Biome carbon cycle management

[Trakar]

A very large part of the carbon footprint for food tho is transportation and what Cuba did was intense composting as well to maintain fertility.

There is certainly abundant composting material in any city and many cities have the resulting compost for free.

The big gain is not having to transport.....fertility is easier.

Cuba turned 1 calorie of food needing 12 calories of fossil fuel to produce and transport to completely inverted.

12 calories of food per calorie of fossil fuel.

They almost starved doing so but that's thanks to idiotic policies by the US.

There are villages in China that have been really closed cycle for thousands of years and feed thousands with fish ponds and careful management of the nutrient chains to maximize re-use.

Some practices not acceptable by wimpy westerners.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6945e/x6945e09.htm

and extending further


more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics

The majority of our family (and guests) consumables are produced in our own tiered aquaponics system (as opposed to a fully integrated aquaponics system). This utilizes a monitored and managed flow system through the tanks, ponds and greenhouses and then out into the open gardens and the grazing/forage/fuel fields.

For a while, our largest footprint was due to the equipment required to work our fields and harvest the crops. about 5 years ago we managed to convert all the various vehicles to biodiesel and have begun to transition to electrical/battery systems but currently these have to be custom built as there are no reasonable alternatives among the major manufacturers.

To be sure, we are still amending and adjusting our soils with some hydrocarbon derived fertilizers and pesticides, but the amounts of such that we use continue to decline each year as we improve our practices and understandings. The first few years we were using typical amounts for operations our size in this area which amounted to several 750 gallon buffalo tanks volume of materials per year. Last year we used less than 10, 50 lb. bags of Ammonium nitrate/sulfate and 2-3 5-gallon containers of pesticide concentrates. I'm sure that our earlier usage was as much a factor of taking a few years to get depleted soils up to good standards as it was learning good sustainable production practices.

Last year was the first year that we released as much clean (drinkable) water from our property as we harvested from the surrounding environment. We're hoping to maintain this practice, but there are concerns considering that we have the makings of a severe drought starting here in the SE Oregon region this year.

 

[macdoc]

Hey that's very cool - congrats.....

take your breath away .....what we risk not getting this challenge resolved

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQiszdkOwuU

 

[!Kaggen]

A new paper looks for the first time at the reaction of free-living nitrogen-fixing microorganisms called diazotrophs to the conversion of rainforests to pastureland in the Amazon. Researchers found big changes to the diazotroph communities that they say may reduce the region's ability to act as a reservoir for greenhouse gas.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140107170915.htm

 

[macdoc]

a dash of cold water on Dyson's day dreams...

Land-based carbon offsets: False hope? Forest and soil carbon is important, but does not offset fossil fuel emissions
Date:
May 30, 2013
Source:
Griffith University
Summary:
Leading world climate change experts have thrown cold water on the idea that planting trees can offset carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Land carbon sinks cannot solve the problem of atmospheric carbon emissions but they legitimize the ongoing use of fossil fuels.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530095020.htm

 

[Red Baron Farms]

a dash of cold water on Dyson's day dreams...



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530095020.htm

I see this a lot. Forests when viewed long term are nearly carbon neutral. This has been known a very long time.

There can be a short term benefit or a short term negative associated with forests land use changes, but not enough to make much difference either way. It is more of a moderating effect smoothing out highs and lows but long term nearly net zero. Young forests sequester carbon and mature forests release it by either fire or decomposition. This is because the sink is primarily in the wood, not the soil. The carbon in the soil of forests is created top down and because of this relatively shallow decomposition of the majority of the carbon, the majority is released into the atmosphere.

Long term there are 2 sinks large enough to make significant mitigation. Oceans and grassland soils. The oceans are already seriously overburdened, becoming acidic and as far as I know, no management proposals have been proposed that significantly change the rate they sequester carbon.

Grassland soils on the other hand are a huge untapped mitigation sink that human management can dramatically affect. In fact we have affected that sink already, negatively, with agriculture. Agricultural lands are already being managed. The sink itself is large enough to sequester all FF emissions. The main question is the rate.

I am this year for the first year participating in the Oklahoma Carbon Program. They sent me 3 files. Seeded grasslands, no till croplands, and soil sampling protocol for verification. According to them, seeded grasslands sequester between .11 to 3.04 MG C /ha/yr, mean .54 MG C/ha/yr, with intense management exceeding this standard. The program pays for carbon offsets based on verified carbon sequestration of .4 -1.0 metric tons/acre/year. (ETA The No Till with continuous cover sequestration numbers are: .2-.4 dryland and .8 irrigated)

One major confounding factor is soil type. Here in Oklahoma alone we have 18 major soil types! So it is real hard to get estimates. I have tried and tried to find data that takes into account all the major factors like soil type, climate and rainfall averages, vegetation types, length of growing season, etc etc etc.... I simply haven't found enough good reliable comprehensive data to make good worldwide estimates. Links like the one you posted are useless because they are not measuring or even considering the potential of grassland management.

There is about 5 billion ha +/- land used for agriculture worldwide. The vast majority of which is currently either an emissions source or nearly carbon neutral. Converting that to a carbon sink by improved management has huge potential.

The gross and net emissions are 8 and 2.5 petagrams per year +/- respectively. That means the agricultural soils would need to sequester 1.6 tons/ha/yr to offset gross emissions and .5 tons/ha/yr to offset net emissions. If the Oklahoma Carbon Program is anything even close to a worldwide average, those numbers are achievable at least for a significant % of the net, if not total gross.

 

[macdoc]

hehe- got deal with the ick factor to get the recycle working...

Is "Peecycling" the Next Wave in Sustainable Living?
Human waste can be converted into valuable fertilizer, if people can get past the "ick" factor.
Seth True, of Best Septic, pumps from a 275 gallon tank. A family of three can fill a tank this size in eight months
Seth True pumps urine from a 275 gallon tank for transfer to the farm.

PHOTOGRAPH BY ABE NOE-HAYS, RICH EARTH INSTITUTE

Samantha Larson
for National Geographic
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 2, 2014

The Rich Earth Institute in Brattleboro, Vermont, aims to shift how we think about our own waste. They want to "close the nutrient cycle" by using our pee to grow what we next consume.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...cycling-urine-human-waste-compost-fertilizer/

 

[macdoc]

Interesting bit of negative feedback ....

For the first time, scientists have discovered how tree roots in the mountains may play an important role in controlling long-term global temperatures.

Researchers from Oxford and Sheffield Universities have found that temperatures affect the thickness of the leaf litter and organic soil layers, as well as the rate at which the tree roots grow. In a warmer world, this means that tree roots are more likely to grow into the mineral layer of the soil, breaking down rock into component parts which will eventually combine with carbon dioxide. This process, called weathering, draws carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and cools the planet. The researchers say this theory suggests that mountainous ecosystems have acted like Earth's thermostat, addressing the risk of 'catastrophic' overheating or cooling over millions of years

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140205210436.htm

Cure Lovelock

 

[!Kaggen]

In the first study of its kind, research has cast significant doubt over the use of biochar to alleviate climate change. Biochar is produced when wood is combusted at high temperatures to make bio-oil and has been proposed as a method of geoengineering. When buried in the soil, this carbon rich substance could potentially lock-up carbon and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The global potential of biochar is considered to be large, with up to 12 percent of emissions reduced by biochar soil application

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331083740.htm

 

[r-j]

I think you meant "Cue Lovelock"

 

[!Kaggen]

The ability of forests to sequester carbon from the atmosphere depends on nutrients available in the forest soils, shows new research from an international team of researchers. "This paper produces the first evidence that to really understand the carbon cycle, you have to look into issues of nutrient cycling within the soil," said one of the researchers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140414101158.htm

 

[Trakar]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140414101158.htm

This study also presumes that moisture levels remain constant and favorably within historic ranges, which is one of the big problems moving forward. Too much moisture and important minerals and nutrients are leeched from the upper growth areas. Two little moisture and the plants can't grow enough to securely lock-up and hold onto the upper growth area soils which are either blown away or eroded by sporadic and irregular storm systems.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This study also presumes that moisture levels remain constant and favorably within historic ranges, which is one of the big problems moving forward. Too much moisture and important minerals and nutrients are leeched from the upper growth areas. Two little moisture and the plants can't grow enough to securely lock-up and hold onto the upper growth area soils which are either blown away or eroded by sporadic and irregular storm systems.

It also makes the same flaw most studies make when calculating carbon sequestration from plants. They are using above ground biomass ... ie wood ... for their calculations. As a general rule forests return most their carbon to the atmosphere. They can be seen as Carbon neutral long term in most cases. They can sequester a little for a while, but nothing compared to a grassland in either quantity or duration. That's why typically a forest is associated with Alfisols, Ultisols and Alisols etc, while grasslands can rapidly form Mollisols with a far deeper A horizon. ... ie many tons of sequestered carbon. It is the almost complete destruction of this biome due to agricultural mismanagement that is a major component of the problems with the current carbon cycle we are witnessing.

ETA I already mentioned this in post #45

 

[macdoc]

More questions than answers

No-till soil organic carbon sequestration rates published
Date:
April 18, 2014
Source:
University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES)
Summary:
For the past 20 years, researchers have published soil organic carbon sequestration rates. Many of the research findings have suggested that soil organic carbon can be sequestered by simply switching from moldboard or conventional tillage systems to no-till systems. However, there is a growing body of research with evidence that no-till systems in corn and soybean rotations without cover crops, small grains, and forages may not be increasing soil organic carbon stocks at the published rates.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140418161344.htm

 

[Red Baron Farms]

More questions than answers

No-till soil organic carbon sequestration rates published
Date:
April 18, 2014
Source:
University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES)
Summary:
For the past 20 years, researchers have published soil organic carbon sequestration rates. Many of the research findings have suggested that soil organic carbon can be sequestered by simply switching from moldboard or conventional tillage systems to no-till systems. However, there is a growing body of research with evidence that no-till systems in corn and soybean rotations without cover crops, small grains, and forages may not be increasing soil organic carbon stocks at the published rates.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140418161344.htm

What questions do you have? I'll be happy to explain in laymen's terms for you best I can.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That is because cropland is not anything to do with hurricanes.
Cropland is not currently "Maybe the single greatest factor besides emissions".
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
The Cenozoic expansion of grasslands did not happen today !

The large scale conversion of forests to grasslands in modern times could have an similar effect on climate.There is no "glossing over" the concerns with soil quality, e.g. see Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil?

Of course, if the primary reason was to sequester carbon then we should forget about grassland - tropical rainforest and peatlands would be the areas to expand.

As usual you put the CAFO system with its King Corn as the sacred cow that can't be touched and base your arguments on converting forest to grassland.

The real sacred cow that shouldn't be touched is the tropical rainforests. Run your numbers converting corn and soy fields (that used to be the great prairies and savannas of the world) to pasture instead of converting rain forest to pasture and see what you get......

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped irrelevant rant...

I stated an opinion based on the science you provided, Red Baron Farms:
Your cited science: Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
The fact: large scale conversion of forests to grasslands, e.g. in South America (McDonalds anyone )
My opinion: The large scale conversion of forests to grasslands in modern times could have an similar effect on climate.

Your cited science in Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

Nevertheless, grasslands are not as impressive in biomass as tropical rain forests, nor in soil C content as high-latitude peats (Hall et al. 2000).

Thus:
Of course, if the primary reason was to sequester carbon then we should forget about grassland - tropical rainforest and peatlands would be the areas to expand. This is obvious to anyone who has seen a tree or peat. That would be the conversion of grassland to forest and peat, not the reverse.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I stated an based on the science you provided, Red Baron Farms:
Your cited science: Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
The fact: large scale conversion of forests to grasslands, e.g. in South America (McDonalds anyone )
My opinion: The large scale conversion of forests to grasslands in modern times could have an similar effect on climate.

Your cited science in Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

Thus:
Of course, if the primary reason was to sequester carbon then we should forget about grassland - tropical rainforest and peatlands would be the areas to expand. This is obvious to anyone who has seen a tree or peat. That would be the conversion of grassland to forest and peat, not the reverse.

You are playing both sides of the field, and quoting out of context. First the context error. You quoted

Nevertheless, grasslands are not as impressive in biomass as tropical rain forests, nor in soil C content as high-latitude peats (Hall et al. 2000).

But you missed this:

The C perturbation created by newly evolved
grasslands is best considered in comparison with
the dry woodlands that they replaced (figs. 4, 6). An
appropriate modern comparison is between grassland
and woodland vegetation of similar climatic
belts. Grasslands have only about one-sixth the biomass
of woodlands, but the biomass is dwarfed by an order of magnitude more C in grassland soils.

More precisely you are mixing up the coevolution of grasses and grazers and the effect that had on global climate, with biomimicry of those well evolved biomes, which we humans largely destroyed and replaced with agriculture, but potentially could restore by changing agriculture. Try not to mix up your temporal frame of references here.

The paper shows that the coevolution of grazers/grasslands of the world changed the climate.

Unidirectional, stepwise, long-term climatic cooling, drying, and climatic instability may have been driven not by tectonic forcing but by the coevolution of grasses and grazers.

Now that was then. This is now. Instead of taking millions of years to evolve a biome capable of cooling the planet, we have the opportunity to use biomimcry and cool the planet as fast as we can get our livestock out of the CAFOs and back on pasture where they belong, restoring the ecosystem services it provides. But should we destroy our diminished forests to do that? Absolutely not. We should do it by restoring our prairies and savannas that are currently being used to grow grain for those same livestock! We can also restore desertified land that deteriorated when we extirpated the vast herds of wild herbivores.

This way we kill two birds with one stone. We actually increase human food production, and at the same time counter the problem of AGW. The problem at hand isn't glaciation, it is emissions potentially causing runaway warming. We could stand to use a little climatic cooling forcing about now. Sure would make the problem of AGW a lot more manageable.

 

[Reality Check]

You are playing both sides of the field, ...

Wrong, Red Baron Farms, I cited the science you presented (Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling) and stated my opinion that it could be applied to today. This is one side of the field - in fact your side!
Thus:

Your cited science: Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
The fact: large scale conversion of forests to grasslands, e.g. in South America.
My opinion: The large scale conversion of forests to grasslands in modern times could have an similar effect on climate.
​

Then I quoted their statement about grasslands versus tropical rainforest and peatlands,

Nevertheless, grasslands are not as impressive in biomass as tropical rain forests, nor in soil C content as high-latitude peats (Hall et al. 2000).

not dry woodlands.
Thus my statement is about tropical rainforest and peatlands:

Of course, if the primary reason was to sequester carbon then we should forget about grassland - tropical rainforest and peatlands would be the areas to expand. This is obvious to anyone who has seen a tree or peat. That would be the conversion of grassland to forest and peat, not the reverse.​

not dry woodlands.
Even more precisely I do not mention at all "the coevolution of grasses and grazers and the effect that had on global climate". What I do is cite the paper you cited, Red Baron Farms !

The paper shows that the Expansion of Grasslands in the Cenozoic of the world changed the climate of the Cenozoic . The paper cites the evidence for the co-evolution of grazers ands grasslands.

We have the opportunity today to sequester an unknown but generally stated to be small percentage (e.g. 10%) of the excess C we produce in soils. That will not really "counter the problem of AGW" but will reduce the problem a little bit.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

WOW That post is really really out there. Hard to believe you even read the same study as me. But let me focus you a bit.

Wrong, Red Baron Farms, I cited the science you presented (Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling) and stated my opinion that it could be applied to today.

<snip>

Thus my statement is about tropical rainforest and peatlands:

Of course, if the primary reason was to sequester carbon then we should forget about grassland - tropical rainforest and peatlands would be the areas to expand. This is obvious to anyone who has seen a tree or peat. That would be the conversion of grassland to forest and peat, not the reverse.​

<snip>

We have the opportunity today to sequester an unknown but generally stated to be small percentage (e.g. 10%) of the excess C we produce in soils. That will not really "counter the problem of AGW" but will reduce the problem a little bit.

So you claim maybe 10% reduction +/-. But you quoted out of context. You missed from the same study right after your quote, "Grasslands have only about one-sixth the biomass of woodlands, but the biomass is dwarfed by an order of magnitude more C in grassland soils."

Your conclusions are likewise skewed for this reason. Don't feel bad. You are not the only one to miss it. Most the calculations that give ridiculously small numbers to the potential C sequestration in grassland soils also are an order of magnitude off. The soil, especially the grassland soils, are many times larger a carbon sink, and for potentially much longer, than any short term sequestration in biomass. In fact the sink is much larger than all the C in the atmosphere. The only trick is the rate of sequestration. With conventional Ag the rate is actually negative. In other words conventional Ag is an emissions source. But we farmers can do far better than that. 1 ton per acre per year is pretty conservative if you know what you are doing, and all you need to average is ~ 1/4 ton +/- per acre per year improvement over whatever current agricultural system is in use to offset net yearly C emissions. I believe that is doable based on anecdotal evidence. Need more published and peer reviewed studies on a wider range of agricultural soils and regions to be sure though.

 

[Reality Check]

WOW ...snipped another irrelevant derail...

Yes WOW, Red Baron Farms: The English is quite simple. From the paper:

Nevertheless, grasslands are not as impressive in biomass as tropical rain forests, nor in soil C content as high-latitude peats (Hall et al. 2000).

My statement about forests and peat as in that quote:

Of course, if the primary reason was to sequester carbon then we should forget about grassland - tropical rainforest and peatlands would be the areas to expand.

My claim of 10% has nothing to do with the paper, Red Baron Farms:

We have the opportunity today to sequester an unknown but generally stated to be small percentage (e.g. 10%) of the excess C we produce in soils. That will not really "counter the problem of AGW" but will reduce the problem a little bit

It is to do with the stated opinions of soil scientists. This is science, not speculations or anecdotes about grasslands magically sequestering enough C to get rid of our emissions.