Our emissions are similar to yours but the audit only counted sequestration from our trees which came to 100 tons. Nothing for grasslandWe are part of the Farm Net Zero Project in Cornwall and we’ve been measured as carbon negative for 2 years in a row by the Farm Carbon Toolkit, on an mixed arable and sheep system.
FCT is the only model that properly accounts for sequestration in pasture, woodland, hedgerows etc and they actually dig holes and properly measure soil organic carbon instead of using phoney modelling! And under GWP* we’d be even more carbon negative!
Have we actively farmed to be net zero? No, it s just a by-product of the way we’ve been doing things already, hence why we are seemingly carbon negative in years 1 and 2.
I do direct sell our lamb and have used it in marketing but, my customers seem more interested in the way it tastes and the way it’s produced, although it is seen as a plus point it could hold a premium.
The few lambs that go to Jaspers get no premium for it obviously, but in time I fear that talk of a premium for net zero products will actually translate into a barrier to market, the same as Red Tractor
View attachment 1099910
And what did it say about any cattle on farm?Our emissions are similar to yours but the audit only counted sequestration from our trees which came to 100 tons. Nothing for grassland
And what % of tree being grown commercially will end up in a building, long term?Sequestration from grassland is hard to court as they only last until the usage of the land charges and are much higher in the 1st few years. Trees that are used to replace brick/cement for buildings lock up the carbon for the life of the building and tend to reduce the energy usage of the building. (Likewise sheep wool insulation and hemp)
I know I keep banging on about FCT but, they will also give the GWP* figure alongside the "required" GWP100 figure. Not perfect, but better!And what did it say about any cattle on farm?
Carbon neutral????
Sequestration in grassland is just as easy to count as any other land. It's either there or it isn't. It's just that most of these calculators or based on a desire to trade carbon on your behalf and grassland has, in most cases, already done a lot of the sequestration it's likely to do, so there's probably going to be very little increase, so in turn the traders aren't interested as there's no money in it for them. Easier to concentrate on arable ground and say grass is "too complicated because of animals and reasons". It's all a con I'm afraid!Sequestration from grassland is hard to court as they only last until the usage of the land charges and are much higher in the 1st few years. Trees that are used to replace brick/cement for buildings lock up the carbon for the life of the building and tend to reduce the energy usage of the building. (Likewise sheep wool insulation and hemp)
And that's similar with a lot of the auditors/calculators. They dismiss grassland as they don't stand to make as much £££ out of it.Our emissions are similar to yours but the audit only counted sequestration from our trees which came to 100 tons. Nothing for grassland
Just picking this one piece - have you any evidence to back up this thought, as all I see is my soil layer getting deeper and deeper.grassland has, in most cases, already done a lot of the sequestration it's likely to do, so there's probably going to be very little increase
It's a very good point you make! There is plenty of evidence showing that there is a saturation point in the top couple inches of soil in terms of OM/SOC depending on soil type, which has influenced this idea, particularly in grassland, that once you reach saturation point, carbon cycles rather than sequesters, so it's less exciting to the money men. But you allude to the elephant in the room, which is that soil grows, and as it does so it sequesters carbon and makes the carbon beneath it less likely to be released by soil disturbance! Archaeologists don't trip over Roman ruins on their way to the pub, they have to dig! Conventional wisdom tells us soil builds at mm's over decades and centuries, but even Darwin measured big increases in soil levels in just a few years. It's all about management and whether there's money in measuring it. @Kiwi Pete could probably chime in here too?!Just picking this one piece - have you any evidence to back up this thought, as all I see is my soil layer getting deeper and deeper.
But where are they going to import beef from ,as it stands Europe is pushing for net zero chaos without seeing the bigger picture...How can we make something without it having carbon in ? What do people want ? Why will it be ok to ban livestock in this country and import the same from abroad ? Dliol
Take net zero seriously when the stop holiday makers jetting off every minute of the day,
Well to be fair, Peter has not stated any position on this whole business.
In fact he stated in the OP....
Which is a fair enough point.
He wouldn't be able to share your specific data - GDPR, he might be able to publish analyses of the dataset as a whole.If I took part where would the data on my farm end up? Data has a value.
How is a suckler cow subsisting on forage, either grazed or conserved, mainly hay so less plastic calculated to contribute toward carbon capture.
CO2 is captured through photosynthesis by grass using rain and sunshine. The cow turns that grass into a nutrient dense food and produces manure which contains carbon that is incorporated into the so CO2 is captured for free.
Unless there are meaningful figures avaIlable what is the point?
I'm quite sure that the top two inches do stabilise, but they're a different top two than a few years ago, and the old top two are now the lower 4"-6", storing the carbon that they sequestered last few years ago.It's a very good point you make! There is plenty of evidence showing that there is a saturation point in the top couple inches of soil in terms of OM/SOC depending on soil type, which has influenced this idea, particularly in grassland, that once you reach saturation point, carbon cycles rather than sequesters, so it's less exciting to the money men. But you allude to the elephant in the room, which is that soil grows, and as it does so it sequesters carbon and makes the carbon beneath it less likely to be released by soil disturbance! Archaeologists don't trip over Roman ruins on their way to the pub, they have to dig! Conventional wisdom tells us soil builds at mm's over decades and centuries, but even Darwin measured big increases in soil levels in just a few years. It's all about management and whether there's money in measuring it. @Kiwi Pete could probably chime in here too?!
Yep, as land managers we have the ability to influence both soil erosion and soil creation through management. At the moment we get all the sh1t for soil erosion and none of the credit for soil creation. Maybe that will start to change as part of this?I'm quite sure that the top two inches do stabilise, but they're a different top two than a few years ago, and the old top two are now the lower 4"-6", storing the carbon that they sequestered last few years ago.
If you plough it though presumably? Also soil % and soil amount aren’t the same thing.I'm quite sure that the top two inches do stabilise, but they're a different top two than a few years ago, and the old top two are now the lower 4"-6", storing the carbon that they sequestered last few years ago.
If it's doing its job, then no need to plough.If you plough it though presumably?
Absolutely agree, but better to have 20% of 5' than 40% of 3".Also soil % and soil amount aren’t the same thing.
Definitions is one of the issues yes,How do you define net zero though? That’s the biggest unanswered elephant-in-the-room question. And does your definition actually stand up to scrutiny? Or is it as transparently ridiculous as virtually all the rest? The fact you're talking about emissions and not warming impact tells a story for a start. Emissions is a mindless proxy term which pales to nothing next to warming impact. Emissions is virtually meaningless when it comes to methane.
As far as carbon calculators are concerned, you might want to have a look at this;
Farming Matters: Geoff Pickering - 'Net zero calculations are nonsense'
I was recently ‘cancelled’ on Twitter for using the word ’nonsense’ in relation to net zero.www.fginsight.com
I’m happy to have a chat with you btw. I’m all for education. We need more of it. Also, can you answer the question of why is the carbon which is absorbed from the atmosphere and leaves the farm not allowed to be credited to that farm for net zero calculations?