Polyfaces the movie

[Red Baron Farms]

I have not seen the movie yet. All I can go by is the trailers. And just so everyone knows, I am a huge fan of Joel Salatin. In principle I support him 100%. But watching this trailer, it seems he is challenging people to refute him and what appears to be an exaggerated statement. Anyone seen the movie?

Here is a couple trailers.

https://vimeo.com/189494582

https://vimeo.com/125404937

Again I support any and all farmers making these types of changes in agriculture and I have been focusing all my efforts in this line of research. But this surpasses even the best case scenarios I have put pen to paper by a lot.

 

[marplots]

I'd watch the movie. Based on the trailer it looks like a strong case for the power of belief to transform grueling menial labor into enthusiastic patriotism.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'd watch the movie. Based on the trailer it looks like a strong case for the power of belief to transform grueling menial labor into enthusiastic patriotism.

Always love your pith marplots, but doesn't really fit the definition of menial at all, being both varied and skilled. oh and BTW well paid too, seeing as how after years of poverty he cracked the code and now has the farm earning 7 figures annually.

But none of that really is why I posted on a skeptics forum. The claim I am skeptical about is the 10 years to sequester all the CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age claim.

I generally take some flak already by pointing out many case studies at USDA and CSIRO where 5 to 20 t-CO2/ha/yr can be sequestered long term into the soil via the LCP. But even at that rate it takes a few decades and worldwide, not just US. So that claim sent me back a few steps.

 

[marplots]

Always love your pith marplots, but doesn't really fit the definition of menial at all, being both varied and skilled. oh and BTW well paid too, seeing as how after years of poverty he cracked the code and now has the farm earning 7 figures annually.

That's how I'd do the documentary. Make it about getting rich. (Assuming there's a reasonable net behind that gross and without accounting tricks like not paying family members or fudging appreciation for the land.)

As far as the menial labor goes, I didn't see anyone actually working in the clips. I did notice the eggs they were gathering were amazingly clean (instead of the usual daubing of chicken poo), so I assumed the rest of the footage had been similarly "managed."

But none of that really is why I posted on a skeptics forum. The claim I am skeptical about is the 10 years to sequester all the CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age claim.

I generally take some flak already by pointing out many case studies at USDA and CSIRO where 5 to 20 t-CO2/ha/yr can be sequestered long term into the soil via the LCP. But even at that rate it takes a few decades and worldwide, not just US. So that claim sent me back a few steps.

It does seem extreme. Do these people actually support the claims they make or is it all anecdotal all the way down? My suspicions are always aroused when someone says they did some amazing thing and "scientists don't want to investigate."

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It does seem extreme. Do these people actually support the claims they make or is it all anecdotal all the way down? My suspicions are always aroused when someone says they did some amazing thing and "scientists don't want to investigate."

I do know he monitors pretty extensively, and keeps pretty extensive records. That's actually how he cracked the profitability code BTW. He not only monitors the land itself, and the animals, he does labor analysis, productivity worksheets etc... And I do know he does have the scientists at the local land grant university out to do tests too, soil samples, sends them product for nutritional analysis etc.... things like that.

But I never saw any real case study type of information from him. Doesn't mean it wasn't done, I just never saw it published anywhere. (and I have looked pretty hard) I even have corresponded with him a little, but he is pretty hard to contact directly.

 

[phunk]

If it sequesters carbon that fast, what happens *after* the 10 years? Snowball Earth when we wipe out the greenhouse effect?

 

[marplots]

I do know he monitors pretty extensively, and keeps pretty extensive records. That's actually how he cracked the profitability code BTW. He not only monitors the land itself, and the animals, he does labor analysis, productivity worksheets etc... And I do know he does have the scientists at the local land grant university out to do tests too, soil samples, sends them product for nutritional analysis etc.... things like that.

You farm so you know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do. I'm guessing you'd be able to evaluate the income claim based on the number of acres and the net cost per acre to run the show. At least enough to spot serious BS if it were there. So, for example, say he knocks out all costs for feed (because he's growing everything) - you'd know how many animals he'd have to produce and sell on a per-acre basis to get the profits he claims.

In any case, I'd expect someone who is making grandiose claims in one area (carbon sequestration) to also exaggerate elsewhere (profitability).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You farm so you know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do. I'm guessing you'd be able to evaluate the income claim based on the number of acres and the net cost per acre to run the show. At least enough to spot serious BS if it were there. So, for example, say he knocks out all costs for feed (because he's growing everything) - you'd know how many animals he'd have to produce and sell on a per-acre basis to get the profits he claims.

In any case, I'd expect someone who is making grandiose claims in one area (carbon sequestration) to also exaggerate elsewhere (profitability).

I am fairly certain his profitability is not exaggerated. Mostly because he does watch inputs including labor very closely and sells almost exclusively retail through his CSA; or when he sells wholesale, it's usually by contract. He also uses vertical stacking, a well proven business strategy. The business is sound. I have no arguments there, nor reason to be skeptical. There are also other farms using similar business and production strategies, that do have profitability case studies on file with the USDA, and they show very similar profits per acre. So it is repeatable.

There are aspects of the business model that require close proximity to a large population center of course. There are other externalities like local ordinances, processing facilities etc... So it can't work exactly like that everywhere. But I have no reason to believe that side is exaggerated.

However, on the carbon sequestration side I have found no case study over 32 tCO2/ha/yr (10 year average), and as I stated before, the average ranges between 5-20 tCO2/ha/yr for the more advanced methods similar to his. So I am unwilling to say it is total BS, but I find it very hard to believe it without better evidence.

The only hypothesis I can come up with that even makes his claim possible, however implausible, is the rainfall. Most these case studies were done on land with significantly less rainfall and humidity. So if the systems that were mostly developed on marginal semi arid land potentially do in fact work even that much better in areas with better climate, then it could maybe explain why he is so confident in his claim.

I would prefer to have more data points from farms like his so I could try and maybe work out better averages based on local conditions like rain, vegetation, and soil types.

If it sequesters carbon that fast, what happens *after* the 10 years? Snowball Earth when we wipe out the greenhouse effect?

No that can't happen, because it uses biomimicry of a complex self adjusting biological system. Stabilizing feedbacks that evolved over millions of years will kick in long before that happens.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)

However, on the carbon sequestration side I have found no case study over 32 tCO2/ha/yr (10 year average), and as I stated before, the average ranges between 5-20 tCO2/ha/yr for the more advanced methods similar to his. So I am unwilling to say it is total BS, but I find it very hard to believe it without better evidence.

Would it help to get the calculation down to the cartoonish basics? I'm imagining a black box thing, as big as his farm. All year long we put stuff into the box and take stuff out (which we sell for cash). If sequestration is going to matter, it means we put more stuff in than we ever take out. The box gets heavier. We can't count anything that leaves the box either - it's the net stored that matters to us.

When you look at the numbers in this light, do they make sense? For instance, how do they compare to barrels of oil? If his claim is tantamount to saying he's storing a thousand (or ten-thousand) barrels of oil a year (equivalent), I'd want to know where, since oil is pretty carbon dense - being a hydrocarbon and all - and would greatly underestimate the volume needed.

Obviously I haven't done the math. I'm suggesting it as a way to present the numbers in a more digestible form.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Would it help to get the calculation down to the cartoonish basics? I'm imagining a black box thing, as big as his farm. All year long we put stuff into the box and take stuff out (which we sell for cash). If sequestration is going to matter, it means we put more stuff in than we ever take out. The box gets heavier. We can't count anything that leaves the box either - it's the net stored that matters to us.

When you look at the numbers in this light, do they make sense? For instance, how do they compare to barrels of oil? If his claim is tantamount to saying he's storing a thousand (or ten-thousand) barrels of oil a year (equivalent), I'd want to know where, since oil is pretty carbon dense - being a hydrocarbon and all - and would greatly underestimate the volume needed.

Obviously I haven't done the math. I'm suggesting it as a way to present the numbers in a more digestible form.

Sure I have done back of the envelope calculations on this and posted before.

Approx 30-40% of the total products of photosynthesis can be sequestered long term via the LCP, rather than the more well known labile pathway, under appropriate conditions. So the 5-20 is a net, not a gross figure. And it treats the soil like your black box you mentioned.

5-20 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year x 1.5 billion hectares = 7.5 - 30.0 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. That's roughly 60%-250% of annual fossil fuel emissions +/-. Again though that is worldwide arable land. So I buy the idea that reducing fossil fuel use by 40% and simultaneously changing agriculture worldwide to regenerative models of production could potentially get us to a CO2 drawdown scenario. Pretty sure that between solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear energy, where each is appropriate, combined with better efficiency on the consumer side, we can reach a goal of 40% reductions in fossil fuel use without disrupting worldwide economic growth. These new agricultural models of production actually increase yields per acre. So by doing both it's at least plausible, and I see no negative unintended consequences to stop us from trying.

What Salatin is claiming though is the US. And he claims every farmer, not just arable land. He doesn't mention reducing fossil fuel use at all. And he claims in 10 years! And cumulative emissions not just yearly.

Cumulative carbon emissions total about 545 GtC. So roughly 2000 GtCO2 if I got the calculation right. Or about 200 Gt CO2 needing to be sequestered per year in .8 Gha for 10 years. 250 tCO2/ha/yr. That to me seems ridiculous.

Now currently only approx. 230 GtC of those emissions remain in the atmosphere. It would take a sequestration rate of 105 tCO2/ha/yr So possibly that's what he meant. I still find it very hard to believe. Unless my calculations are off somewhere? That would mean more than double the largest case study I have seen.

 

[marplots]

Approx 30-40% of the total products of photosynthesis can be sequestered long term via the LCP, rather than the more well known labile pathway, under appropriate conditions. So the 5-20 is a net, not a gross figure. And it treats the soil like your black box you mentioned.

5-20 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year x 1.5 billion hectares = 7.5 - 30.0 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. That's roughly 60%-250% of annual fossil fuel emissions +/-. Again though that is worldwide arable land. So I buy the idea that reducing fossil fuel use by 40% and simultaneously changing agriculture worldwide to regenerative models of production could potentially get us to a CO2 drawdown scenario. Pretty sure that between solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear energy, where each is appropriate, combined with better efficiency on the consumer side, we can reach a goal of 40% reductions in fossil fuel use without disrupting worldwide economic growth. These new agricultural models of production actually increase yields per acre. So by doing both it's at least plausible, and I see no negative unintended consequences to stop us from trying.

I'm still trying to get my head around this part (before I even get to his claims).

Suppose I turn the clock back a century or two. The land in the US is (presumably) in better shape, with more topsoil and a healthier soil to boot. Now, to get to where we are today, doesn't a great deal of that carbon have to be removed? I mean, to get to the depleted soil we have today?

I'm asking because it seems to me we'd largely be dialing the clock back and recovering the status quo ante, without adding in the additional carbon from two centuries (or one, depending on how we count) of burning fossil fuels. That's the part I'm not groking. And that's before we get to remediation beyond damage we've done.

Also, as an aside, what does "polyfaces" refer to?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm still trying to get my head around this part (before I even get to his claims).

Suppose I turn the clock back a century or two. The land in the US is (presumably) in better shape, with more topsoil and a healthier soil to boot. Now, to get to where we are today, doesn't a great deal of that carbon have to be removed? I mean, to get to the depleted soil we have today?

I'm asking because it seems to me we'd largely be dialing the clock back and recovering the status quo ante, without adding in the additional carbon from two centuries (or one, depending on how we count) of burning fossil fuels. That's the part I'm not groking. And that's before we get to remediation beyond damage we've done.

Also, as an aside, what does "polyfaces" refer to?

Correct we have pretty good records on soil degradation.
Land Degradation: An overview

Soil Erosion Threatens Food Production

This has been reported extensively in the popular media. Although still to this day most people still kinda give me blank looks when I mention it.

Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues

Earth has lost a third of arable land in past 40 years, scientists say

Washing Away the Fields of Iowa

Worldwide we have about 1.5 Gha arable land and about another 2 Gha land that once was arable but is completely unfit agriculture anymore due to degradation and desertification. It's a pretty significant problem. I personally think that the loss of ecosystem function on these agricultural lands is probably the main reason AGW is really a problem to begin with. On the little bit of land where ecosystem function still is operating in a healthy manner, a 20% increase in CO2 absorption into those biomes can be seen due to the CO2 fertilization effect. It just isn't enough, because pristine wild areas not degraded one way or another by man are becoming scarce. One of those ecosystem services that you lose when ecosystem function starts failing is carbon sequestration. That should be the stabilizing feedback that limits the impact of fossil fuel emissions. But we basically destroyed that stabilizing feedback on most the productive land worldwide. That's my opinion, but it is not the mainstream view. The mainstream is still focused almost exclusively on emissions.

Oh and Polyface is a play on words taken from polyculture vs monoculture, but animals have faces. It's the name of Joel's farm and Polyfaces is the name of the movie about Joel's farm. As I said before, I haven't seen the movie yet. But his farm has been in movies and TV shows before.

 

[marplots]

To me it seems like a problem in forensic accounting. You have so much carbon going in and so much going out. I guess that also parallels the "ins & outs" used in medicine.

For the claim being made, we should be able to take his farm size, the number of years he's been running it, and calculate how much carbon should be sequestered. Divide that by some square foot measurement just to get a visual and ask, "Does this sound reasonable?"

For instance, if it comes out he's added (over the many years of accumulation) a figure tantamount to a 60ft tree, I'd be suspicious unless a large part of his land was jam-packed with forest. At some point, with enough accumulation of carbon, it's going to be obvious there's a mismatch - unless I'm missing something and you can just keep adding more and more carbon somehow.

When you run the numbers, using what you know about his farm, how to they come out?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

To me it seems like a problem in forensic accounting. You have so much carbon going in and so much going out. I guess that also parallels the "ins & outs" used in medicine.

For the claim being made, we should be able to take his farm size, the number of years he's been running it, and calculate how much carbon should be sequestered. Divide that by some square foot measurement just to get a visual and ask, "Does this sound reasonable?"

For instance, if it comes out he's added (over the many years of accumulation) a figure tantamount to a 60ft tree, I'd be suspicious unless a large part of his land was jam-packed with forest. At some point, with enough accumulation of carbon, it's going to be obvious there's a mismatch - unless I'm missing something and you can just keep adding more and more carbon somehow.

When you run the numbers, using what you know about his farm, how to they come out?

As I said above, it comes out more than double and almost triple the largest case study I have seen. And you are right. It is easy enough to check with soil samples. I just don't have the soil samples to check it as I never saw anything published, formally or informally.

I was doing some reading last night.

The biggest source of mistakes: C vs. CO2
Probably the biggest source of confusion and errors in climate discussions concerns “carbon” versus “carbon dioxide.” I was reminded of this last week when I saw an analysis done for a major environmental group that confused the two and hence was wrong by a large factor (3.67).

Since his claim is almost triple the largest rate I have seen, it fits almost exactly this type of error. But again, without the data hard to say.