Net-Zero and livestock farming
- Thread starter petergittins
- Start date
- Location
- sw scotland
Our emissions are similar to yours but the audit only counted sequestration from our trees which came to 100 tons. Nothing for grassland
ringi
Member
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)
- Location
- sw scotland
Some of my fields will be 40 years in grass so has kept a lot of carbon stored. My school only lasted 45 years before it was demolished. I would argue that all carbon is in a cycle. The trees cycle are just a bit longer but the calculation satisfies the reduction target of 2030 when the planet will implode.
As long as older grass is grazed surely it is pulling carbon down, converting to animal protein then human protein to be stored longer term.
As long as older grass is grazed surely it is pulling carbon down, converting to animal protein then human protein to be stored longer term.
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
@Peter Gittins @petergittins (Not sure why you have two accounts) - quick question:
How do we account for the carbon footprint of the assessment tools and academic 'research' that went into making them, when I consider my carbon footprint? I'm fairly certain I am carbon negative right now, but I wonder if it's a bit like Heisenberg, Pauli and Scrodinger in that the very fact of measuring could change the result.
How do we account for the carbon footprint of the assessment tools and academic 'research' that went into making them, when I consider my carbon footprint? I'm fairly certain I am carbon negative right now, but I wonder if it's a bit like Heisenberg, Pauli and Scrodinger in that the very fact of measuring could change the result.
And what % of tree being grown commercially will end up in a building, long term?
I realise you/we cannot know, but my suspicion is that it will not be that high... Think of all the pallets being used on a building site, all the crap furniture and the like in the house, that are chucked in the skip after 5 years...
- Location
- Cornwall
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!
- Location
- Cornwall
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!
- Location
- Cornwall
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.
Which (sorry again) if anyone is going down this route, use FCT as they actually do their F'ing home work! They aren't perfect but they're about as good as it gets at the moment.
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
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.
- Location
- Cornwall
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?!
flywheel
Member
- Location
- wae up north
But where are they going to import beef from ,as it stands Europe is pushing for net zero chaos without seeing the bigger picture...
- Location
- Ledbury, Herefordshire
Well you wouldn't if you are doing a survey, you would want to remain as neutral as possible so as not to unwittingly introduce bias.
I wouldn't have mentioned anything like that in the OP myself, but understand he needs to get people willing to share.
- Location
- Ledbury, Herefordshire
He wouldn't be able to share your specific data - GDPR, he might be able to publish analyses of the dataset as a whole.
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
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?!
- Location
- Cornwall
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?
If you plough it though presumably? Also soil % and soil amount aren’t the same thing.
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
If it's doing its job, then no need to plough.
Absolutely agree, but better to have 20% of 5' than 40% of 3".
petergittins
Member
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?
Drop me a message if you're willing to chat, will be interested to hear you views.
I'll be doing the Cumbria interviews this and next month