Could soil carbon sequestration absorb the world’s fossil fuel emissions? They have the capacity, according to soil scientist Margaret Torn from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). co-author Schmidt, M. et al., Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property, in: Nature , 6 October, 2011. 

“The fluxes between soil carbon in the form of organic matter and carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 are very large. A small change in carbon cycling can have a huge affect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and therefore a huge feedback to climate change. As an example, a ten percent change in the soil carbon flux to the atmosphere would roughly double the net CO2 input. And if soils released only 0.3 percent of their carbon stores, it would equal year 2010 fossil fuel emissions.” Is the reverse true? If we were able to increase the soil’s store of carbon by 0.3% that we could absorb the world’s entire fossil fuel emissions?

Read more.

An international team of scientists have put a big question mark over important elements of the conventional paradigm of soil carbon. They cast doubt on the popular view that temperature increases automatically mean higher rates of Carbon escaping from soil. They cast doubt on the resistance of lignin and biochar to decomposition. They cast doubt on biochar’s capacity to increase soil carbon. And they recommend that scientists study soils at 3m because there is a lot going on down there. For many years, scientists thought that organic matter persists in soil because some of it forms very complex molecular structures that were too difficult for organisms to break down. An international team of 14 researchers headed by Michael Schmidt, a professor of soil science and biogeography at the University of Zurich, has now revealed that recent advances, from imaging the molecules in soils to experiments that track decomposition of specific compounds, show this view to be mistaken. For example, the major forms of organic matter in soils are in the forms of simple biomolecules, rather than large macromolecules. The team contends that the average time carbon resides in soil is a property of factors like physical isolation, recycling, or protection of molecules by minerals or physical structures like aggregates, or even unfavorable local temperature or moisture conditions, can all play a role in reducing the probability that a given molecule will decompose. 

Current models used to predict how global soil carbon will respond to climate change use simple factors like temperature dependence that indicate acceleration of decomposition in a warmer world. The decomposition-warming feedback predicts large soil carbon losses and an amplification of global warming, but in fact the authors argue this approach is too simplistic. “ The degradation speed isn't determined by the molecular structure of the dead plant debris, but by the soil environment in which the degradation takes place,” says Schmidt. For instance, the physical isolation of the molecules, whether the molecules in the soil are protected by mineral or physical structures and soil moisture influence the degradation rate of soil organic matter. Furthermore, the researchers are able to show that, contrary to the scientific consensus, there is no humic matter in the soil and this should therefore not be used for models. 

The new results cast a critical light on bioengineering experiments with plants containing high amounts of lignin or plant charcoal (biochar), with which more carbon is supposed to be stored in the soil in the long run. “Compounds such as lignin, which we thought were stable, may only last five years in soil, while proteins, which we thought were decomposable, may last more than one thousand years,” says co-author soil scientist Margaret Torn from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Paper: Michael W. I. Schmidt, Margaret S. Torn, Samuel Abiven, Thorsten Dittmar, Georg Guggenberger, Ivan A. Janssens, Markus Kleber, Ingrid Kögel-Knabner, Johannes Lehmann, David A. C. Manning, Paolo Nannipieri, Daniel P. Rasse, Steve Weiner & Susan E. Trumbore: Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property, in: Nature , 6 October, 2011, DOI: 10.1038/nature10386

Read more.

“Without your efforts Australia would have no Carbon Farming Initiative and no network of amazing farmers. In no small way you will leave a legacy of nationwide land regeneration at precisely the time we, and the rest of the world, needs it. “ - John W Crawford, Judith and David Coffey Chair in Sustainable Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, University of Sydney

The reason why we have racked up private debts of more than $500k campaigning for the last 6 years “to see the day soil carbon is traded safely and farmers paid fairly for what they sequester’’ is simply this: the prospect of a financial return from carbon farming will be enough to capture the attention of the great majority of farmers - who currently are not available to the sustainability message - for long enough for them to consider land management practice change. If they decide against it at least they have given it a fair hearing (and prepared themselves for the inevitable conversion somewhere down the line). We are promoters of trade for three reasons; 1. we believe only rapid and widespread soil sequestration has the capacity to stall global warming long enough for the global community to transition to a low carbon energy system; 2. we have a soils crisis that must be addressed for food security reasons; and 3. the profit motive is more influential and widespread in its application and rapid in its effect in changing behaviour than education and encouragement, ie. business as usual. 

We live by the principle that, if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you always got. The single-minded focus on soil carbon as a key performance indicator simplifies the communications and behaviour change tasks because the co-benefits inevitably follow on attempts to raise soil carbon levels (co-benefits include improved soil structure, ground cover, water efficiency, nutrient availability, buffering against drought, and biodiversity above and below the ground). Once the average farmer gets over their negativity about soil carbon and trading (the result of the relentless misinformation campaign by those who fear being made redundant by the privatisation of soil health management when the opposite will be the effect) CMAs and Landcare groups will have their work cut out for them handling the rate of enquiries. As for middlemen, every commodity market has them, they are essential, and farmers can select which program they go with. Ie. it will be competitive. As for merchant bankers making money, that can only occur if the units are on-traded by the buyer. Farmers can choose to sell only to buyers who will 'retire' them, thereby removing them from circulation. If merchant bankers are making money, it is a sign that the market is flourishing and farm landscapes are being restored at a rapid rate. 

It will not be a gold rush, as some predict. It will take at least 5 years to develop and bed down the processes required to protect the farmers' interests. That is where Carbon Farmers of Australia fits in: Advocacy, Representation, and Ethical Aggregation.

Read more.

Professor John Crawford showed amazing footage at the Carbon Farming Conference, filmed by a microscopic camera sent down to cruise through the pores in the soil. Absolutely amazing.

Photosynthesis – the process that creates soil carbon – could be taking up almost 50% more CO2 than previously estimated, according to a report in Nature, the British scientific journal. An international team of scientists have reset the bar for CO2 draw down from 120 billion tonnes per year to between 150-175 billion tonne annually… between 25% and 45% increase. This would logically mean the world’s soils have even greater capacity to store carbon. But even though they have no evidence to support the contention, the researchers declare there is no increase in soil carbon sequestration. 

The report's lead researcher Lisa Welp, from the University of California's Scripps Institute of Oceanography, said: “The extra CO2 taken up as photosynthesis is most likely returned right back to the atmosphere via respiration.” The leader of the CSIRO Changing Atmosphere research group, Paul Fraser, said “it doesn't mean they hold more carbon, they (plants) probably respire faster.” “Probably?” “Most likely?” Is this based on evidence? “I'd love to be able to say it does mean that but we just don't know that, that's in the next few steps (of research),” said Dr Fraser. 

There are two possible reactions to the higher rates of photosynthesis. One is to dismiss the possibility that it means good news for those of us who believe soils have the capacity to be a secure bridge to a low carbon future. The other is to accept these findings as further proof that there is a new paradigm that suits the times. Opposition spokesman on climate action, Greg Hunt, is among the latter when he says: “ the scientific evidence has moved more strongly in favour of the enormous potential of land and agriculture-based emissions reductions.” Which do you choose: the past or the future?

Read more.

When people ask Jeremy Bradley about his stocking rate, he says that he likes to keep it at around 5 to 10 trillion to the gram. This, he says, is the optimum rate for accelerated soil building and biological carbon sequestration. Jeremy has been passionately involved with the carbon-farming movement since its inception and is building his 'extreme carbon-farming system' based on a blend of techniques such as those promoted by PA Yeomans, William Albrecht, Elaine Ingham and Christine Jones. He has a fascination with natural farming systems and their ability to regenerate soil fertility. This year he received an award from the Northern Rivers CMA for Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture for his work on increasing microbial biodiversity by introducing biological liquids into equipment used in normal horticulture and pasture systems.

With his trusty microscope and microbe brewer Jeremy is exploring the carbon-farming frontier and discovering how far and how fast it is possible to build carbon in a variety of farming systems. Working with minerals, air, water, biology and management, he is developing methodologies that will rebuild soil without investing in expensive equipment or inputs. See Jeremy at the Carbon Farming Conference, 28-29 September, 2011, at Dubbo NSW.

A practical methodology for allowing farmers to be rewarded for storing more carbon in their soils will soon be submitted to the Government’s expert panel for assessment under the Carbon Farming Initiative. The key feature of the methodology is the way it overcomes the oft-quoted barriers to trade in soil carbon credits: additionality, permanence, and measurement.The methodology adopts the principle of a buffer pool to manage risk to 90% certainty to address the twin issues of measurement and permanence. A buffer pool is formed by banking a percentage of the tonnes submitted for sale and using them as ‘insurance’ so buyers can be confident they are getting what they are paying for. Individual farmers will be protected against losses by the pool which will be aggregated across climate zones, spreading the risk. The Government’s use of a 5% buffer to address ‘risk of reversal’ in its regulations is an endorsement of this principle.

Under this methodology, the Landholder must choose two or more practices and/or products from a menu to be applied to the project area throughout the period specified. This multiple methods approach not only reflects the normal behaviour of carbon farmers, but also addresses the Additionality Requirement because the likelihood that more than 5% of the farmers in a district, climate zone or other segment would choose the same combination of options is low
 
Permanent behaviour change in the land care sector is rooted in economic self-interest. The CFI provides for carbon credits, but a more powerful incentive for permanent change lies in the economic value delivered to the landholder by the accumulation of a soil carbon reserve.

Each project is defined with an initial 5 year reporting period, at the conclusion of which an initial parcel of Australian carbon credit units will be issued, based on the Net Abatement Number for the reporting period, and an initial Project Buffer Reserve allocated. A project participant may elect to continue the project with further reporting periods. The maximum total duration of a project is capped at 25 years. While economic self-interest in carbon credits would work continuously through an entry-level 5 year reporting period up to a 25 year cap, at the same time the increasing availability of Phosphorus and water would provide a continuing incentive to maintain the relevant behaviour. Simultaneously the process of culture change is expected to cement in place the land management practices as the new convention.

Farmers interested in increasing carbon sequestration in their soils should beware reports coming out of the Soil Carbon Research Program (SCRP) because they mistake conventional farming for ‘carbon farming’.

“Carbon Farming, under the Carbon Farming Initiative, requires a change in land management with a switch to one or more new practices, not business as usual. Yet the reports coming out of the SCRP claim to give results over periods of 30 and 40 years which make no reference to changes in land management,” says Michael Kiely, chairman of the Carbon Farming & Trading Association. The results of a stocktake of soil organic carbon on the Esperance sand plain are the first revealed in WA from the national SCRP. The Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA), cautioned farmers interested in increasing carbon sequestration, as the Esperance results showed changes might be small and would occur slowly over time.

“Scientists cautioning farmers against expecting to grow soil carbon are like the scholars who predicted that Columbus would sail off the end of the earth because it was flat. They could say that only because they hadn’t been there.” Mr Kiely maintains that scientific studies commonly under report carbon sequestration rates for many reasons. “They focus on a limited number of practices one at a time, whereas carbon farmers usually apply several techniques together,” he says. “The combined effect of these practices applied with the skill of an experienced carbon farmer explains why they commonly report soil carbon sequestration rates up to 10 times those recorded by scientists.”

Another reason for under-reporting is failure to sample soil deep enough in sandy soils. “Roots from perennials have been recorded reaching down as far as 7 metres in WA. Where there are roots there is carbon. These SCRP reports are based on only 30cm samples.” The most commonly-quoted ‘fact’ quoted to scare farmers rears its head in this report: soil carbon ties up nutrients such as N and P which are needed for plant growth, making them unavailable and therefore requiring that expensive fertilizer be added. “We need plant growth for carbon sequestration as well, so we have this Alice in Wonderland proposition: we can’t grow soil carbon because it will prevent the growth of soil carbon,” he says. But the “C locks up N, P and S” conundrum exists only in the world of Theoretical Soil Chemistry. It takes no account of the impact of carbon on factors such as water retention and Phosphorus availability, he says. “Again, conventional science sees sequestration as a zero/sum game instead of the win/win proposition that it is.” The research is funded by the Australian Government’s Climate Change Research Program and the Grains Research and Development Corporation.