Biome carbon cycle management

[ThunderChunky]

Basically in summary, the forest did oxidize CH4 6 times faster than the cropland, but that was still only 20% of the grazed savanna biome. Quite the difference don't you think? Or am I reading it incorrectly? I can't get past the paywall.

I'm reading it the other way, the soil from the rough grazed grassland had 20% the activity of the woodland.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm reading it the other way, the soil from the rough grazed grassland had 20% the activity of the woodland.

hmmm I reread it again, I think you are wrong, but the wording is awkward. I need to make some time and get to the library so I can get past the paywall to the actual data and see which is right.

 

[Trakar]

hmmm I reread it again, I think you are wrong, but the wording is awkward. I need to make some time and get to the library so I can get past the paywall to the actual data and see which is right.

Here is a similar paper by the same researcher:

"Methane oxidation in soil as affected by land use and different tillage systems" -

Summary
The effect of land use and different soil tillage systems on CH4 oxidation was tested in a laboratory incubation study. Intact soil cores were collected from the topsoil (0-12 cm) of a field site with ploughed, direct-drilled and set aside treatments, and from an adjacent undisturbed forest site. Methane oxidation rates were 4.5 to 11times higher in the direct-drilled than in the continuously ploughed treatment, the set aside soil was intermediate. The oxidation rates in the forest soil were 11times the highest rate measured in the field, pointing to a distinct land use effect. Vertical profiles of CH4 oxidation activity revealed a very clear zonation in all treatments. Methane oxidation increased significantly below the plough layer (0-25 cm), and showed a subsurface maximum under direct-drilling (5-15 cm) and under forest (5-10 cm). The vertical zonation under set aside was comparable to that under ploughing.

Not sure if it is open source or not, but I have a copy of this paper and have contacted him to request copies of several other papers he has written including the one you are interested in. I let you know when I get them and if you'd like I can forward copies to you.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Here is a similar paper by the same researcher:

"Methane oxidation in soil as affected by land use and different tillage systems" -



Not sure if it is open source or not, but I have a copy of this paper and have contacted him to request copies of several other papers he has written including the one you are interested in. I let you know when I get them and if you'd like I can forward copies to you.

Thanks

 

[Red Baron Farms]

big potential

Finally a GMO crop I can get behind if it produces as claimed.

A new type of rice produces more food and cuts methane emissions

Still a few questions I have, but it appears as if this could be a real breakthrough. Especially good if it works in this type production method: SRI

One is a method, the other genetics, but I see no reason why the improved genetic strain can't be grown with the improved methodology. Really curious if the benefits would be additive? geometric would be almost a dream! I would settle for better but diminishing. Either way rice is the most grown grain for human consumption. 2nd overall. A big benefit to AGW to make these changes for sure!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Posting this here as a placeholder. This method I designed myself, and the experiment was cobbled together after a very long review process from the scientists at Experiment.com.

What is the rate a new regenerative agricultural method sequesters carbon in the soil?

I have a pretty good idea what the results will be should this trial get funded. But in the end rather than debating endlessly about what we should be able to do, it will be much better to actually have results that can be used as evidence.

The more evidence we can get from diverse sources, the better.

 

[Reality Check]

What is the rate a new regenerative agricultural method sequesters carbon in the soil?

The web page asks "If we change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production, can we reverse global warming?" which shows that research has not been done. This has been answered by the existing climate literature. Research has shown that changing agricultural methods can only mitigate global warming, not reverse it. Other methods such as reducing CO2 emissions have a more significant impact on global warming.

Carbon Sequestration - Agriculture

Modification of agricultural practices is a recognized method of carbon sequestration as soil can act as an effective carbon sink offsetting as much as 20% of 2010 carbon dioxide emissions annually.[30] (See No-till).

You are "introducing a new organic no till methodology with perennial ground cover" with carbon sequestration levels that are likely to be similar to the existing no till methodology.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The web page asks "If we change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production, can we reverse global warming?" which shows that research has not been done. This has been answered by the existing climate literature. Research has shown that changing agricultural methods can only mitigate global warming, not reverse it. Other methods such as reducing CO2 emissions have a more significant impact on global warming.

Carbon Sequestration - Agriculture

You are "introducing a new organic no till methodology with perennial ground cover" with carbon sequestration levels that are likely to be similar to the existing no till methodology.

We will see, wont we RC? You have been incessantly lowballing this from the get go. Endless pages of reasons you think it cant work, ignoring evidence it already has worked several places around the world with various changes in management.

When this gets funded, and the tests come in, we will see who was right all along.......... With evidence, rather than speculation.

 

[Reality Check]

We will see, wont we RC? You have been incessantly lowballing this from the get go...

I have not been lowballing. The available science says that no till would sequester at most 20% of carbon emissions. URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-till_farming#Greenhouse_gases"]No Till - greenhouse gases[/URL] describes the mixed results of studies of no till systems and soil organic carbon.

I have not being ignoring the evidence. You have not supplied any evidence that that changes of farming methods have the ability to sequester 100% of carbon emissions. Even common sense suggests that this is dubious. If farming could do that then climate scientists would advocate it rather than reduction of carbon emissions! The reality is that reducing emissions will have a major impact on global warming and changing farming to increase soil organic carbon will be a valuable contribution.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You have not supplied any evidence that that changes of farming methods have the ability to sequester 100% of carbon emissions.

Don't strawman me. I said the evidence supports the idea that on average 8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr sequestered into the soil on 100% of all agricultural land could offset current emissions. I also stated the best evidence for soil sequestration using the best regenerative ag methods is on average 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.... There are a few outliers higher than that, but it is a documented average for the best methods tried so far in optimized LCP sequestration. Standard BMP no-till is much lower than that. 1-2 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr being closer to what standard no-till is capable of in optimum conditions.

There is no evidence yet at all for vegetable production, not higher nor lower, just not tried at all. And this is why I made the hypothesis and am seeking funding for the study. It will fill a gap in the evidence. The results will speak for themselves in this case.

However, even if the results do exceed the 8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr, the acreage in vegetable production worldwide is pretty small compared to commodity crops. So of course this experiment couldn't do anything more than show one more small gap being filled. Fill enough gaps and your spurious arguments will no longer have a leg to stand on.

You comment about "likely to be similar to the existing no till methodology." just shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Good or bad, this is highly UNLIKELY to be anywhere near the same as standard BMP no till. But whether likely or unlikely, time will tell, won't it?

 

[Reality Check]

Don't strawman me. ...

Ditto. I was not writing about what you assert. I am talking about actual evidence published in scientific journals, etc.

If "8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr sequestered into the soil on 100% of all agricultural land could offset current emissions" then where is your evidence (not repeated, unsupported assertions) that this can be done. Cite the literature that has your numbers in it. What paper(s) state "on average 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr"?
Supporting "1-2 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr " for standard no-till would also be good.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Ditto. I was not writing about what you assert. I am talking about actual evidence published in scientific journals, etc.

If "8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr sequestered into the soil on 100% of all agricultural land could offset current emissions" then where is your evidence (not repeated, unsupported assertions) that this can be done. Cite the literature that has your numbers in it. What paper(s) state "on average 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr"?
Supporting "1-2 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr " for standard no-till would also be good.

I have already given you plenty of studies/trials on various types of agricultural systems that meet or exceed those numbers already. My study will supply evidence that one more system (the one I developed myself) is also capable, or not, depending on the results of the study. How difficult is that for you to understand? I have shown the math to you multiple times too.

As for standard no-till:https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/21468/PDF
"We found that the implementation of continuous no-till on farms previously using rotational or intermittent tillage resulted in the sequestration of 0.308 +/- 0.280 Mg C/ ha/ yr"

One ton of carbon equals 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide.
1 tonne = 1 Mg

So to convert the above results to the same notation....

0.308 x 3.67 = 1.13
0.280 x 3.67 = 1.02

Thus the above can be converted to: We found that the implementation of continuous no-till on farms previously using rotational or intermittent tillage resulted in the sequestration of 1.13 +/- 1.02 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr ie .11-2.15 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr

If you dig a bit deeper you'll find the better results come from using cover crops between cropping seasons, and the lower results tend to come from farmers who have non-vegetative fallow periods. Which makes perfect sense due to the lack of green leaves producing photosynthesis when the crop is finished and harvested.

But RC there are hundreds if not thousands of sources for these sorts of numbers. Why do you pretend to have any knowledge whatsoever about the subject when any idiot can google results like these? It's not some mysterious big secret.

However, regenerative ag works entirely differently. There is a whole separate biochemical pathway. I have explained that to you multiple times as well. That evidence is certainly a bit harder to find, since it is less used methodology. But I also did that work for you many times over the years I have been posting here.

At this point I am even wondering why you bother trolling my posts with your denialism any more? It certainly doesn't have anything to do with skepticism anymore. So what exactly is it?

 

[Reality Check]

I have already given you plenty of studies/trials on various types of agricultural systems that meet or exceed those numbers already.....

Unfortunately that is a lie. You have never produced any studies or trials that exceed the 20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr you quote as "on average 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr".

You even mislead Skeptical Science in this interview A Skeptical Science member's path to an experiment on carbon sequestration in 20 October 2020.

It has already gone under rigorous soil carbon testing by Dr. Christine Jones too, in ten year trials. The results can be found here: Liquid carbon pathway unrecognized [PDF reprint of Australian Farm Journal article]

Liquid carbon pathway unrecognized is not a paper of the results of studies carried out by Dr. Christine Jones. Amazingly it is about her opinion about the liquid carbon pathway! Jones states with no supporting evidence as we have been through before.

Under appropriate conditions, 30-40% of the carbon fixed in green leaves can be transferred to soil and rapidly humified, resulting in rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of 5-20 tonnes of CO2 per
hectare per year.

What are those "appropriate conditions"? Who measured that 30-40% value? Is it anything at all to do with no-till farming?

Basic scholarship Red Baron Farms. It is the person making the claims that has to support them. I already know as I told you that standard no-till could not stop global warming. Wikipedia saying at best 20% of the needed level of carbon sequestration suggests something on the order of 1 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr or less.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Unfortunately that is a lie. You have never produced any studies or trials that exceed the 20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr you quote as "on average 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr".

You even mislead Skeptical Science in this interview A Skeptical Science member's path to an experiment on carbon sequestration in 20 October 2020.

Liquid carbon pathway unrecognized is not a paper of the results of studies carried out by Dr. Christine Jones. Amazingly it is about her opinion about the liquid carbon pathway! Jones states with no supporting evidence as we have been through before.

What are those "appropriate conditions"? Who measured that 30-40% value? Is it anything at all to do with no-till farming?

Basic scholarship Red Baron Farms. It is the person making the claims that has to support them. I already know as I told you that standard no-till could not stop global warming. Wikipedia saying at best 20% of the needed level of carbon sequestration suggests something on the order of 1 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr or less.

Enough is enough RC. I am getting real sick of your petty bickering and personal attacks.

You can think what ever hardheaded living in denial ignorance you wish, but I have been honest though all our discussions....always.

Here is the exact quote including a link.

Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
By Christine Jones, Australian Farm Journal

Under appropriate conditions, 30-40% of the carbon fixed in green leaves can be transferred to soil and
rapidly humified, resulting in rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of 5-20 tonnes of CO2 per
hectare per year.

Furthermore here is Christine Jones CV proving she is indeed a PhD scientist who was working for CISRO at the time. (The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research and well respected world wide)

Christine Jones - short CV

And here is another discussion at another popular academic journal about the trials she ran.

Pasture Cropping: A Regenerative Solution from Down Under
Volume 4 | Issue 1 | Page 69-75 | January 2013
By Courtney White

• conversion to native grassland with over 50 species of grass, forbs, and herbs
• savings around $60,000 annually in decreased inputs
• increased profits from improved sheep-carrying capacity, wool quality, and wool quantity
• crop yields from pasture cropping comparable to yields from conventional cropping with 20-year oat yields averaging 2.5 tons per hectare
• no insect attacks or fungal diseases in crops or pasture
• increases in bird and native animal numbers and species diversity
• big improvement in soil health, soil structure, and water-holding capacity
• significantly higher counts of fungi and bacteria in soil, evident in microbial counts
• average of 150 percent increase in all soil nutrients
• 203 percent increase in soil organic carbon

And here it shows that well over 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr is possible. 5 to 20 is just an average, not an outlier.

Carbon that counts
Christine Jones, PhD

In the last 10 years the LHS soil has sequestered 164 t/ha of CO2 (44.7 tC/ha). The sequestration rate in the last two years (2008-2010) has been 33 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year (9 tC/ha/yr).

A scientist working for a well respected science research organization did the trials. This is not a lie, it is your unfounded grudge because you simply cant admit you are wrong. Screw your grudge. This is the way it is done in agriculture, because the audience for the research is a farmer, and not a physicist or chemist. This is not the place for your unscientific attacks. It certainly is not the place for you to call me a liar! Get over it and move on to a subject you are not so ignorant about.

As for your questions about is pasture cropping even no-till? Come on man.

If you are so insistent about poisoning the well with your endless tirades and ad hominem attacks, then direct you comments to Dr Christine Jones. I am sure she will get a chuckle over it. She is one of the most respected soil researchers in the world, currently making the lecture circuits, and in very high demand. And it is the proper way to address any topic in this forum. Do NOT call me a liar!

Oh and By The Way, There is another scientist I know of who has beat 20 tonnes CO2e/ha/year, Dr David Johnson. Here is some information regarding his work.
Why Not Soil Carbon?
Atmospheric CO2 Reduction in Soils of AgroecosystemsA Logical, Practical and Economical Solution!

You going to call him a liar too? Just like you called damn near every scientist who found results higher than your ignorance could accept? This is not Skepticism RC. It's just sad.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

RC,
It took some digging but I think I found a formal published data set, including methods scope and results in a form you sought of at least one set of trials that were backing Dr Christine Jones claims.

The role of grazing management in the functioning of pasture ecosystems

 

[Red Baron Farms]

My science trials were successfully funded. We are a go starting next years growing season.

What is the rate a new regenerative agricultural method sequesters carbon in the soil?

It has been assigned a DOI: 10.18258/15503 but it is not active yet.

Thanks for all the support. This one will run!

 

[Puppycow]

Regenerative Agriculture

I like this guy's videos, and this one is on topic.

Renewable technologies are moving us towards a low carbon future, but sadly we've ignored scientists' warnings for so long that just reducing our carbon dioxide emissions will no longer be enough to prevent dangerous levels of planetary warming. The only way to do that is to draw CO2 back out of the atmosphere, and a growing number of ecologists and land managers are turning to regenerative agriculture as the fastest way to achieve that goal.
ADDENDUM
The video suggests that John D Liu achieved widespread regeneration of thousands of hectares of land around the world. In fact, while Mr. Liu has been a tireless campaigner for, and advocate of, these practices, his role has been mainly to document them on film. Please see this link to his biog.

He mentions this film as well:

This 60-minute documentary features innovative farmers and soil health experts from throughout the U.S. Accompanying lesson plans for college and high school students will can also be found on this site. "Living Soil" was directed by Chelsea Myers and Tiny Attic Productions based in Columbia, Missouri, and produced by the Soil Health Institute through the generous support of The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Regenerative Agriculture

I like this guy's videos, and this one is on topic.





He mentions this film as well:

Thanks for that!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Regenerative Agriculture

I like this guy's videos, and this one is on topic.





He mentions this film as well:

Thanks for that! I have seen the second link before! But that first one almost sounds like rewording exactly what I have been discussing on this forum for years!

Talk about confirmation bias!

 

[Puppycow]

Thanks for that! I have seen the second link before! But that first one almost sounds like rewording exactly what I have been discussing on this forum for years!

Talk about confirmation bias!

Well he seems to be a very reasonable guy. I would also recommend his Youtube channel, where he discusses topics related to the climate and sustainable energy.

https://www.youtube.com/c/JustHaveaThink/videos

I recently also watched a video he did on vertical farming. Probably not on topic for this thread, but I thought it was a fascinating subject. Vertical farms don't rely on soil at all. However, currently the crops they can produce seem to be mostly leafy greens, although they claim to be able to produce other kinds of crops in the future. Some companies claim to be able to produce as much on a 2-acre vertical farm as a 720-acre traditional farm.