Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy ?

delilah

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

You know full well that you have dodged the point I was making there.

in your opinion of course

That's the thing with a forum. The word 'forum' precludes us all from having to put 'in my opinion' at the end of every post we make.

There is a somewhat delicious irony in all of this.

TFF is brilliant. We all owe you a debt of gratitude for making it happen. Having made it happen, you have made the reshaping of agricultural policy a truly democratic process, for the very first time in the history of agricultural policy. Co-design is only happening because of the internet, and TFF is the primary vehicle most of us are using to exchange thoughts and ideas to input into the co-design process.

And it is that exchange of thoughts and ideas - that you have made possible - that is showing carbon trading, and ELMS subs for DD, to be a crock of sh!t.
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
You know full well that you have dodged the point I was making there.



That's the thing with a forum. The word 'forum' precludes us all from having to put 'in my opinion' at the end of every post we make.

There is a somewhat delicious irony in all of this.

TFF is brilliant. We all owe you a debt of gratitude for making it happen. Having made it happen, you have made the reshaping of agricultural policy a truly democratic process, for the very first time in the history of agricultural policy. Co-design is only happening because of the internet, and TFF is the primary vehicle most of us are using to exchange thoughts and ideas to input into the co-design process.

And it is that exchange of thoughts and ideas - that you have made possible - that is showing carbon trading, and ELMS subs for DD, to be a crock of sh!t.
spose a few crocks of sh!t would help build soil carbon
 

CornishTone

Member
BASIS
Location
Cornwall
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

You’re dead right of course! Rubbish tips, sewers, horses... humans! Where vegetative matter decomposes in the absence of oxygen you get methane.

But things that eat vegetative matter and burp or fart methane are part of a cycle so the carbon isn’t “new carbon”. But if you’re trying to convince the world, and yourself, that eating cows and sheep is a bad thing to do, it’s easy to say cows methane is bad and conveniently ignore everything else.
 

CornishTone

Member
BASIS
Location
Cornwall
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.

And therein lies both the problem and the opportunity.
 

CornishTone

Member
BASIS
Location
Cornwall
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 ?

Yeah, basically I think you could be paid to store carbon (I.e. not do anything that could release it like ploughing), or sequester carbon, where you adapt you management on land with a lower starting point, so have more potential to increase SOC.

The tricky bit comes with testing at the start of the agreement and at the end, then having some sort of settle up with what’s actually happened over the course of the agreement. Or test annually and accept that some years you’ll do better than others... or lose!🤷🏼‍♂️
 

CornishTone

Member
BASIS
Location
Cornwall
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.
I would say livestock is integral to capturing carbon. They help facilitate the process better than pretty much any other tool we have.

The processes and concepts however, are complex to the layman, and “cow methane is bad” is far easier to fit into a 30 second sound bite than trying to explain how the carbon cycle actually works whilst Earthling Ed, or whichever protein deprived half wit is opposing us, is shouting obscenities at the top of their voice!
 

Raider112

Member
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 ?
That's pretty much how it works, but then you have to be prepared to see planes being carbon neutral while your farm is killing the planet.
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
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.

i suspect there will be less meat full stop in the future, not just in the uk but globally probably

not a future i want or what any livestock farmer wants to hear but i can see that being the case sadly

I’m just being realistic, in the face of rising population we are going to have to produce protein MUCH more efficiently, plants and insects most likely based on current technologies
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
we all farm carbon - its what all farmers sell and always have done

we take sunlight, water and co2 and turn it into carbon we sell in the form of wheat, barley, oats etc livestock farmers process that carbon via animals to make meat, milk, eggs etc

plants are the mechanism we use to perform this miracle that keeps every single one of us alive

but its carbon we capture and carbon we sell, always have and always will
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
Yeah, basically I think you could be paid to store carbon (I.e. not do anything that could release it like ploughing), or sequester carbon, where you adapt you management on land with a lower starting point, so have more potential to increase SOC.

The tricky bit comes with testing at the start of the agreement and at the end, then having some sort of settle up with what’s actually happened over the course of the agreement. Or test annually and accept that some years you’ll do better than others... or lose!🤷🏼‍♂️
That's pretty much how it works, but then you have to be prepared to see planes being carbon neutral while your farm is killing the planet.
if I could get payed to store carbon that is already in the soil so airlines can carry on with pointless pollution how does that gain anything in the grand scheme of things ?
Yes my bank balance will grow which is good for me but we are constantly told that we need to reduce ongoing pollution, this scenario will only see it stay the same or increase.
This is why I think polluters being able to have a quick cheap buy out of their problem is not a good idea.
I think we may well have a good case to be paid for the carbon stored on the land but this should be paid by the government and it shouldn't come from the money already fenced off for AG it should come from ever increasing fines on those that pointlessly pollute, tax them to make them change their ways or stop trading if they can't
 

JD-Kid

Member
big thing is a starting point or date so say soil come in today then it would be any gains over that is already in the soil so cropping farmers could put away the plow plant the fields down not graze them and build up soil carbon
now the fun maths if the units of carbon are sold say 5000 units just for working out. at 10 pound a unit 50000 pound a ha the money spent etc you will only get payed on gains a drop in soil carbon you will have to pay back units.
the sick maths you sold the carbon at 10 pound spent the money price of carbon goes tho 30 pound and you remove 2000 units. you owe 60000 pound and one step more the units belong to the land not the owner so if land was going to be sold would have to have the units belonging to it which would be a value or sold with a liability of the units of carbon removed
trees same deal first crop the amount of carbon removed off site is payed back the amount left behind is the owners to keep if replanted. so a wise person dose not remove the trees or fells them replants leaving the timber. on site. the left behind carbon is only payed on the first crop of trees
the winners will be the ones auditing trees soils etc etc and the brokers selling the units or people leaving trees crops standing and not removed or grazed
the losers will be any one buying anything as the cost of carbon units will be passed along the supply chain
 

Northern territory

Member
Livestock Farmer
big thing is a starting point or date so say soil come in today then it would be any gains over that is already in the soil so cropping farmers could put away the plow plant the fields down not graze them and build up soil carbon
now the fun maths if the units of carbon are sold say 5000 units just for working out. at 10 pound a unit 50000 pound a ha the money spent etc you will only get payed on gains a drop in soil carbon you will have to pay back units.
the sick maths you sold the carbon at 10 pound spent the money price of carbon goes tho 30 pound and you remove 2000 units. you owe 60000 pound and one step more the units belong to the land not the owner so if land was going to be sold would have to have the units belonging to it which would be a value or sold with a liability of the units of carbon removed
trees same deal first crop the amount of carbon removed off site is payed back the amount left behind is the owners to keep if replanted. so a wise person dose not remove the trees or fells them replants leaving the timber. on site. the left behind carbon is only payed on the first crop of trees
the winners will be the ones auditing trees soils etc etc and the brokers selling the units or people leaving trees crops standing and not removed or grazed
the losers will be any one buying anything as the cost of carbon units will be passed along the supply chain
isn’t it all just folly though, a bit like most of Tesla’s value mainly carbon credits.
 
Last edited:
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 ?
And what is really worrying is the number of people in Agriculture who cannot see that farming to increase soil carbon, without even taking the poison dollar, is a no brainer.
Soils with high carbon are fertile, productive soils. Those without carbon are an inert chemical matrix.
 

Northern territory

Member
Livestock Farmer
And what is really worrying is the number of people in Agriculture who cannot see that farming to increase soil carbon, without even taking the poison dollar, is a no brainer.
Soils with high carbon are fertile, productive soils. Those without carbon are an inert chemical matrix.
I think a lot more are aware of it than you think. We have followed the hallowed mixed farm approach with long term leys, permanent pasture, manures, grazed root and cover crops etc etc, without massive financial reward and plenty of effort.
 

delilah

Member

For the purposes of countering all of the negative attention our industry is getting from the outside world, yes, nothing.

There are a whole shed load of environmental problems in the food chain. But that is where they are, in the chain, not with us.
Think about it just a little bit. What has changed in the food system in line with man made climate change being a thing ? Transportation, refrigeration, processing, packaging. Total reliance on ever increasing fossil fuel use.

Shoot all of the cows and UK GHG emissions go up.
Get rid of UK ag and UK GHG emissions go up.
That is the truth of it.

What is it with farmers ? Is any other industry so determined to beat itself up ?
 

delilah

Member
the losers will be any one buying anything as the cost of carbon units will be passed along the supply chain

Quite. Carbon trading is a highly regressive form of taxation.
Farmer sells credits to Tesco. Tesco put price of food up to pay for credits. The poor suffer the most.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,292
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top