We have identified a list of “high performance” soil carbon managers who have demonstrated a potential well beyond the average. These ‘outliers’ present a challenge for the conventional estimation of the potential of Australian soils to sequester carbon. 

If these outliers can do it, it can be done.

The CSIRO’s chief soil carbon scientist Jeff Baldock pointed us in the direction of these outliers. We need a study of high performance individuals and what characteristics they share. We need the equivalent of the Australian Institute of Sport for carbon farmers.

AN outlier is a point that is off the curve. In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data. An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs. (Grubbs, F. E.: 1969, Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics 11, 1–21.)

“Outliers… are often indicative either of measurement error or that the population has a heavy-tailed distribution. A frequent cause of outliers is a mixture of two distributions, which may be two distinct sub-populations...”

Those two sub-populations: conventional farmers in the hump of the curve and carbon farmers in the tail. (Have we been measuring in the hump and not in the tail?)

And below we have Jeff's formal graph where we can see the 'heavy tail' (c.2011 slide presentation).

The people you are about to meet are all highly respected by their peers for their contribution to their industries. But they all do something that modern science says is impossible. They capture and hold carbon in their soils at three-to-eighteen-times the rate that scientists believe possible.

 
The CSIRO's best soil scientists say the largest increase possible in Australian soils that they have recorded is half a tonne per hectare per year. But David Marsh (left) from Boorowa NSW averaged an increase of more than 3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year over 10 years. Craig Carter (right) from Willow Tree NSW has added 8 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year over 3 years at his best monitoring sites. David sits on the Board of his local Catchment Management Authority and Craig is a member of the Liverpool Plains Land Management and Sydney University Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources ‘CANEn’ project – Connecting Agriculture, Nutrition and Environment. He was also selected to be featured in former Governor-General Major General Michael Jeffrey's Soils For Life program. (Chairman of Healthy Soils Australia Tom Nicholas is pictured centre)

David Bruer (above) of Temple- Bruer Vineyards at Langhorne Creek (SA) increased average soil carbon levels by 2% in 10 years to 2011 (more than 3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year ). The project aims to highlight information and tools for managing climate risk on farm. 

Col Seis (above) increased soil carbon by 3 tonnes per hectare per year (from 2% to 4%) on “Winona”, Gulgong, between 1995 and 2005. Between 2008 and 2010 his sequestration rate was close to 9 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. Col is co-inventor of the practice known as Pasture Cropping.

New England grazier Cam Banks has used cell grazing and a focus on soil health to achieve an increase of 2.6 tonnes of Carbon sequestered/ha/yr between 2007-2011 at “Lakeview” in Uralla NSW (above). Cam is an active member of Landcare.

Martin Royds moved his soil carbon levels at "Jillamatong" near Braidwood NSW from 3% to 7% in 5 years, lifting his tonnage per hectare from an increase of 2 tonnes per year to more than 14 tonnes per year at his best monitor points in that time frame. He was awarded National Carbon Cocky of the Year 2011, sponsored by Ylad Living Soils. Rhonda Daly (seen presenting the award) and her husband Bill are also Carbon Farmers at Young NSW. They have compared a compost mineral blend vs single super, and observed an increase of 0.5% in soil carbon vs 0.07% increase between 2008-2010 - or close to 2.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year in a cropping enterprise.

But remember: none of this exists... officially... 

Officially the most soil carbon that can be sequestered in Australian soils is 0.5tonnes/hectare/year. Why is t here a vast gap between the performance predicted by scientific models and the actual performance of many carbon farmers? The farmers' high carbon scores are not considered reliable by scientists because the measurement was not conducted by scientists, according to scientific protocols. These results are described by scientists as 'anecdotal'. But here, in this small sample of farmers, we have a pattern which poses the question: Why?

Could the farmers be fudging the figures? But what motive would a farmer have to skew their carbon scores? No one is offering to pay them for it. No carbon trading scheme pays for past performance. Most of the farmers featured above started measuring their carbon levels 10 years ago, before there was a hint of earning carbon credits.

Also, these farmers have recorded falls in their soil carbon levels as well as increases along the way. Their integrity is not in question.

They may not use the same rigour in their measurement methodology, taking fewer samples than a scientist would take. But is this enough to explain the gap? (Some of the measurement was done by scientists and in all cases the analysis was done at a NATA-accredited laboratory.)

When it comes to 'growing carbon' farmers enjoy an unfair advantage. Each farmer lives inside a live experiment, 24/7, observing how nature responds to various activities. They micromanage their farms, combining techniques and practices, endlessly trialling and making decisions every day. Their experiments are conducted in a single location for application in that location. The farmer is there on the ground every day, absorbing the whole ecological 'event', processing it intuitively, referencing their entire experience with nature, and developing new hypotheses on the run. 

These farmers bring a learning attitude to their work. They read a lot, attend conferences, and most are active members of local natural resource management bodies or groups. 

The farmer is not seeking to answer a single question about an isolated variable in the ecological mix. The farmer wants to learn everything at once. They want to know how to get more and better pasture and crops, better water efficiency, healthier animals and better quality produce. They want more sustainable farming for today and tomorrow when they hand the farm to the next generation. They want more profit, more drought resistance, more production. 

The farmers just want to know what works. They don't have to spend time working out why it work. This can explain the gap in performance: farmers are better carbon farmers because they have a narrower task, more time to spend on it, freedom to change direction when early results indicate.

A formal scientific experiment sets out a methodology for each study which must be strictly observed for the period of the program, usually 3 years . This is because scientists must prove their results to others while farmers only have to prove it to themselves. 

The result of this unfair advantage are the higher soil carbon scores registered by farmers and the refusal by scientists to accept these scores because they are not replicable, as science demands of new facts.

These farmers are "outliers" - not a statistical aberration, but the result of a mixture of two distributions or sub-populations. Each of them have spent the 10,000 hours studying and practicing "required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert - in anything," according to Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers. It is on these grounds that we believe these high performance carbon farmers reveal the true potential of Australian soils.

The Carbon Farming Initiative should focus all resources tagged for soil carbon on the challenge of measurement and set farmers free to sequester as much carbon as they can, independent of what the models say we can. This is the only way that the soil carbon credit can act as the catalyst needed to spark the chain reaction among farmers around the world to activate the massive carbon extractive capacity of the soils and vegetation. 

Read more...

Course puts focus on carbon farming
Farmers could have their own weapon for beating the carbon tax. A Carbon Farming course is being held in Dubbo on July 12 looking at ways farmers can manage carbon mitigation on-farm.

Working with the weather
More than 100 farmers and industry figures learnt how to prepare for the elements around them as part of Goulburn Murray Landcares annual Future Farming Forum last week.

Tackling food price volatility requires decisive action from G20 countries
The first-ever official meeting of Ministers of Agriculture from G20 countries being held in Paris on June 22-23, presents an extraordinary opportunity.

Carbon farming legislation 'a good first step'
The Federal Government's carbon farming initiative was passed in the lower house last week with the support of independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and the Greens' Adam Bandt.

Changing chemical culture
If the federal government is serious about storing carbon in soil it needs to invest in biological farming instead of relying so heavily on chemicals, two regional scientists say.

English dairy farmers set the pace
It's a crisp spring morning in Marlborough, Wiltshire, southern England, and David Homer has begun putting his first heifers out in the paddocks after a long, cold winter.

Chester rejects carbon tax
GIPPSLAND MHR Darren Chester has welcomed the National Farmers Federation’s decision to reject the Federal Government’s proposed tax on carbon dioxide.

Carbon Farming Bill clears house of reps
The Carbon Farming Bill 2011, that allows both the agricultural and waste sectors to sell green house gas emission offsets on the domestic and international markets, cleared the Federal House of Representatives on Thursday June 16.

Aviation industry is committed to addressing climate change impact
Richard Fielding ("Emissions accelerating, not declining", June 13) rightly highlights the urgent need for society to address the global challenge of climate change and the role that aviation must play in this regard.

Green Groups Blast U.N. Climate Panel
If you haven’t yet heard, hell froze over last week. Ironically, this is very bad news for a warming planet. On Monday, more than 125 environmental groups sent a scathing letter to Rajendra Pachauri, the Nobel prize-winning head of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the institutional

Carbon Sequestration : A ray of new hope
The World Come To An End On 21st October, 2011, according to Harold camping prediction, even some countries believe and start praying for a better and safer earth.

New CSIRO website shows steady rise of greenhouse gases
A new website launched today allows the public to see how greenhouse gas emissions have risen steadily over the past 35 years.

Burnoffs 'need to be halved'
THE number of bushfires deliberately lit by authorities should be halved, says a CSIRO scientist. Ecologist Anna Richards yesterday said some patches of savanna were burnt every two or three years.

From the Bottom Up – A DIY Guide to Wicking Beds
By Rob Avis: Wicking beds are a unique and increasingly popular way to grow vegetables. They are self-contained raised beds with built-in reservoirs that supply water from the bottom up – changing how, and how much, you water your beds.

Hot topics on a winter’s night
Royal Society of Tasmania’s winter lecture series Two burning issues – forests and carbon - are to be explored in the Royal Society of Tasmania’s winter lecture series, which kicks off tonight (Monday 20 June 2011) in the Stanley Burbury Theatre.

Soil has the answer to burning climate questions
by Fresh Science: Decreasing the frequency of wild fires in northern Australia would lead to an increase in the amount of carbon stored in the soil, significantly lowering greenhouse gas emissions, according to CSIRO ecologist, Dr Anna Richards.

Tony Abbott interview with Smith and McCallum, 3AW - Plebiscite on Julia Gillard’s carbon tax
TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. TONY ABBOTT MHR INTERVIEW WITH JUSTIN SMITH AND NICK MCCALLUM, RADIO 3AW, MELBOURNE Subjects: Plebiscite on Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.

Two of Australia's most pressing environmental problems - land degradation and the greenhouse effect - can be tackled at the same time, and Australia will be better off. That's according to Dr Roger Swift, Chief of the CSIRO's Division of Soils, who told a seminar in Adelaide today that the latest scientific research was showing clearly that reversing land degradation could soak up large amounts of the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide - and help agriculture too.

"It's a terrific win-win opportunity for the environment," Dr Swift said. "Several new studies have found that land degradation and vegetation clearance are major sources of greenhouse gases in Australia - much larger than we previously thought.
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the main greenhouse gas. But the Earth's soils hold two or three times more carbon than our atmosphere, mostly in the form of decaying organic matter, or humus. When we over-exploit our soils, we mine that organic matter and the carbon escapes as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

"The good news is that the best way to improve soils is to add organic matter to them. By adding organic matter to degraded soil - and improving its structure and nutrition for future generations - we can also create a major sink for greenhouse gases. Remedying one problem will also help remedy the other."

Dr Swift said studies in the United States and Australia had found that as much as 50 per cent of the carbon which once existed in agricultural soils had been lost since the land had been turned over to farming.

Australian farm soils were much less fertile to begin with, he said, but until very recently scientists did not realise just how starved of carbon they were becoming. Because Australia had long been subject to regular bushfires, much of the land now used for farming contained a lot of small particles of charcoal.

Charcoal was made of carbon, but in soil it was largely inert, and was not available to growing plants. And there was so much old charcoal in Australian soil that it bumped up measurements of organic matter.

"If you discount the charcoal - some of which has been lying inert in the soil for decades, and perhaps centuries - then the true state of Australia's soils starts to look very much worse than we thought," Dr Swift said.

"In some of the farm soils we've measured, as much as half the carbon remaining is in the form of ancient charcoal.

"That is bad news, but it is also a great opportunity. If we improve our farming techniques so that we are restoring organic matter to the soil, not mining it out, we will be putting back some of the carbon which has escaped to the atmosphere."

Dr Swift said the worst-degraded lands in Australia tended to be those which were of marginal value for agriculture anyway; areas where the soil and climate made farming a risky business.

By progressively changing our use of such marginal land - allowing it to revegetate - and concentrating on improving soils in better areas, Australia could begin to reverse the loss of organic matter, and carbon, across a vast land area.

"The same road which leads to sustainable and prosperous farming also leads to helping alleviate the greenhouse effect," he said.
He said improved soil management could help stave off global warming, but it did not detract from the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. it was one more weapon to add to the anti-greenhouse armoury.

Dr Swift was giving a seminar titled "Soils and the Carbon Cycle" to a gathering of scientists from Adelaide's major soil research institutions at South Australia's Waite campus.

CSIRO MEDIA RELEASE 95/88
Embargoed until 12 noon on Thursday, September 7, 1995

The CSIRO's Dr Brian Keating came as close as legally possible to giving false evidence to the Senate committee inquiring into the Carbon Farming legislation without falling foul of the law. He told what was technically the truth, but left out the fact that would change the facts.

He told the senators that ‘current research would suggest the abatement likely to be achieved, in the short term at least, is likely to be modest.’ True. But ‘current research’ does not include findings about the potential of 80% of the techniques used to build soil carbon. “Current research” covers nothing newer than 20 years old. It includes conventional, carbon mining practices, but not grazing management, pasture cropping, compost teas, biological inoculants, exhaust burial, Natural Sequence Farming – or the combinations of these techniques. “Current research”, the CSIRO will agree, is not very current.

Dr Keating neglected to tell the Committee that the CSIRO is in no position to comment on the potential of farmlands to store carbon because it chose not to study the performance of most modern practices. Instead it invested the $26.5m Soil Carbon Research Project money in studying conventional practices that are unlikely to qualify as offsets because of the Additionality principle called “Common Practice”. Dr Jeff Baldock, who leads the Project, has admitted that it covers only 20% of the relevant practices.(1)

Not all scientists think ‘current research’ is so negative about soil sequestration. In its submission to the Senate Inquiry, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists used Brian Keating’s own work to paint a very different picture: “CSIRO has estimated the biophysical potential of the Australian landscape to store carbon.(2) Whilst only a proportion of the total potential is practically achievable and will take time to build the capacity for it to take effect, if Australia were to capture 15% of the biophysical potential of our landscape to store carbon, it would offset the equivalent of 25% of Australia’s current annual greenhouse gas emissions for the next 40 years.(3)”

The fact that Dr Keating has been appointed as a gatekeeper of the Carbon Offsets system as a member of the Government’s expert panel for judging methodologies – the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee (DOIC) – allows him to be prosecutor, judge and jury in the CSIRO’s case against soil carbon. It would appear to be inappropriate and compromising to engage in the debate surrounding soil carbon.

This incident is only the latest outbreak of anti-soil carbon activity from the CSIRO, which includes the Soil Carbon Mythbusters national tour, the notorious “Hidden Cost of Soil Carbon Sequestration” scientific sleight of hand paper, and the announcement that there is ‘a virtual consensus among soil scientists’ that farmers should not be paid to grow soil carbon levels(4).

“Modern carbon farming is low input. It does not rely on expensive chemicals or genetic materials owned by foreign corporations who sponsor CSIRO research. It is understandable that the market-based co-funding model chosen by government has had this outcome. We don’t expect the CSIRO to bite the hand that feeds it. But we do expect transparency in its dealings with parliamentary committees,” says Michael Kiely, chairman, Carbon Farming & Trading Association.

1. Personal communication, October 2010.

2. CSIRO, 2009. Analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation and carbon biosequestration from rural land use. Edited by Sandra Eady, Mike Grundy, Michael Battaglia and Brian Keating for the Queensland Premiers Climate Change Council.

3. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, 2009. Optimising carbon in the Australian landscape: How to guide the terrestrial carbon market to deliver multiple economic and environmental benefits. October 2009.

4. ECOS, September 2010.

Sydney Morning Herald 21 April 2011: “While forest carbon and soil carbon sinks are opportunities worth pursuing, current research would suggest the abatement likely to be achieved, in the short-term at least, is likely to be modest," Dr Keating told a Senate environment committee examining the CFI.

Originally posted by the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming