Biome carbon cycle management

[Reality Check]

And the best way to both improve the cropland sequestration and the grassland sequestration simultaneously? ....

And the scientific evidence that this will improve the sequestration of both cropland and grassland is, Red Baron Farms?
And that this improvement will have a significant effect on global warming?

What Savory proposed in the TED talk (and what you seem to be saying he is still proposing) is outlandish, Red Baron Farms:
Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video seems to use the wrong number but using the Christian Beer, et al number is still a doubling of the sequestration in grasslands and scrubland just to counter our emissions. We do not know how much of "grasslands and scrubland" is grass and how much scrub so maybe the number is "about 2.6 Pg per year".
After that there is 240 more Petagrams to remove to get to the pre-industrial levels in Savory 's assertion.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And the scientific evidence that this will improve the sequestration of both cropland and grassland is, Red Baron Farms?
And that this improvement will have a significant effect on global warming?

What Savory proposed in the TED talk (and what you seem to be saying he is still proposing) is outlandish, Red Baron Farms:
Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video seems to use the wrong number but using the Christian Beer, et al number is still a doubling of the sequestration in grasslands and scrubland just to counter our emissions. We do not know how much of "grasslands and scrubland" is grass and how much scrub so maybe the number is "about 2.6 Pg per year".
After that there is 240 more Petagrams to remove to get to the pre-industrial levels in Savory 's assertion.

Considering doubling a grassland is fairly easy using Savory's system. That's also well within the realm of possibilities. 2x, 5x, 100x, or more depending on the degree of deterioration it started at. Most the croplands are sequestering zero, even negative. So doubling that is pretty damn easy.

 

[Reality Check]

Considering ...

Wrong, Red Baron Farms: I did not ask for more unsupported assertions about Savory's methods which are appropriate to another thread where they were discussed - Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread).

I asked about the general assertion that you made:

And the scientific evidence that this will improve the sequestration of both cropland and grassland is, Red Baron Farms?
And that this improvement will have a significant effect on global warming?

The answer will include little things like citations to the scientific evidence .

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And the scientific evidence that this will improve the sequestration of both cropland and grassland is, Red Baron Farms?
And that this improvement will have a significant effect on global warming?

The answer will include little things like citations to the scientific evidence .

Reality Check You want a scientific evidence that a positive carbon sequestration rate [1] is larger than a negative sequestration rate?[2] Really? And you want evidence that this if done on a large enough area will help reduce atmospheric CO2 which in turn has an effect on global warming?
I think I will refer you to the many experts here on atmospheric CO2 and it's effect on AGW. I am tired to explain that to deniers. Besides. That is not my field of expertise.

Actually I am kind of tired of repeating over and over for someone who is purposely being willfully ignorant. I provided you with the proof the article in the real climate blog used the wrong figure.[3] The potential for restoring ecosystem function and the associated ecosystem services is vastly larger than that misleadingly claimed by Briske and West.[4] That's enough for me here. Now you are simply grasping at straws by trying to shift the conversation to things I have already explained to you for many months even providing citations, even very patiently walking you through it like a small child, and yet you still refuse to believe what's right in front of your face. I have given up. All it is doing is hijacking this thread from the greater picture, which includes ecosystem restoration, but is not limited to ecosystem restoration.

We are done here. At least I am. When you actually want to learn something, let me know. Until then I am not going to bother explaining the obvious like the sky is up and grass is green or that a positive sequestration rate is larger than a negative sequestration rate... with citations! sheesh

 

[Trakar]

The provided reference does not support the idea that there are 123 Pg of carbon going into and coming out of the soil each year, as we have discussed previously, I believe, in the thread that was specifically created to keep this discussion focused in the thread where it is relevant instead of popping up and derailing threads throughout the Science and technology forum.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The provided reference does not support the idea that there are 123 Pg of carbon going into and coming out of the soil each year, as we have discussed previously, I believe, in the thread that was specifically created to keep this discussion focused in the thread where it is relevant instead of popping up and derailing threads throughout the Science and technology forum.

No one claimed that. Not me, nor the Real Climate article. Not sure where you got the idea that is what the citation was supposed to show? 123 Pg of carbon is what it taken up each year by terrestrial vegetation (photosynthesis). Only a % of that ever reaches the soil, and only a % of that gets sequestered long term in the soil, even under the best of conditions.

The Real Climate Blog claims this:

To put these emissions in perspective, the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year.

It should say this:

To put these emissions in perspective, the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 123 Pg per year.

Then there should be an explanation that the net figure of 2.6 Pg per year is dramatically smaller largely because poor land management and deterioration of the ecosystems on about 1/2 the land surface of the planet. [1]

 

[Reality Check]

Reality Check You want a scientific evidence ...snipped a bit of a rant....

No, Red Baron Farms, I want the scientific evidence that supports your assertion !

Yes, Red Baron Farms , you finally gave a reference to the number that you were citing. and I acknowledged that reference:

Terrestrial Gross Carbon Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate Christian Beer, et al (PDF) has the figure of 123+/- 8 petagrams of carbon per year for the gross primary production.

That however is still not the quantity being used in the article which remains about Savory's grasslands claim (not tropical forests, etc. which are included in the above number).

 

[Reality Check]

The Real Climate Blog claims this:
...

Not quite right, Red Baron Farms: The Real Climate Blog claims this:

To put these emissions in perspective, the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year.

The number is wrong for all vegetation. The number may be right for grasslands. Thus it should say this:

To put these emissions in perspective, the amount of carbon taken up by grasslands and scrublands is about 8.5 Pg per year [Beer, et al] or about 2.6 Pg per year for grasslands [citation]

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No, Red Baron Farms, I want the scientific evidence that supports your assertion !
You know - the scientific evidence that you read before making that assertion and formed your informed opinion.

My assertion:

And the best way to both improve the cropland sequestration and the grassland sequestration simultaneously? Convert cropland to pasture and stop feeding cattle with grains.

Evidence:

However, even with manure and crop rotations, conventional cropping systems generally result in a steady decline of soil C. [1][2]

Cropping systems = decline in soil C

In general, where grazing is managed to maintain or increase plant productivity, soil carbon stocks can be maintained or increased [3]

Grazing systems = increase in soil C

The meta analysis indicates that soil C stocks decline after land use changes from pasture to plantation (−10%), native forest to plantation (−13%), native forest to crop (−42%), and pasture to crop (−59%). Soil C stocks increase after land use changes from native forest to pasture (+ 8%), crop to pasture (+ 19%), crop to plantation (+ 18%), and crop to secondary forest (+ 53%). Wherever one of the land use changes decreased soil C, the reverse process usually increased soil carbon and vice versa.[4]

More evidence cropping systems = decline in soil C + evidence converting cropland to pasture = increases soil C.

So simply changing from a grain based system to feed livestock to a pasture based system of raising livestock still produces all the food we need, and increases soil carbon simultaneously.

 

[Reality Check]

So simply changing from a grain based system to feed livestock to a pasture based system of raising livestock still produces all the food we need, and increases soil carbon simultaneously.

At last, Red Baron Farms !
Now the other half of your assertion needs to be supported - that this is relevant to this thread about global warming, i.e. can produce a significant contribution.
Include showing that the increase in livestock numbers that this proposal seems to require will not produce any extra greenhouse gas emissions - whoops by definition it will because cows breathe and fart !

 

[Red Baron Farms]

At last, Red Baron Farms !
Now the other half of your assertion needs to be supported - that this is relevant to this thread about global warming, i.e. can produce a significant contribution.
Include showing that the increase in livestock numbers that this proposal seems to require will not produce any extra greenhouse gas emissions - whoops by definition it will because cows breathe and fart !

Increasing livestock numbers? I never claimed that. I actually don't know that answer. Maybe might require more, but I doubt it. Just changing how the numbers we have now are fed and managed. Now of course if we accidently make our soils too productive and they accidently start producing too much forage, I suppose it is possible more grazers might be needed just to avoid over-resting the land. But really? Is that a problem? I can think of all kinds of deforested areas that could be replanted to help alleviate that potential problem should it arise. And if that isn't enough, I bet increasing the wild herds could also help! Also not so bad a thing after all.

As far as your claim about farts.....it's a red herring. Meaningless. We all breathe and fart, from us humans down to termites and even microbiology in the soil. It's the short carbon cycle. Just the decay process that happens to everything. Irrelevant with regards to the long carbon cycle that is causing AGW. That's because it's source is the carbon that was pulled out of the atmosphere by plants in the first place.

Now is it relevant to AGW? Only relevant if the CO2 hypothesis as the primary driver of AGW is correct. I believe it is correct, thus I believe it is relevant.

 

[macdoc]

As far as your claim about farts.....it's a red herring. Meaningless. We all breathe and fart, from us humans down to termites and even microbiology in the soil. It's the short carbon cycle. Just the decay process that happens to everything. Irrelevant with regards to the long carbon cycle that is causing AGW. That's because it's source is the carbon that was pulled out of the atmosphere by plants in the first place.

Not quite...
Converting the co2 pulled out to methane aka farts..results in a 20 x temporary bounce in warming....it's not long term as it decays out but nevertheless it is a spike on top of existing warming.

It's sort of like saying this building will only flood to the 20th the for 10 years...rather than the second floor forever

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Not quite...
Converting the co2 pulled out to methane aka farts..results in a 20 x temporary bounce in warming....it's not long term as it decays out but nevertheless it is a spike on top of existing warming.

That of course assumes that decaying grass doesn't produce methane unless a cow eats it. False assumption. Turns out no matter how plant material decays in nature, it produces methane. Just because it happens to decay in a cows stomach instead of a termites stomach[1], or just oxidizing standing, or whatever[2]....is not a reason to criticise the poor cow! It has to eat too, and it is not the cows fault it is being improperly raised on grain, short circuiting that part of the carbon cycle into the soil.[3]

Put them back on pasture where they belong and problem solved.

 

[macdoc]

Once more it's a time frame issue. If it stays in the pasture uneaten, most will be sequestered before it decays which is why peat bogs represent such a risk.

http://www.eag.eu.com/about/media/increased-climate-change-risk-from-methane/

a slow decay or a fire....both oxidation...very different time frames and physical phenomena..
One reason several bodies consider methane control easier and more effective than C02.

Picking Lesser of Two Climate Evils - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/.../climate-methane-global-warming.html
Jul 7, 2014 - The idea would be to promise far more aggressive methane control to slow global warming for the benefit of people alive today, along with ...

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Once more it's a time frame issue. If it stays in the pasture uneaten, most will be sequestered before it decays which is why peat bogs represent such a risk.

http://www.eag.eu.com/about/media/increased-climate-change-risk-from-methane/

a slow decay or a fire....both oxidation...very different time frames and physical phenomena..
One reason several bodies consider methane control easier and more effective than C02.

Well certainly methane release from wetlands and permafrost areas pose a risk. After all, that is a different form of longer term methane sequestration that if released all at once could cause a spike. I would agree there. Failing to see what that has to do with upland grasses and soils or cows though?

 

[Reality Check]

Increasing livestock numbers?

You missed "seems to require" .
Farts are not a red herring - the methane from flatulence is a source of greenhouse gases. If I remember correctly there are research projects here in NZ looking at breeding low-methane cattle to reduce this issue.

Your claim that carbon can be sequestered through converting cropland to pasture is only relevant to AGW if it can be sequestered in quantities significant enough to decrease AGW and there are no side-effects that increase AGW (e.g. cow farts). Otherwise it is just the trivial fact that cropland can be converted to pasture.

Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems has a section "Can Grazing Livestock Increase Carbon Storage and Reverse Climate Change?" which concludes

Livestock are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock removal of plant biomass and altering of soil properties by trampling and erosion causes loss of carbon storage and nutrients as evidenced by studies in grazed and ungrazed areas.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems has a section "Can Grazing Livestock Increase Carbon Storage and Reverse Climate Change?" which concludes

Seems to fly in the face of this:[1][2]doesn't it? Wonder who is right?

 

[Reality Check]

Seems to fly in the face of this:[1][2]doesn't it? Wonder who is right?

Well we have Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis (2002) which actually supports converting "crop to secondary forest (+ 53%)" as the best carbon sequestration method .
But more seriously - the abstract does not mention grazing so it is a guess at how much of the "crop to pasture (+ 19%)" is grazed.
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie (PDF) which irrelevant because it does not compare cropland and grassland. It is a comparison of grazing methods with a control of ungrazed land, i.e. what seems grassland to grassland.

Impact on soils and vegetation was compared to ungrazed areas (EX) in two of the counties.

So I will go with the more modern and relevant Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems (2014)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Well we have Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis (2002) which actually supports converting "crop to secondary forest (+ 53%)" as the best carbon sequestration method .

That is an option if cows had 30 foot legs or necks to graze trees instead of grass. Otherwise you are stuck with feeding them grains. Which of course means it will "generally result in a steady decline of soil C" on the cropland, and not leave much cropland to convert to forest. I guess for you it's back to the deforestation and degradation of soils model we have now.

But more seriously - the abstract does not mention grazing so it is a guess at how much of the "crop to pasture (+ 19%)" is grazed.
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie (PDF) which irrelevant because it does not compare cropland and grassland. It is a comparison of grazing methods with a control of ungrazed land, i.e. what seems grassland to grassland.

It's true. But of course when comparing the grazed to fallow, grazed out produces the fallow in both food produced and carbon sequestered. So we are talking about 19% or possibly more...... certainly far superior to the steady decline found in cropland. Of course there are exceptions to cropland degradation. Thing is that the exceptions generally also involve grazing. Like this: Why pasture cropping is such a big deal

So I will go with the more modern and relevant Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems (2014)

Far from modern. Mostly just a compilation of old failed scientific dogma, most of which is why we have problems like environmental degradation contributing to AGW in the first place. But hey, it's acceptable. Not everyone is able to think in new creative ways to solve old problems.

 

[macdoc]

Failing to see what that has to do with upland grasses and soils or cows though

obviously - you seem not to understand timing of release of a powerful GHG from a cow's stomach versus slow decay/sequester in a pasture are very different in near term effects on the atmosphere and subsequent trapping.
One reason kangaroo use as a meat animal would be beneficial.

Now would one of you nice gentleman request this entire sequence be moved to Biome Carbon Cycle Management which was set up for it.
Seems this ground has been tilled before.