Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CornishTone" data-source="post: 7565507" data-attributes="member: 4147"><p>Not sure I fully agree with his 5th point...</p><p></p><p>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 <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/climatechange/australias-farming-future/soil-carbon" target="_blank">Soil Carbon web page</a>.) 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.</p><p></p><p>...but that's probably another debate.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>And don't get me started on tree's for carbon off-setting!! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite4" alt=":mad:" title="Mad :mad:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":mad:" /></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>Like [USER=70166]@hendrebc[/USER] says, farmer beware!!!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CornishTone, post: 7565507, member: 4147"] 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 [URL='https://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/climatechange/australias-farming-future/soil-carbon']Soil Carbon web page[/URL].) 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!! :mad: 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 [USER=70166]@hendrebc[/USER] says, farmer beware!!! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy ?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top