Carbon farmers

[grassfarmer]

I'll mention again a web URL that I posted on the CLA thread as I can't believe no one has a comment on it. http://www.soilcarbon.com.au/case_studies/index.html then click on the "slide show in English" tab.
As you will see this highlights the potential for owners of land and grazing livestock to become champions and saviors of the world by fulfilling a role as CO2 sequestrators that no one else can reproduce. Only soils can sequester significant amounts of atmospheric carbon in the next 30 years. Grazing land covers 5 billion hectares, 2/3 of the total land surface. Raising organic matter by 1% = an increase of 27 Tonnes of soil carbon which captures 100 Tonnes of CO2 - per hectare!! Not to mention all the other benefits - better water use, more grass which lowers our cost of production.
This is huge, it must be the greatest thing in our futures, instead we are down in the dumps as cattle producers because feed grain prices are high due to the nonsense of ethanol production and corporate greed at the processing and retailing end. Can we think out of the box far enough to appreciate the potential for this radacal change in our role??

[per]

Grassfarmer

What percentage of the earths grasslands do you think could be improved with more holistic management practices? Are you looking for a discussion on carbon sinking or on the notion of selling our ability to sink carbon and monitary transfer? They are both intriguing and fasinating topics, not to mention complex.

[grassfarmer]

Per, I'm sure 100% of the earth's grasslands could be improved,to varying extents, with more holistic management practices. I'd be interested in anyones views on any aspect of this topic, I'm no expert on it but would like to learn more. I can see the potential both to improve the environment (and by doing so an individual's own farm profitability) and also to tap into a substantial extra renvenue stream for landowners from polluters who will pay to buy carbon credits. Look at the money being thrown at ethanol production now - and it isn't ever going to be a solution to any of our current problems. On the other hand look at the potential of carbon sequestering on grazing lands whilst at the same time improving it's agricultural productivity and this can largely be done without the use of fossil fuels, machinery, fertiliser, agrochemicals and the associated parasites that supply these purchased inputs. I think this is potentially the greatest opportunity for ag producers in the next 30 years yet most producers at the moment seem unaware/uninterested in a) the physical potential for land improvement through grazing management, b)unaware how this type of agriculture relates to carbon and the need to capture CO2, c)the potential for producers to benefit financially from becoming the worlds environmental champions.

[brian99]

As far as I understand, grass is not eligible for carbon credits. I'm not as sure about redeveloped grass acres, but native ranges for sure. Makes no sense when grass species are the most efficient at capturing carbon.

[per]

I think we are on a similar page as far as the environmental sequestration part of the conversation. That should be a no-brainer anyway.The part that makes me struggle is the carbon credits. It has several negative effects and so far are of negligible benefit. Being able to buy carbon credits will allow large emitters to continue to pollute and not make any positive change to the environment (the carbon is being sunk by us anyway). The $15/tonne offset in Alberta does not trickel down to the ground in any substancial way. Epcore is offering a company called CROP $10/tonne for the $15/tonne credit (can't do this without a profit because if they paid $15 then it would be easier to just pay the Alberta Government the $15/tonne tax). CROP or one of the other companies (there is one in Red Deer (CROP is working with Parkland)) then works with the grain farmer, as the grass is not yet approved, and collects the extensive data nessesary to qualify. By the time everyone takes their cut on our farm it works out to about 67 cents per acre net to us. Even if we were able to recieve credit for our grasslands it is not very significant and I have sold information and intentions that could be resold to the highest bidder. On our little part of the landscape that wouldn't make any difference but that is saleable info if it was 100 or 200,000 acres.

[per]

Do you remember the 3 tonne challenge? My guess is that Epcore will sell credits to the unsuspecting city folks to help them offset their footprint (in their own mind) for a profit and offset what they were charged by CROP. In the mean time the info was sold to those gentlemen that sell chemicals etc.

[rkaiser]

Sell is the key word per. And the chemical and fertilizer companies have a lot better salesmen at the moment than we have. I say "we" as I can see through personal practice the benefits of grass management. Thanks for the link grassfarmer - there is always more to learn.

The challenge will be how to sell it without a major multinational lobby behind it. Exactly why the grain industry is ahead of the grass so far. Once again the challenge of uniting farmers on a cause and having government believe they are correct. It all takes money and time, something that multinational companies have or will hire.

Lots of grazing clubs and forage groups around. Some kind of united message needs to come form all of them.

[per]

The sad part is that trading carbon credits still doesn't have a positive effect on the environment. It only enables the emitters to emit.

The substantial benefit of proper grass management could be profit driver notwithstanding whether or not we are able to sell the benefit to others.

Randy you are right and we should all find out where are local associations are on this. I suspect they are having the same conversation.

[Burbert]

Nothing about this whole scheme makes sense or does any good, except the money. That is why it is such a perfect scheme for the gov't to get involved in. Lots of talk and meetings, consultants, broker, jokers and votes etc, etc... Lets do the same for say rain. I'll collect my rain and sell it to the guys next door. At least collecting rain is something we could all do, and actually see a result. I recently read a study, from Sweden I think, that questions the results of carbon trapping by 0 tillers, says the concept is bull! Apparently the AB gov't has already poo, pooed the study, wow what a surprise! Lets not let science stop a good idea. It is a way to continue with Oil development and pollute, pollute, it is mining rearing its ugly head, no cleanup, just a lean mean way to allow private sector to **** the environment....and walk away free and clear. As for EPCOr they are scum of the first order fraud and scam are a way of life for that bunch....

[grassfarmer]

Per,
I agree with you that being able to buy carbon credits allows polluters to continue with their current practices. I would disagree with you slightly when you say that we are already sinking the carbon so the effect is negligible. We (as a world community of graziers and ag landowners) are clearly not sinking enough carbon to effect the environment significantly. We are certainly not managing our soils, water or grasses well enough. The power point I highlighted demonstrated to me that the majority of beef producers in my area are managing their grass little better than the guys running cattle in the desert in the pictures - the only saving grace being that we get more rainfall in central Alberta and can usually sc**** by without the sand showing through. We as graziers, world wide, need to get significantly better at the job of grass management to accomplish the feats demonstrated by the good managers in the powerpoint. So from that point of view, to achieve even a 1% increase in soil carbon world wide is a huge task but one well worth doing.
I am convinced that governments everywhere will be driven by their scientists and citizens to encourage such a task.
Getting 67 cents per acre as grain producers currently do is a scam - but then again I am not convinced that growing grain even with zero till is really going to fix a huge amount of carbon - plus you still expend more fossil fuels farming which creates more CO2. Rather like ethanol fuel production this is really not the answer.

To give a better idea of potential returns check out www.amazingcarbon.com which is another good Australian website dealing with the issue. I believe after reading that they are talking of payments equating to around $45 CDN per acre/per year.
I would point out also that this is only the beginning of carbon trading - I think with the accelerating global environmental problems there is only one way this market can go - and that is up!!

[PureCountry]

OK, I'll jump in about here. I agree with PER 100%: selling the credits just allowa the emitters to emit, and gives them bragging rights to sway the blind public eye that they really give a $h!t about the environment.

I agree with you grassfarmer that we are not doing enough as landowners nationally or globally to improve soil health and organic matter content, but I'll give you some food for thought.

For agrument's sake, let's say for the next 10 years down the road, you're getting $45/acre for carbon credits. It doesn't take much land to amount to a sizeable income from the practice. After even a couple of years of this I can see people becoming dependant on the relationship, and so in theory, you basically train farmers to like the fossil fuel industry.

If they're paying you thousands/year for your practices, just so the carpet they sweep their mismanagment under turns from black to green, would you really want them to ever clean up their act? Would you want to see green energy sources like turbines promoted in your area? Remember, now that you're a carbon credit junkie, if the oil companies go, so does your credit cheque.

I know that better soil health is the key to all life on our planet, and we all need to be doing better jobs of improveing ours on our own farms. I believe Holistic Management is the best system for doing so, and from that perspective, I absolutely cannot agree with selling carbon credits. Holistic Management is about addressing the root cause of the problem, not treating the symptoms. And by giving the oil companies a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card", we are treating a symptom. The root cause of the problem is that they are producing dirty energy - period. They know they could be producing green energy by several different means, but they choose not to. Should their way of business be painted in a prettier picture because they can "buy" these credits? I don't think so. Whether they pay us or not, the bottom line is, they are still polluting our environment, and that should stop. That is a truth that I just don't think can be argued.

[grassfarmer]

I certainly don't want to give polluters a get out of jail card but realistically with the scale of industry around the world plus the global population rising the way it is I don't think we can reduce CO2 emissions to a level that will be captureable by our existing soils/ grass etc. Nearly every human activity creates CO2. This is an attempt to rectify the situation by making the offenders at least pay something for their practices which could be directed to landowners who can work to rectify the situation. I agree it isn't a holistic solution by any means.

[per]

What about emitions other than the plant food, SO2, particulates, CO etc. Shouln't there be a plan to address real polution?

[per]

Yikes. Sure wish I could spell!

[rkaiser]

Would be nice if we could make the kind of changes needed all at once, but I think the carbon credit idea is one step in a long walk toward recovery.

I also agree that the idea is not holistic, but we are not going to stop the emitters on our own. We might as well be doing something about it rather than just talk. Incentive is the way for progress, and I saw incentive in the plans set out in Australia. Extra payment for extra carbon sequestration. This would certainly enable more farmers and ranchers willing to join in, and although it may not slow the emitters much, it would at least deal with part of the problem which is not being dealt with now.