Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy ?

[Clive]

These two articles by By David Pannell ( from Australia) has certainly made me think

346. Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy, Part 1 – Pannell Discussions

www.pannelldiscussions.net

347. Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy, Part 2 – Pannell Discussions

www.pannelldiscussions.net

The comments section is worth reading too as I believe these policies are going to become more relevant for us all over the coming months/ years.

In his first paper David makes 6 pertinent points as to why Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy .

His focus is mainly on Australian farming methods but I think we can learn from it here in UK

As a taster here is one point he makes: (but read the whole report to really understand his position)

2. Soil sequestration is a once-off process. People seem to imagine that new carbon can continue to be sequestered indefinitely, but once farmers change their management to increase soil carbon, it increases up to a new equilibrium level after about 20-30 years and then stops. Farmers need to stick with the new management regime to avoid releasing the carbon they have sequestered, so costs continue to be incurred, but not new benefits that would justify further payments.

Are we traveling down a path where farmers will be the main losers over time?

i’ve not read your link yet but 20-30 years of sequestration could be 2-3% SOM increase which globally is circa 3 terra tonnes of C ……… 3 x more than mankind has ever released / climate crisis over !

the bonus is you can sequester c and produce food at the same time, land doesn’t need to be removed from food production, just farmed under a system that sequesters but doesn’t release, no till, livestock, agroforestry etc …….. for many new scary ground involving lots of changes so not surprised at the caution/ scepticism really


if i could increase my SOM 3% in the next 30 years i will be a happy man, my farm will be MUCH higher yielding and i will have removed significant C from the atmosphere whilst feeding people and making a living ….. where is the issue ?

 

[farmerm]

Not sure I fully agree with his 5th point...

5. One of the main methods being suggested for increasing soil carbon is converting land from crop production to perennial pastures. (It is the one practice that is highlighted on the Government’s Soil Carbon web page.) Not only would switching to perennial pastures be substantially less profitable for many crop farmers – a far greater drop in profit than can be offset by any plausible carbon payment – but it will actually increase emissions overall, at least with current technologies. What farmers do with pastures is use them to run livestock, and methane emissions from livestock are a bigger concern than emissions from cropping. Sooner or later, governments will realise this and they will rule out making any payments unless livestock are excluded from the pastures, which will make the approach a non-starter for farmers. Scientists have been working on ways to reduce emissions from livestock for at least 20 years, but there doesn’t yet seem to be a practical solution.

...but that's probably another debate.

In reality, the only way this system can work is if farmers take small areas for carbon sequestration/storage and treat it a bit like Countryside Stewardship, by making their system fit into your system, not vice versa. It's only ever a top up rather than the main source of income. In that vane, short term deals (5-10 years) can be done where a farmer can be paid by Company X, for example, to do things that protect or increase SOC, and after that period the land is free to return to the rotation if required.

If this bloke's suggestion that everyone would inevitably grow grass were to come to pass, it would cause other issues. I like steak as much as the next man, but I still like a few spuds with it. We still need to grow crops other than grass so, his prediction is a bit unrealistic.

And don't get me started on tree's for carbon off-setting!!

Roughly speaking, 0.1% increase in organic matter = 8.9t/ha of atmospheric carbon, so with small adjustments to management, there's a lot of land around the world that can soak up a few million tons of C. Crucially though, we have to stop dragging it out of the ground in the first place for that to make any difference, otherwise they're just paying for business as usual and nothing changes.

There are already traders in London trying to do deals with UK farmers for carbon, with absolutely no idea how to measure or manage SOC stocks, no idea about seasonal or soil type variation, and definitely no idea that there might be an upper limit, what to do once you get there and what to do once their agreement ends. It's going to be like the Wild f*#@ing West until Government steps in to regulate it, and once they do you definitely won't make any money; they will!

Like @hendrebc says, farmer beware!!!

If it is going to have any effect your calculator needs to be very wrong regards being able to sequester a few million tons of C...... we release close on 40bn tonnes a year from fossil fuels alone... that does not including what is also released though deforestation and soil degradation!

 

[farmerm]

i’ve not read your link yet but 20-30 years of sequestration could be 2-3% SOM increase which globally is circa 3 terra tonnes of C ……… 3 x more than mankind has ever released / climate crisis over !

the bonus is you can sequester c and produce food at the same time, land doesn’t need to be removed from food production, just farmed under a system that sequesters but doesn’t release, no till, livestock, agroforestry etc …….. for many new scary ground involving lots of changes so not surprised at the caution/ scepticism really


if i could increase my SOM 3% in the next 30 years i will be a happy man, my farm will be MUCH higher yielding and i will have removed significant C from the atmosphere

so permeant pasture for all is it? Given importing OM simply deplete OM elsewhere, how do you plan to increase soil OM without having to rely on importing compost and other OM Clive?

 

[Clive]

so permeant pasture for all is it? Given importing OM simply deplete OM elsewhere, how do you plan to increase soil OM without having to rely on importing compost and other OM Clive?

no its not PP for all, it can be done whilst growing profitable combinable crops

i have been increasing SOM for over 10 years now (+ 1-1.5%) with data to back up - not removing straw, not cultivating, growing cover crops, diversity in rotation, focus on building feeding soil biology that make the majic happen and importing green waste compost

 

[farmerm]

no its not PP for all, it can be done whilst growing profitable combinable crops

i have been increasing SOM for over 10 years now (1-1.5%) with data to back up - not removing straw, not cultivating, growing cover crops a d importing green waste compost

But just what proportion of creating and maintaining that increased soil OM comes from the imported organic matter? I can easily increase OM on 10% of my farm if I spread the straw from the other 90% acre there but then im making my patch better at the expense of a loss elsewhere.... for the importation of green waste to be part of global solution in increasing soil OM we would need to import it from the moon! Have you data to show you can increase (and maintain) soil OM with DD and cover crops alone?

 

[delilah]

where is the issue ?

Er.
Trying to fit that 30 year timeframe into an annual payments scheme, where it will be totally irrelevant to tenants and prohibitively restrictive for owners ?

 

[GeorgeK]

The phone mast debacle has illustrated the perils of letting land on a semi permanent basis for anything that may in the future be considered a 'public good.' The deal seems good initially but once established the rules are changed, the money dries up and it becomes permanent at the farmer's expense

 

[martian]

But just what proportion of creating and maintaining that increased soil OM comes from the imported organic matter? I can easily increase OM on 10% of my farm if I spread the straw from the other 90% acre there but then im making my patch better at the expense of a loss elsewhere.... for the importation of green waste to be part of global solution in increasing soil OM we would need to import it from the moon! Have you data to show you can increase (and maintain) soil OM with DD and cover crops alone?

Imported OM has quite a short lifespan in the soil, it helps the crops grow and feeds the soil-life for a bit, which all helps, but the heavy lifting is done by growing plants exuding carbohydrates into the soil which creates a microscopic feeding frenzy around the roots which helps the plants grow and also improves the soil by creating the conditions whereby humus is made. It's a wonderfully complex system and even if we don't understand how exactly it works, it is surely in every farmers interest to get it working on their land whether they are being paid for it or not?

Increased humus in your soil means better water holding capacity, it holds water like a sponge; healthier soil will grow healthier plants at less cost to the grower, it improves the carbon cycle (soil breathes out carbon dioxide as the plant needs it for photosynthesis) and on it goes. Most of us have no idea how good our soils could be as we are all used to working with degraded soil, scientists have calculated that up to 60% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from the soil rather than fossil fuels, where man has been interfering with soil since the invention of the plough. There is a lot of room in the world's soils to put it back and crucially it doesn't cost us to put it back, but it pays us.

If someone else wants to pay us as well, then hallelujah!

 

[delilah]

If someone else wants to pay us as well, then hallelujah!

The selling carbon credits scam was systematically dismantled on the recent ploughing thread. Because that's all it is, a scam.
(no argument with the rest of your post).

 

[CornishTone]

If it is going to have any effect your calculator needs to be very wrong regards being able to sequester a few million tons of C...... we release close on 40bn tonnes a year from fossil fuels alone... that does not including what is also released though deforestation and soil degradation!

An increase of 0.1% OM is a trifling amount that can easily be achieved over vast areas of agricultural land with only small changes to management. 8.9 x World Cropland Area = 18.2bn tons/annum. Best part of half our annual fossil fuel release for not much effort, not to mention the benefits to the farming systems @Clive and @martian have mentioned. And that doesn’t include grassland, much of which could be made to work harder.

We’re a long way from any of that yet and it remains to be seen if there can be an effective and responsible trading platform but, we can measure SOC pretty accurately now, albeit a relatively expensive and time consuming process. But the benefits to our Ag systems from a purely production and land management point of view, make it worth the effort to try and put the C back where it belongs I think. The arguments around the merits of selling and off-setting it will be ongoing I suspect and ultimately down to each land manager.

 

[Clive]

The selling carbon credits scam was systematically dismantled on the recent ploughing thread. Because that's all it is, a scam.
(no argument with the rest of your post).

in your opinion of course

 

[Clive]

Er.
Trying to fit that 30 year timeframe into an annual payments scheme, where it will be totally irrelevant to tenants and prohibitively restrictive for owners ?

not restrictive at all - in fact its a more profitable way to farm combinable crops in my experience …… a no brainer in fact

 

[Northern territory]

no its not PP for all, it can be done whilst growing profitable combinable crops

i have been increasing SOM for over 10 years now (+ 1-1.5%) with data to back up - not removing straw, not cultivating, growing cover crops, diversity in rotation, focus on building feeding soil biology that make the majic happen and importing green waste compost

Where does all the straw come from for the livestock industry then if everyone chops it, and where do all your combinable crops go if they are all kept on grassland systems as seems to be the fashion.

 

[Clive]

Where does all the straw come from for the livestock industry then if everyone chops it, and where do all your combinable crops go if they are all kept on grassland systems as seems to be the fashion.

not my problem that (or the climates !) ….. being purposely facetious / questioning !!!

my suggest would be the longer term future of livestock does not involve them being housed indoors so less need for straw ?

 

[Northern territory]

not my problem that (or the climates !) ….. being purposely facetious / questioning !!!

my suggest would be the longer term future of livestock does not involve them being housed indoors so less need for straw ?

Exactly! never your problem, you just spout ideals in your own world but never question the consequences. So here is an idea. Livestock industry declines and we import more food from less regulated countries.,great for the environment.Just like a politician turn, a blind eye, not in my back yard.

 

[Henarar]

An increase of 0.1% OM is a trifling amount that can easily be achieved over vast areas of agricultural land with only small changes to management. 8.9 x World Cropland Area = 18.2bn tons/annum. Best part of half our annual fossil fuel release for not much effort, not to mention the benefits to the farming systems @Clive and @martian have mentioned. And that doesn’t include grassland, much of which could be made to work harder.

We’re a long way from any of that yet and it remains to be seen if there can be an effective and responsible trading platform but, we can measure SOC pretty accurately now, albeit a relatively expensive and time consuming process. But the benefits to our Ag systems from a purely production and land management point of view, make it worth the effort to try and put the C back where it belongs I think. The arguments around the merits of selling and off-setting it will be ongoing I suspect and ultimately down to each land manager.

I don't really understand this soil carbon measurement or the selling of carbon credits but say soil carbon is measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the most you can get and 0 being nothing and they come along and have a measure and the soil here is 9 which is pretty bloody outstanding, then could I sell credits for the 9 I already have [and have probably had for decades] in the soil to some airline so they can keep flying people on pointless [in the grand scheme of things] flights ?

 

[Monty]

Not sure I fully agree with his 5th point...

5. One of the main methods being suggested for increasing soil carbon is converting land from crop production to perennial pastures. (It is the one practice that is highlighted on the Government’s Soil Carbon web page.) Not only would switching to perennial pastures be substantially less profitable for many crop farmers – a far greater drop in profit than can be offset by any plausible carbon payment – but it will actually increase emissions overall, at least with current technologies. What farmers do with pastures is use them to run livestock, and methane emissions from livestock are a bigger concern than emissions from cropping. Sooner or later, governments will realise this and they will rule out making any payments unless livestock are excluded from the pastures, which will make the approach a non-starter for farmers. Scientists have been working on ways to reduce emissions from livestock for at least 20 years, but there doesn’t yet seem to be a practical solution.

But all vegetation releases methane as it breaks down regardless of whether it passes through livestock or not. It's just the process is accelerated by the cows digestive system. Also if the grassland is fertilized by manure, this stimulates more growth, increased photosynthesis due to more tillering and larger leaves leading to more dry matter/carbon in the grass stems. These things seem to be conveniently ignored somehow. It's far easier to belive the cows themselves are synthesising the methane and causing global warming

 

[Kiwi Pete]

These two articles by By David Pannell ( from Australia) has certainly made me think

346. Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy, Part 1 – Pannell Discussions

www.pannelldiscussions.net

347. Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy, Part 2 – Pannell Discussions

www.pannelldiscussions.net

The comments section is worth reading too as I believe these policies are going to become more relevant for us all over the coming months/ years.

In his first paper David makes 6 pertinent points as to why Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy .

His focus is mainly on Australian farming methods but I think we can learn from it here in UK

As a taster here is one point he makes: (but read the whole report to really understand his position)

2. Soil sequestration is a once-off process. People seem to imagine that new carbon can continue to be sequestered indefinitely, but once farmers change their management to increase soil carbon, it increases up to a new equilibrium level after about 20-30 years and then stops. Farmers need to stick with the new management regime to avoid releasing the carbon they have sequestered, so costs continue to be incurred, but not new benefits that would justify further payments.

Are we traveling down a path where farmers will be the main losers over time?

Yes and no. Some really good points made in those articles.

I believe that you could "do nothing" and continually replay some type of victim narrative 9/10 years about the evil scheming farmer-hating weather, or continue to build a better landscape that does better in the weather you get 10/10 years and raise 2 fingers to the rest of it.

Keeping the temperate parts of the world in a hydrated and productive state is really in all our best interests? More Carbon is a good thing to have, and growing plants feed it in. Fungi turn it to humus and it's relatively safe.

Schemes are probably the biggest burners of soil Carbon across the commonwealth, "down with that sort of thing" because: f**k interference

 

[farmerm]

An increase of 0.1% OM is a trifling amount that can easily be achieved over vast areas of agricultural land with only small changes to management. 8.9 x World Cropland Area = 18.2bn tons/annum. Best part of half our annual fossil fuel release for not much effort, not to mention the benefits to the farming systems @Clive and @martian have mentioned. And that doesn’t include grassland, much of which could be made to work harder.

We’re a long way from any of that yet and it remains to be seen if there can be an effective and responsible trading platform but, we can measure SOC pretty accurately now, albeit a relatively expensive and time consuming process. But the benefits to our Ag systems from a purely production and land management point of view, make it worth the effort to try and put the C back where it belongs I think. The arguments around the merits of selling and off-setting it will be ongoing I suspect and ultimately down to each land manager.

It is far easier to loose 1% over vast areas than gain 0.1% over a modest area... The agronomic benefits of higher OM should be incentive enough but selling carbon capture is a dangerous game to play and people will get badly burnt.

 

[Bury the Trash]

Exactly! never your problem, you just spout ideals in your own world but never question the consequences. So here is an idea. Livestock industry declines and we import more food from less regulated countries.,great for the environment.Just like a politician turn, a blind eye, not in my back yard.

he likes foreign flying hols as well as the fancy car consumerism band wagon.