libertarian who believes in personal freedoms and government should but out!

Whether I like it or not I think there could be a case for at least “recommendations” for the right options to meet targets. I’d probably be told to put it to grass, maybe trees on some of it to expand the forest. Maybe have infrequent cereals in the rotstion to break the sheep parasite cycle. That kind of thing. The sheep being less needy of fossil fuel inputs I could probably run at less than max meat output without raising the carbon footprint of a kg of meat. But even doing that means less sheep for whoever of it is looks after them so a bigger carbon footprint attributed to the labour per sheep. Running at half throttle on the production side just doesn’t seem good on the carbon front unless the accompanying environmental options are spectacularly good at sequestering carbon as a result of those lower stocking levels.
Anyway I’m getting out of my depth.

 

[CORK]

Every agri event/commentary these days seems to have carbon footprint mentioned in it.

I’ve 23 years experience as a qualified ag scientist including 18 years farming.

For me, any mention of carbon footprint or carbon footprint in Ag = instant switch off of attention.

Completely sick of it.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I would say you should ask Defra.
If they are spending £billions on incentivising sustainable farming, they should surely know.
But I don't think they do.

Like Nationalising Water, Electric & Gas ? Or how about HS2 ?

Everything HMG touches turns to shyte, I've never seen a single thing HMG has advocated turn out to be either worthwhile, profitable or beneficial to the UK.

If HMG advocarte it, run a 1000 miles, it's complete utter stinking Bollock rot.

 

[teslacoils]

Like Nationalising Water, Electric & Gas ? Or how about HS2 ?

Everything HMG touches turns to shyte, I've never seen a single thing HMG has advocated turn out to be either worthwhile, profitable or beneficial to the UK.

If HMG advocarte it, run a 1000 miles, it's complete utter stinking Bollock rot.

When theyre not doing this directly, they put so many hurdles ahead of anything else as to make it cost twice what it needed to.

 

[Macsky]

Well isn’t it?
If you can grow 4t per acre of wheat then isn’t the carbon footprint per ton less by virtue of the fact you’ve spread the fixed part of the carbon cost in growing the crop over more tons.
This fact begs the question of what to do with marginal land. It would suggest it should be first in the eco scheme queue.
It would suggest that any “scheme” or option that reduces yield on better land is actually counterproductive in reducing carbon footprint of the commodities we produce.
Take the paymevt for non use of insectides for example. If this reduces yield substantially then all those other carbon based inputs are to some extent wasted and the footprint of the product is higher.
As such I’m wary of “extensification”. I’m wary of low output systems. I’m wary of a host of options that actually push us to lower output spring cropping meaning more land is needed to maintain the same output and carbon footprint of the product actually rises. In particular we are in danger of losing highly productive winter sown cereals to the poor relation that is spring cropping, the way these schemes are devised.
I’m not sure we being encouraged in entirely the right direction.

It doesn’t matter. Engaging in argument just legitimises/validates the whole ‘carbon is bad’ narrative, which will be used to perpetually beat farmers until it is quashed.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Well isn’t it?
If you can grow 4t per acre of wheat then isn’t the carbon footprint per ton less by virtue of the fact you’ve spread the fixed part of the carbon cost in growing the crop over more tons.
This fact begs the question of what to do with marginal land. It would suggest it should be first in the eco scheme queue.
It would suggest that any “scheme” or option that reduces yield on better land is actually counterproductive in reducing carbon footprint of the commodities we produce.
Take the paymevt for non use of insectides for example. If this reduces yield substantially then all those other carbon based inputs are to some extent wasted and the footprint of the product is higher.
As such I’m wary of “extensification”. I’m wary of low output systems. I’m wary of a host of options that actually push us to lower output spring cropping meaning more land is needed to maintain the same output and carbon footprint of the product actually rises. In particular we are in danger of losing highly productive winter sown cereals to the poor relation that is spring cropping, the way these schemes are devised.
I’m not sure we being encouraged in entirely the right direction.

I think this is broadly correct for fossil fuel use.
How would we all farm if diesel tripled in cost?