Biome carbon cycle management

[Red Baron Farms]

I am starting this thread separate from the global warming thread because carbon sequestration and land use has its own merits only marginally related to the question of global warming. Please respect the topic so this thread doesn't get merged and we can discuss the emerging science without interference and interruptions. Contrary views are welcome, but please stay on topic.

Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security
http://www.rowan.k12.ky.us/userfiles/959/Classes/10689/stegall kandra 11302011 327 pm soilcarbon.pdf



Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x/abstract



The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880912003635

(any who are having a difficult time accessing the full version of this paper can contact me via PM)

Thanks for the links. I have seen all or parts of them before, usually as reference to part of another paper.

There are a couple things that I find troublesome, although the over-all gist is fair enough, as far as that goes.

A couple things that are bothering me that we could discuss.

"Removing land from annual cropping and converting to forest, grassland or perennial crops will remove C from atmospheric CO2 and genuinely contribute to climate change mitigation. However, indirect effects such as conversion of land elsewhere under native vegetation to agriculture could negate the benefit through increased CO2 emission. Re-vegetating degraded land, of limited value for food production, avoids this problem"

It seems to me they have completely ignored the possibility of converting to a food forest, or converting to grazed land, both of which can be quite productive in food, eliminating the undesirable indirect effect of needing to convert native vegetation to cropland elsewhere. And actually over all increasing total food production. In these cases "of limited value for food production" do not apply. This leads me to believe they are only considering conventional ag in this paper. I could have read that wrong though, because the wording in the text is somewhat less than precise. They might actually agree, but if so have created an internal conflict in their paper. In either case, converting cropland to grazed grassland does not necessarily reduce production at all. Particularly if the cropland was previously being used to grow livestock feeds which will then no longer be needed due to the animals eating grass. (or biofuels) The trend is exactly the opposite as stated actually. The more grassland converted to cropland, the more the pressure is to convert even more to cropland, because cropland is not nearly as productive as perennial grassland, all else equal.

Another problem I see with that one is " Limitations of C sequestration for climate change mitigation include the following constraints: (i) the quantity of C stored in soil is finite" or from the other study "Thus, the potential is finite in capacity and time. Nonetheless, soil C sequestration buys us time until the alternatives to fossil fuel take effect."

That's true, I mean sure the carbon on earth is finite. The % of that carbon in soils is finite. The coal oil and gas reserves are finite. It's all finite.

However, the implication is that you'll be able to sequester X in the soils, after that the soils will be "full" and we won't be able sequester more. Well, the forest biome does actually act that way in most cases. Exceptions being peat that gets ever deeper, and swamps that have a similar process, or areas of extreme cold where temperature halts the process of decay. But by far the majority of forests do approach a limit over time. So that's cool. No problem there.

Grasslands are different though. The way they sequester carbon is fundamentally different. They follow a completely different curve. It is not from leaf litter on top of the soil. It is a specific biological evolutionary adaptation grasses have for feeding the biome deep in the soil.

You can understand this better if you first understand Endomycorrhizal fungi, and Ectomycorrhizal fungi. As a general rule (with a fair number of exceptions) grasses use endo and trees and shrubs ecto. There is a specific mutualistic relationship between grasses and Endomycorrhizal fungi where the plant feeds the mycorrhizal fungi with sugars down deep where it would have no chances of surviving without help. The fungi repays this debt by supplying the plants with hard to get nutrients and with improved disease and pest resistance. ~ 20% of the products of photosynthesis are pumped directly into the soil biology as sugars feeding that biome, mostly Endomycorrhizal fungi. Then something else happens when a grass is grazed. It then has too much roots in ratio to growing top and to get back in balance it sheds a large quantity of root mass to achieve balance again within hours of being grazed. Endomycorrhizal fungi require a living root to survive. So that triggers the Endomycorrhizal fungi to spore up and the bulk of it dies. So that creates a large % of decaying material from both the plant roots and the Endomycorrhizal fungi which starts the food chain for a whole web of life deep in the soil where the greenhouse gasses have little chances of escaping. This ultimately results in new mollic soil creation and carbon sequestration for thousands of years. As the soil becomes more fertile, instead of tapering off towards a finite limit as in forests, it actually accelerates. This process continues into deep geological time unabated unless the biome is disturbed. (by something like a glacier, volcano, or human plow etc...)

Forests don't do this, they primarily use ectomycorrhizal fungi, and instead feed the soil biology from the top down with leaf litter. A large % of which after decay escapes to the atmosphere. Annual crops don't do this because although they do use Endomycorrhizal fungi their roots are by and large much too small and/or shallow, which allows the greenhouse gasses to escape at a rate close to or sometimes even exceeding the sequestration rate. That's why long term trends for these are either near net carbon neutral (forests), or an emissions source (annual crops).

There are a few more things I saw. But that gets the conversation started.

 

[macdoc]

Excellent please link the thread in your signature.

•••

This actually allows a hands on modelling experience for those brave or foolish enough

and here's your chance to do your very own modelling...

Quote:
Project: MODEL ARCHIVE
The Model Archive allows users to evaluate the uncertainties of model results in comparison to results from other models in assessment/policy studies. In addition, the archived models allow users to see how models treat individual processes (source code) and what the model inputs were (state parameters, spin-up data, driving variables). For each model the DAAC will have documentation, source code (with version number), input data, example output data, and post-processing or analysis code (if applicable).
Model: Biome-BGC: Terrestrial Ecosystem Process Model, Version 4.1.1
Biome-BGC is a computer program that estimates fluxes and storage of energy, water, carbon, and nitrogen for the vegetation and soil components of terrestrial ecosystems. The primary model purpose is to study global and regional interactions between climate, disturbance, and biogeochemical cycles. Biome-BGC represents physical and biological processes that control fluxes of energy and mass. These processes include new leaf growth and old leaf litterfall, sunlight interception by leaves and penetration to the ground, precipitation routing to leaves and soil, snow accumulation and melting, drainage and runoff of soil water, evaporation of water from soil and wet leaves, transpiration of soil water through leaf stomata, photosynthetic fixation of carbon from CO2 in the air, uptake of nitrogen from the soil, distribution of carbon and nitrogen to growing plant parts, decomposition of fresh plant litter and old soil organic matter, plant mortality, and fire. The model uses a daily time-step, meaning that each flux is estimated for a one-day period. Between days, the program updates its memory of the mass stored in different components of the vegetation, litter, and soil. Weather is the most important control on vegetation processes. Flux estimates in Biome-BGC depend strongly on daily weather conditions. Model behavior over time depends on climate--the history of these weather conditions. A companion file with more information about Biome-BGC and its components is available. Biome-BGC, Version 4.1.1, was developed and is maintained by the Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, School of Forestry, the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, U.S.A. Additional information can be found on their web site at:

http://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id=805

••••

Here is one that looks interesting

The Case for Low Methane-Emitting Cattle
Jan. 10, 2014 — A new research project looks into the possibilities of adapting every aspect of cattle husbandry and selection processes to lower their greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140110131013.htm

 

[Trakar]

I am starting this thread separate from the global warming thread because carbon sequestration and land use has its own merits only marginally related to the question of global warming. Please respect the topic so this thread doesn't get merged and we can discuss the emerging science without interference and interruptions. Contrary views are welcome, but please stay on topic.

Thanks for the links. I have seen all or parts of them before, usually as reference to part of another paper.

There are a couple things that I find troublesome, although the over-all gist is fair enough, as far as that goes.

A couple things that are bothering me that we could discuss.

"Removing land from annual cropping and converting to forest, grassland or perennial crops will remove C from atmospheric CO2 and genuinely contribute to climate change mitigation. However, indirect effects such as conversion of land elsewhere under native vegetation to agriculture could negate the benefit through increased CO2 emission. Re-vegetating degraded land, of limited value for food production, avoids this problem"

It seems to me they have completely ignored the possibility of converting to a food forest, or converting to grazed land, both of which can be quite productive in food, eliminating the undesirable indirect effect of needing to convert native vegetation to cropland elsewhere. And actually over all increasing total food production. In these cases "of limited value for food production" do not apply. This leads me to believe they are only considering conventional ag in this paper. I could have read that wrong though, because the wording in the text is somewhat less than precise. They might actually agree, but if so have created an internal conflict in their paper. In either case, converting cropland to grazed grassland does not necessarily reduce production at all. Particularly if the cropland was previously being used to grow livestock feeds which will then no longer be needed due to the animals eating grass. (or biofuels) The trend is exactly the opposite as stated actually. The more grassland converted to cropland, the more the pressure is to convert even more to cropland, because cropland is not nearly as productive as perennial grassland, all else equal.

Another problem I see with that one is " Limitations of C sequestration for climate change mitigation include the following constraints: (i) the quantity of C stored in soil is finite" or from the other study "Thus, the potential is finite in capacity and time. Nonetheless, soil C sequestration buys us time until the alternatives to fossil fuel take effect."

That's true, I mean sure the carbon on earth is finite. The % of that carbon in soils is finite. The coal oil and gas reserves are finite. It's all finite.

However, the implication is that you'll be able to sequester X in the soils, after that the soils will be "full" and we won't be able sequester more. Well, the forest biome does actually act that way in most cases. Exceptions being peat that gets ever deeper, and swamps that have a similar process, or areas of extreme cold where temperature halts the process of decay. But by far the majority of forests do approach a limit over time. So that's cool. No problem there.

Grasslands are different though. The way they sequester carbon is fundamentally different. They follow a completely different curve. It is not from leaf litter on top of the soil. It is a specific biological evolutionary adaptation grasses have for feeding the biome deep in the soil.

You can understand this better if you first understand Endomycorrhizal fungi, and Ectomycorrhizal fungi. As a general rule (with a fair number of exceptions) grasses use endo and trees and shrubs ecto. There is a specific mutualistic relationship between grasses and Endomycorrhizal fungi where the plant feeds the mycorrhizal fungi with sugars down deep where it would have no chances of surviving without help. The fungi repays this debt by supplying the plants with hard to get nutrients and with improved disease and pest resistance. ~ 20% of the products of photosynthesis are pumped directly into the soil biology as sugars feeding that biome, mostly Endomycorrhizal fungi. Then something else happens when a grass is grazed. It then has too much roots in ratio to growing top and to get back in balance it sheds a large quantity of root mass to achieve balance again within hours of being grazed. Endomycorrhizal fungi require a living root to survive. So that triggers the Endomycorrhizal fungi to spore up and the bulk of it dies. So that creates a large % of decaying material from both the plant roots and the Endomycorrhizal fungi which starts the food chain for a whole web of life deep in the soil where the greenhouse gasses have little chances of escaping. This ultimately results in new mollic soil creation and carbon sequestration for thousands of years. As the soil becomes more fertile, instead of tapering off towards a finite limit as in forests, it actually accelerates. This process continues into deep geological time unabated unless the biome is disturbed. (by something like a glacier, volcano, or human plow etc...)

Forests don't do this, they primarily use ectomycorrhizal fungi, and instead feed the soil biology from the top down with leaf litter. A large % of which after decay escapes to the atmosphere. Annual crops don't do this because although they do use Endomycorrhizal fungi their roots are by and large much too small and/or shallow, which allows the greenhouse gasses to escape at a rate close to or sometimes even exceeding the sequestration rate. That's why long term trends for these are either near net carbon neutral (forests), or an emissions source (annual crops).

There are a few more things I saw. But that gets the conversation started.

I'm not going to copy or move my response to this in the other thread, but it should be understood that the comments I made in this response post, applies regardless of whether we are looking at climate change issues or AG/Biome management issues. I acknowledge that your issues revolve around the papers I linked in this post, in order for me to address or comment upon your concerns, however, I really need specific quotes from the papers and identification of which paper the specific quote is from. This is so that I can fit the specific quote into the context of the author's overall considerations and then see exactly where your concerns fit into what the authors have studied and stated. It may seem like a lot of "picky little details," but it is not intended to be pedantic, merely to make sure that I can properly integrate the papers' findings with your questions and concerns.

Finally, with all of this said, my primary focus is on climate change issues, but I will be happy to participate in this thread on a more casual basis and contribute what I can, when I can.

Just as a suggestion, you might offer a little more explanation of some of the terms and concepts you mention in the OP, as many people will find this topic rather new and outside of what is casually discussed in most of the Science-Technology board general posts, especially with respect to the various natural soil biomes and artificial/agricultural soil biomes.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm not going to copy or move my response to this in the other thread, but it should be understood that the comments I made in this response post, applies regardless of whether we are looking at climate change issues or AG/Biome management issues. I acknowledge that your issues revolve around the papers I linked in this post, in order for me to address or comment upon your concerns, however, I really need specific quotes from the papers and identification of which paper the specific quote is from. This is so that I can fit the specific quote into the context of the author's overall considerations and then see exactly where your concerns fit into what the authors have studied and stated. It may seem like a lot of "picky little details," but it is not intended to be pedantic, merely to make sure that I can properly integrate the papers' findings with your questions and concerns.

Finally, with all of this said, my primary focus is on climate change issues, but I will be happy to participate in this thread on a more casual basis and contribute what I can, when I can.

Just as a suggestion, you might offer a little more explanation of some of the terms and concepts you mention in the OP, as many people will find this topic rather new and outside of what is casually discussed in most of the Science-Technology board general posts, especially with respect to the various natural soil biomes and artificial/agricultural soil biomes.

OK first quote:

"Removing land from annual cropping and converting to forest, grassland or perennial crops will remove C from atmospheric CO2 and genuinely contribute to climate change mitigation. However, indirect effects such as conversion of land elsewhere under native vegetation to agriculture could negate the benefit through increased CO2 emission. Re-vegetating degraded land, of limited value for food production, avoids this problem" source: Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false, D. S. Powlson

I don't think I used any unfamiliar terms in my reply to that. Although "food forest" Might be new to some. It is a permaculture technique that when restoring a forest mimics a natural forest but replaces a variety of wild species with domesticated species. For example you might plant winesap apples instead of crab apples, you might plant English walnuts or pecans instead of black walnuts or butternuts. In a Permaculture food forest you do use multiple species, called guilds with similar symbiotic relationships as wild forests. Because you use domestic species largely (a few wild mixed in too for diversity), they produce a lot more food for human consumption.

Next two quotes are

" Limitations of C sequestration for climate change mitigation include the following constraints: (i) the quantity of C stored in soil is finite"Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false, D. S. Powlson

and

"Thus, the potential is finite in capacity and time. Nonetheless, soil C sequestration buys us time until the alternatives to fossil fuel take effect." Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global
Climate Change and Food Security
R. Lal

I used a few terms people may not understand like Endomycorrhizal fungi. But nothing too particularly difficult to look up on wikipedia. The thing to remember is that Endomycorrhizal fungi actually penetrate the cell wall of the root system and functions almost like an extension of the roots. However mycorrhizal fibers (called hyphae) are about 1/10th the diameter of the finest root hairs and can greatly improve nutrient availability for a plant. The other term I used that people might not know is mollic soil (or mollisol). It is an order of soils with a taxonomic description defined by the USDA. It is a soil type formed by grasslands that has a very high concentration of carbon that runs very deep (several meters is not uncommon). It has a crumbly granular texture and is very dark, most times black. Basically it is that rich deep black topsoil that farmers dream about, and grasslands manufacture it. It is the world's most productive agricultural soil type.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

OK Here is a great example of a potential change that serves multiple beneficial functions.
switchgrass

1) Soil and wildlife conservation
2) Dual purpose fields that serve as forage for cattle and harvest of biomass for biofuels
3) Reduce coal use for electricity
4) Yields 5X more energy in ethanol than it takes to produce it, a substantial improvement over corn
5) Sequesters carbon in the soil long term, capable of restoring marginal land
Switchgrass for Bioenergy

In my opinion a huge improvement over current corn and soy based biofuels
First off it heals the land and that improves all the ecosystem services. Then it sequesters CO2 deep in the soil. Still provides food for livestock, IMHO healthier for both the cattle and humans. Reduces coal pollution including Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions. Managed properly it is a self fertilizing biome, with no need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers or pesticides.

I honestly don't see any downside.

 

[macdoc]

I'd been following switch grass for a while as well and certainly looks viable.
What about hemp?

http://www.kentucky.com/2013/02/26/2532443/hemp-has-untapped-market-in-biofuels.html

Certainly looks good for this coal based economy

Seems seriously flawed that farmers are being paid to leave land empty when there re bio-fuel crops but what are the fossil fuel inputs required for either??

BTW lovely movie.

http://the-mooman.co.uk

This is a long report on carbon sequestration in soils in Australia

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Publica...il-Carbon-Sequestration-Potential-Report.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Reducing-GHG/carbon-and-rural-land-use-key-findings.aspx

this is a snip from above with exactly the kind of hard numbers I was looking for.

Key finding 1: With committed research and policy efforts, a large amount of carbon could be stored or greenhouse gases abated in Australia’s rural lands and this could significantly offset our emissions over the next 40 years.
Australia’s forestry, agricultural and land management systems have significant potential to store or sequester carbon in their vegetation and soils and offset large amounts of our greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years.

Australia’s agricultural land systems and land clearing account for a relatively high percentage (28 per cent) of our greenhouse gas emissions of 597 Mt CO2-e/yr (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year) (2007).

Australia’s agricultural lands are relatively high sources of greenhouse gas emissions when compared internationally. Our agricultural sector and land clearing account for about 28 per cent of our net greenhouse gas emissions of 597 Mt CO2-e/yr (2007).

Key finding 4: Queensland can offset up to 77 per cent of its greenhouse gas emissions and similar trends apply nationally.

With a committed research and policy effort, as much as 140 MT each year, or 77 per cent of Queensland’s (182 MT per year) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) greenhouse emissions, could be offset by rural land use change that either stores carbon or mitigates emissions. Storage options would saturate over a 40-50 year period but options that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions will continue indefinitely. Similar trends apply nationally.

Now Queensland is a bit of an odd duck compared to other areas in Australia but still those are serious numbers.

You might want to add to your list of sources
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Environment/Australian-Landscapes/soil-carbon.aspx

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'd been following switch grass for a while as well and certainly looks viable.
What about hemp?

http://www.kentucky.com/2013/02/26/2532443/hemp-has-untapped-market-in-biofuels.html

Certainly looks good for this coal based economy

Seems seriously flawed that farmers are being paid to leave land empty when there re bio-fuel crops but what are the fossil fuel inputs required for either??

I can't speak about the fossil fuel requirements for growing hemp quite honestly. I don't know how it is grown. It is an annual as far as I know, so the carbon sequestration in the soil potential is limited when compared to the grassland biome.

Grasslands have a very tiny FF requirement, harvested by cattle, almost none. Harvested for biofuels, existing hay equipment is pretty efficient.

 

[macdoc]

So sawgrass is a perennial?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So sawgrass is a perennial?

Sawgrass isn't a grass, it's a sedge. But yeah it is a perennial. Don't see the linkage though. Sawgrass is a swamp (wetlands) plant. Switchgrass is a tallgrass prairie plant.

You have a reason for asking?

 

[macdoc]

Sorry - meant switchgrass - is switchgrass a perennial?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Sorry - meant switchgrass - is switchgrass a perennial?

Yes, very deep rooted too. A grass along the lines of Eastern Gamma grass. Which actually would be a good one too once the biome was healed. Eastern Gamagrass needs a healthy biome to establish itself. Once established, both switchgrass and eastern Gamagrass have incredible drought and flood resistance, can grow 10 feet tall, and have roots 15 feet + deep, and become carbon sequestration machines.

If I was going to plan it, I would start with a basic blend of grasses and forbs, mostly switchgrass, and add some of the higher successional species like Gamagrass later as the soil improved. But those are both warm season grasses, you'd need some cool weather grasses in the blend too. The key being to have photosynthesis as long as possible, preferably a full 12 months.

 

[macdoc]

Can switch grass be harvested annually without fertilizer inputs?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Can switch grass be harvested annually without fertilizer inputs?

It can be. It evolved in a biome adapted to that low turnover of nitrogen. However, to really get it established, a proper rotational grazing management system will provide all the fertilizer it needs in the cattle manure. And some co-evolved legumes helps too. If you were to try only switchgrass in basically a monocrop system, and only cut it for biofuels, you would need some ferts though.

Personally I would think using it as dual purpose land with BOTH cutting for hay (dry biomass) and livestock forage, would be your best bet most times. Then the equations fall squarely in favor of grass. Then you sequester CO2 in the soil, reduce emissions of fossil fuel by making biofuels, That attacks both sides of the carbon cycle. Then you get a side benefit of making it self fertile and producing human food too! Any time you try grazing too much cattle, or cutting too much biomass for fuel, you run the risk of stressing the system too much and killing the grass or requiring heavy inputs. If you sit back and let it do its thing, after a few years it becomes incredibly productive without ANY outside inputs. I believe if you do it right you can get 3 or 4 harvests or more a year. So rotate cattle through once or twice, they leave their manure, then the switchgrass vigorously grows for your biomass cuttings.

The exact rotation I am unsure of because it varies and in my research I get different answers and a lot of "depends". Especially since my personal project is a bit different than either, considering I am a vegetable grower. But I do have a professor at the University here in Oklahoma helping me.

ETA The USDA fact sheet SWITCHGRASS

 

[Trakar]

OK first quote:

Link

I don't believe there is anything that I am reading in the author's comments to suggest that they would object to a food forest concept, the problem is (reverse) engineering crop plants to a wider range of increasingly changing and challenging environments where even naturally evolved species are proving hard pressed to survive, yet alone thrive. Ultimately, I'm hoping that things can prevented from getting dire enough to resort to Dyson's dreams, but I do believe that genetic manipulation may be a direction worth giving more consideration.
The change may well be engineering our crops to grow root and support systems more like those of the natural flora and fauna of local/regional climate areas. As the local/regional climate shifts, shift to the appropriate biome adaptations copied from natural masters of their environment. Production is still going to vary according to efficiencies of the adaptations and resource availability, but we could marry the goals of AG efficiency/climate adaptation and if it so happens to at least temporarily enhance the sequestration abilities of one of our planet's greatest shallow carbon reservoirs,...sounds good to me!

I don't think I used any unfamiliar terms in my reply to that. Although "food forest" Might be new to some. It is a permaculture technique that when restoring a forest mimics a natural forest but replaces a variety of wild species with domesticated species.

There is generally a big difference between trees that grow well and produce high quality fruit in a tended orchard environment and achieving those same results in widely dispersed domestic fruit trees places in a wild environment. Mass harvesting becomes much more difficult/expensive. These changes would not only require social, economic and AG changes within the US, it would require dramatic social, economic and AG changes across the face of the planet.

Any significant divergence by other nations and peoples will result in offsetting "...conversion of land elsewhere under native vegetation to agriculture," which "could negate the benefit through increased CO2 emission." Their concerns aren't so much with the science of the potential of what could be achieved if everyone, everywhere followed the same playbook, their concern seems to be more with Murphy and the basic understanding that poor, farmers are going to do what poor farmers need to do to survive and grow their families, regardless of what anyone else says.

What the authors of that paper seem to be pointing to, is that it would be easier for a nation state to subtly alter and shift the biome of non-commercially viable public lands (and fallow private lands) to make them more capable of sequestering carbon, than it is to make and enforce regulations about how the owners must pay to make changes to lands they own and are already making profitable use of.

Next two quotes are

Link
If it is the "finite" term, this is true, and refers primarily to the fact that in a period where climates are undergoing transition what may be good seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature for prairie plants and the extra sequestration of carbon currently, or in historically similar periods may not be in a similarly beneficial set of circumstances in the near future. As the climate shifts (or different political opinions decide such programs cost too much money the carbon you've temporarily sequestered may be re-emitted complicating dealing with the overall problem.

I think they are just of the opinion that the concept needs further consideration to deal with complicating factors that are presenting themselves as potential issues of concern, before any serious moves are made to move forward with such a policy. 13% of annual emissions is a sizable chunk of beneficial assistance, but if it switched to a source due to temp. enhancements that are already likely due to carbon already emitted and in the pipeline, the concept needs additional research.

and

LINK

Lal, using the phrase that carbon storage is finite is actually referring to the chemical bonding of carbon to exposed mineral surfaces in the soil. In general, it is the strong attraction interaction of carbon compounds with the minerals in soil that tends to lock away the carbon from ability of microbes to easily absorb and release in the form of CO2 (a lot of simplifying going on here). The temperatures at which this binding is stable is highly temperature dependent. In general, the higher the soil temperature, the less stable this mineral binding is effective. This leads to the problem that given increasing atmospheric carbon levels (which are not finite) and the consequent temperature rises that are associated with these increases, there are near term limits on how much CO2 the soils can store carbon and how long they can hold onto that store of carbon.

As you have another focus, I don't want to dwell on the climate perspective, but the papers I presented in the other thread had a climate focus in their considerations of the issue.

 

[macdoc]

I'd certainly support specific fuel related bioengineering plants especially for marginal areas that cannot support agriculture....there are too many marginal areas already that are heavily supported with fossil fuel fertilizers and unsustainable water use.

Cuba had to do it but I think what they learned there to get sufficient food within a near to urban structure and recycling of nutrients.

If we identify the marginal areas and rationally convert to fuel supply.

Jared Diamond's comments on how unsustainable agriculture in a great deal of Australia really hit home.

While I'd prefer an algae based solution to biofuels as the US Military is pursuing high yield biofuel crops for marginal land should be under consideration.

But I think foolishly designed subsidies for biofuels from corn and absolutely stunningly stupid fossil fuel subsidies makes the ROI difficult.

 

[!Kaggen]

How about this crazy unsustainable agriculture practice and it's consequences!!!

If you want to receive your single farm payment – by far the biggest component of farm subsidies – that land has to be free from what it calls "unwanted vegetation". Land covered by trees is not eligible. The subsidy rules have enforced the mass clearance of vegetation from the hills.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes

I would imagine the proposed solutions also improve carbon sequestration let alone help prevent flooding from extreme weather in the future due to global warming.

 

[!Kaggen]

Any thoughts on biochar and carbon sequestration RBF, Trakar, Macdoc?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

How about this crazy unsustainable agriculture practice and it's consequences!!!


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes

I would imagine the proposed solutions also improve carbon sequestration let alone help prevent flooding from extreme weather in the future due to global warming.

Wow I am truly stunned Kaggen. We have our own problems here in USA from flooding, but long ago the exact opposite policy was put in by USDA-NRCS. Instead of clearing riparian areas, we have strict policies, subsidies and regulations in place to improve and expand that crucial environment. It has helped a lot too. More can be done, but at least here in USA there is no way that idiocy can happen. The guy doing that would literally be thrown in jail, if he survived the lynch mob. Someone there needs to send this guy a primer on keylines and fast! Keyline design

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I don't believe there is anything that I am reading in the author's comments to suggest that they would object to a food forest concept, the problem is (reverse) engineering crop plants to a wider range of increasingly changing and challenging environments where even naturally evolved species are proving hard pressed to survive, yet alone thrive. Ultimately, I'm hoping that things can prevented from getting dire enough to resort to Dyson's dreams, but I do believe that genetic manipulation may be a direction worth giving more consideration.
The change may well be engineering our crops to grow root and support systems more like those of the natural flora and fauna of local/regional climate areas. As the local/regional climate shifts, shift to the appropriate biome adaptations copied from natural masters of their environment. Production is still going to vary according to efficiencies of the adaptations and resource availability, but we could marry the goals of AG efficiency/climate adaptation and if it so happens to at least temporarily enhance the sequestration abilities of one of our planet's greatest shallow carbon reservoirs,...sounds good to me!

You probably missed it but that is exactly what I was talking about. Not GE trees, modified crops. There are 2 general ways to accomplish this. One is being developed now, and one is already well proven. You can directly modify the crop's genetics like this: Future Farming: A Return to Roots The result being that a grain crop itself becomes a net carbon sink instead of a net carbon emission source.

The other way to approach the problem is purely a methods and management technique like this: Why Pasture Cropping is such a Big Deal

In this second case the crop itself is still probably a net carbon emissions source, but the cropland as a whole can be seen as a net carbon sink.

One day I expect both the above to merge. But there is still breeding work to be done on the crop modification for now. They are however surprising close to rolling out the first commercially available perennial cereal grains.

There is of course a third option which is to simply not grow the cereal grain crop at all. In the US around ~70% +/- of cereal grains and soybeans are used for non human food purposes like livestock feed and biofuels. (~ 40% +/- world wide) That leaves the option of growing grasses and forbs instead of excess grains, and using the grasses and forbs as livestock feed and biomass for biofuels. Turns out that because a perennial grassland is FAR more productive in terms of biomass compared to an annual crop, it increases total productivity of the land while at the same time being a net carbon sink. Win Win

There is generally a big difference between trees that grow well and produce high quality fruit in a tended orchard environment and achieving those same results in widely dispersed domestic fruit trees places in a wild environment. Mass harvesting becomes much more difficult/expensive. These changes would not only require social, economic and AG changes within the US, it would require dramatic social, economic and AG changes across the face of the planet.

Partly true. But it is not so difficult a problem as you might think. Basically you just hit me with a Luddite Fallacy, although few people view it as such. There will need to be changes across the board. That's a given, as with any technological advancement. But not so huge a change as you seem to indicate. And those companies in commercial Ag that fail to adapt will simply whither away like the last best buggy whip maker whithered away as society embraced the automobile. There will be plenty of new opportunities available for those flexible enough to adapt. Here is a good example of how commercially viable farms and orchards can be also environmentally sound and a net carbon sink at the same time: Chaffin Orchards

Keep in mind that is just one business model. Here in Oklahoma a popular commercially viable model combines pecans and livestock, instead of olives, citrus and livestock. Every area will be slightly different. In tropical areas commercially viable models have been built with tall nut trees and/or mangoes, and shade loving understories of things like coffee, cacao (chocolate), bananas etc... and different types of livestock on the ground. Other places combine hardwoods for lumber and pigs to the benefit of both. The principle remains the same, only the specifics vary. Human ingenuity is the only limitation.

Any significant divergence by other nations and peoples will result in offsetting "...conversion of land elsewhere under native vegetation to agriculture," which "could negate the benefit through increased CO2 emission." Their concerns aren't so much with the science of the potential of what could be achieved if everyone, everywhere followed the same playbook, their concern seems to be more with Murphy and the basic understanding that poor, farmers are going to do what poor farmers need to do to survive and grow their families, regardless of what anyone else says.

That's a valid concern, but misplaced IMHO. Education in profitable business models attached to these agricultural changes are the main need. They are out there, but most people have not been educated in how to implement them.

What the authors of that paper seem to be pointing to, is that it would be easier for a nation state to subtly alter and shift the biome of non-commercially viable public lands (and fallow private lands) to make them more capable of sequestering carbon, than it is to make and enforce regulations about how the owners must pay to make changes to lands they own and are already making profitable use of.

I vigorously disagree. They are taking a narrow view, and are looking at only a small part of the total picture. That doesn't include the hidden costs associated with the loss of ecosystem services like the water cycle, the carbon cycle, the energy cycle, flood control, drought resistance, and on and on and on...... It may be harder to define the economic value of ecosystem services and, therefore, the ecosystems and people most dependent on them for their subsistence. Certainly economically and politically powerful users can easily quantify and argue their needs easier. However, it is the duty of the nation state to make sure the whole costs, including the loss of ecosystem services seen with current commercial agriculture, are included directly in their business models, whether that be regulations, taxes, cap and trade in carbon markets, subsidies for "green alternatives", or whatever way governments can devise. I am not against "subtly alter(ing) and shift(ing) the biome of non-commercially viable public lands (and fallow private lands) to make them more capable of sequestering carbon" Certainly Alan Savory seems to think that alone will be enough to sequester all the carbon from Fossil Fuels. I am not fully convinced though. Possible. If done on enough land. But it would take staggeringly large amounts of land, and you'd be fighting against commercial ag continuing their destructive practices. So yes, I am a strong advocate of that, but not sure it is enough. Here is Savory's plan presented in a white paper: Holistic Management

That's the best plan I have seen so far that "subtly alter(s) and shift(s) the biome of non-commercially viable public lands (and fallow private lands) to make them more capable of sequestering carbon". It even takes these marginal lands and returns them to commercial viability, which is awesome. His "proof of concept" trial even won the Buckminster Fuller award, and 10's of millions of acres have been transformed already. So it is possible. But as I said before. It takes a LOT of acres. I am not convinced it will be enough without changing agricultural models as well.

If it is the "finite" term, this is true, and refers primarily to the fact that in a period where climates are undergoing transition what may be good seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature for prairie plants and the extra sequestration of carbon currently, or in historically similar periods may not be in a similarly beneficial set of circumstances in the near future. As the climate shifts (or different political opinions decide such programs cost too much money the carbon you've temporarily sequestered may be re-emitted complicating dealing with the overall problem.

I think they are just of the opinion that the concept needs further consideration to deal with complicating factors that are presenting themselves as potential issues of concern, before any serious moves are made to move forward with such a policy. 13% of annual emissions is a sizable chunk of beneficial assistance, but if it switched to a source due to temp. enhancements that are already likely due to carbon already emitted and in the pipeline, the concept needs additional research.
Lal, using the phrase that carbon storage is finite is actually referring to the chemical bonding of carbon to exposed mineral surfaces in the soil. In general, it is the strong attraction interaction of carbon compounds with the minerals in soil that tends to lock away the carbon from ability of microbes to easily absorb and release in the form of CO2 (a lot of simplifying going on here). The temperatures at which this binding is stable is highly temperature dependent. In general, the higher the soil temperature, the less stable this mineral binding is effective. This leads to the problem that given increasing atmospheric carbon levels (which are not finite) and the consequent temperature rises that are associated with these increases, there are near term limits on how much CO2 the soils can store carbon and how long they can hold onto that store of carbon.

I'll never argue against additional research. However, that shouldn't stop us from proceeding. It only indicates the urgency in proceeding BEFORE AGW increases too far. The grassland biome is proven potentially capable of sequestering carbon into deep geologic time. Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling It's very hard to go back and say we should have started sooner. On the other hand if we find in the future we accidently have sequestered too much carbon. It is very easy to release it. We have that technique mastered.

As you have another focus, I don't want to dwell on the climate perspective, but the papers I presented in the other thread had a climate focus in their considerations of the issue.

I have no problem discussing climate here. Climate is a very important part of biomes. Critical in fact. What I want to stay focused on here though is mitigation and carbon sequestration in biomes, not endless arguments as to what % of climate change is natural and what % of climate change is man made.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Any thoughts on biochar and carbon sequestration RBF, Trakar, Macdoc?

I have experimented a little with biochar, with mixed results. In really poor soil it helps a lot. Especially if leaching is a problem. In good soil I see little difference if any. I would chalk it up as a useful thing, mainly due to the huge quantities of degraded soils that can be found. But not necessarily useful or cost effective in a large range of areas. That's just my anecdotal observations.