Biochar does "sequester" carbon

There is some question about whether biochar is actually a form of sequestration. Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull got it right when he likened biochar to geosequestration: " There is absolutely no question about the science or the fact that that charcoal, once restored to the soil, does result in carbon being stored—just as much as if it is taken from a coal fired power station and pumped under the ground." If "Sequestration" means "capture and hold", Biochar certainly holds carbon, but it does not capture it. Who, then, 'owns' the sequestration rights?

The IPCC Glossary gives the following meaning for Sequestration: "The process of increasing the carbon content of a carbon reservoir other than the atmosphere. Biological approaches to sequestration include direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through land-use change, afforestation, reforestation, and practices that enhance soil carbon in agriculture. Physical approaches include separation and disposal of carbon dioxide from flue gases or from processing fossil fuels to produce hydrogen- and carbon dioxide-rich fractions and long term storage in underground in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, coal seams, and saline aquifers."

Biochar would qualify under "practices that enhance soil carbon in agriculture".

Voluntary Market so close you can smell it

It's too early to be popping corks, but all the signs are pointing to success in our campaign to have soil carbon traded and farmers paid fairly for what they grow. The Voluntary Market has a sense of inevitability about it. After briefings by the Carbon Coalition and its members, the Federal Coalition has got religion about soils (seeing it as a weak spot for the Government) and have hardened up their position with plans for a voluntary market in soil carbon by next year. (Read the excerpt from Malcolm Turnbull's speech in Parliament on 2nd June (below) - he is right on song with Carbon Coalition policy.
And the Government seems to have turned the corner in its attitude to soil carbon.

A Departmental Fact Sheet was quietly released in May entitled "Agriculture & the Voluntary Carbon Market, and subtitled: "A new national standard could help farmers to create and trade carbon credits in voluntary markets not recognised by the CPRS."
"Are soils & native pastures a source of carbon credits?" asks a headline on the Department of Climate Change fact sheet.

The answer seems to be YES:

"In Australia, voluntary carbon credits can only be generated from emissions sources
that are not covered under the CPRS, and do not form part of Australia’s obligations
under the Kyoto Protocol." (Tick)

"Sound management of agricultural land can play an important role in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Changes in the management of agricultural soils and native pastures that reduce emissions are potential sources of carbon credits for
voluntary markets..." (Tick)

"These activities could be used to generate carbon credits providing that:
• they are not recognised as part of Australia’s reporting obligations under the Kyoto Protocol; and
• the measurement and reporting systems used meet the National Carbon Offset Standard when it is in place." (Waiting.)

"Measuring and attributing improvements in soil carbon to management practices will be essential for meeting the additional and permanent criteria under the National Carbon Offset Standard when it is in place. (Waiting)

"To address this issue, the Government and industry partners have committed over $20 million to soil carbon research under the Climate Change Research Program." (Waiting)

Now this research is starting, and will take 3 years, and could be overtaken by events. A letter from the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, reveals that the final National Carbon Offset Standard "is planned to be in place by mid to late 2009."

The Premier also reveals that the Department is not 100% confident that it has the skillset to develop a workable standard for soils. "The National Carbon Offset Standard will establish a process for assessing methodologies for domestic offsets from uncovered sources for sale in the voluntary market. It will be possible for proponents to bring forward methodologies for generation of offsets under the Standard and assist in reducing Australia's national emissions."

Malcolm Turnbull told Parliament on 2 June: "Our greatest comparative advantage is our real estate—770 million hectares of it. Our massive land mass is our greatest advantage. We have the ability in Australia to offset hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions through improving the soil carbon across Australia, improving the productivity of our soils and improving the productivity of our agriculture, yet that form of carbon sequestration, of carbon offset, is not to be recognised in this scheme. It is recognised in the United States. Those credits generated by farmers through more sustainable tillage and other agricultural practices are traded every day on the Chicago Climate Exchange. That is why we have proposed the establishment of a voluntary carbon market that can take advantage of credits of that kind and others, such as biochar, from the beginning of next year."

What is Carbon Farming?

What is Carbon farming? It's different things to different people. Every farm and every farmer is different. Each has its own list of advantages and disadvantages, talents and prejudices. For this reason every Carbon Farming solution will not be suitable in 100% of cases. A farmer should be free to chose from a portfolio of techniques, having been taught the difference between them and how they can be combined.

(The following definitions are truncated for the purposes of simplicity. Naturally there is more to each of the sectors and systems mentioned.)

Carbon Farming – any land management technique (or combination) that aims to sequester carbon in soils for whatever reason.

Holistic Management - a systematic method for making decisions about any shared resource; identified with ‘planned grazing’.

Natural Sequence Farming – a system for managing water in the landscape that seeks to replicate the native irrigation system that operated before white settlement.

Keyline Planning – a system of water engineering and subsoil ploughing that aims to restore farm landscapes and soil health.

Planned Grazing - known in the past as cell grazing, time control grazing, or rotational grazing, it has elements of each. Planned grazing involves planning the access of grazing animals to pasture based on the amount of time the vegetation needs to recover and grow a full complimentof ‘solar panels’ (blades of grass).

No-Till – a cultivation technique that reduces disturbance of the soil. Can be known as ‘direct drill’. Can involve heavy use of herbicide. “NoKill” variant uses no herbicide.

Pasture Cropping – direct drilling a cereal into a dormant perennial pasture to renovate pasture. Less emphasis on yield.

Perennial Cover Cropping – the reverse of pasture cropping. A perennial sward is kept covering the soil during old fallow time. Crop planted into sward.

Biological Farming – the name has been used by one of the two major organic certification standards in Australia; also the name used by the biofertiliser industry for a soil-biology-focussed farming approach – using compost teas, minerals, .etc.

Sustainable Biological Agriculture – a new term; applied to a combination of Natural Sequence Farming, biological farming and planned grazing.

Biodynamic Agriculture – known mainly for composting process involving on-farm manure placed in cow horns and buried for 12 months, then used to in a naturopathic style to produce a spray on liquid.

Organic Agriculture - growers are certified as running a toxic chemical free operation. Soil disturbance by ploughing allowed.
Probiotic Inoculants – Inoculants that contain microbial mixes selected for conditions and objectives. Sprayed onto vegetation.

Mulching – a soil repair technique using any suitable material to protect soil from heat and conserve water

Green Mulching – any crop grown to be ploughed in to soil to increase soil organic matter.

Composting – converting raw biomass into plant-available organic matter.

Compost Teas – tea-like solution created by determining microbe mix in composting process and steeping water in the mix; some operators use flow form structures to energise the water/teas befor application.

Dung Beetles - introduced species of dung dessicators which roll balls of mainly cow manure into holes and transport it metres down into the soil profile.

Forestry – grassy woodlands, shelter belts, wldlife corridors, and lantations are all options tha can be used to increase soil carbon.

These Carbon Farming alternatives divide themselves into the following:

1. Systems for decision making
a. Holistic Management
b. Grazing for Profit (RCS)
c. Principal Focus
d. ......................

2. Major Infrastructure foundational systems
a. Natural Sequence Farming
b. Planned Grazing
c. Keyline Planning
d. ......................

3. Marketing Assurance Systems
a. Organic farming
b. ..................

4. Cropping practices
a. Minimum vs No Till cultivators
b. Pasture cropping
c. ......................

5. Soil Treatments
a. Compost
b. Biofertilsers,
c. Inoculants
d. Worm Juice
e. Minerals & Trace elements
f. Mulch
g. Dung Beetles
h. ......................

6. Trees
a. Grassy woodlands
b. Shelter belts
c. Salt expressions
d. Carbon Plantings
e. Wildlife corridors
f. .........................

These alternatives can be combined in many ways:

1. Only one decision-making system: most will use a version of what has worked for them in the past
2. Only one water management system (NSF, Keyline): because there is major earthworks involved with hydrology systems, we call them "infrastructural'; as they involve a fundamental theory of landscape design, we call them 'foundational". The decision to install either will affect management decisions beyond the immediate activity.
3. Fencing infrastructure for planned grazing can be used with all except high yield broadacre cropping. It is also infrastructural and foundational.
4. Cropping practice could change with type of soil, yield requirement and objectives.
5. Soil treatments not exclusive.

The alternatives above divide themselves into 'fixed' and 'variable' activities, along the lines of how easy/inexpensive or hard/costly it is to get started. For instance, wire and water for planned grazing is more expensive than inoculating a crop.

There are no rules when it comes to Carbon farming. There are only options and a single objective: soil carbon.
And there are a million reasons to grow it.

Nation's top public servants have a 'soil carbon experience'

A unique and historic event in the soil carbon movement’s history took place on Friday 12 June at the Bylong property made famous by Peter Andrews and Natural Sequence Farming (NSF). The gathering – under the command of former Governor General Major General Michael Jeffery – saw heads of several key Government Departments ‘feel the carbon beneath their feet’ as they walked across the dense, rich pasture on Tarwyn Park, the property where Peter first demonstrated NSF in action.

The guests of honour included The Secretary, Department of Treasury, Ken Henry, the Secretary, Department of Environment,Water, Heritage and the Arts, Robyn Kruk, Dr Angela MacDonald (Prime Minister & Cabinet), Dr Brian Keating, Chief, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Mike Clarke, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.

The theme of the day was NSF as the centrepiece of a sustainable biological system of farming that will regenerate the Australian landscape and capture enough carbon in soils to give society time to build alternative energy responses while burning coal in the interim. Soil carbon was front and centre in the presentations and not simply a bolt-on as it often is.

One of the 5 recommendations made to the Government representatives was: “Soil Carbon to be recognised as part of the solution to sequestering carbon in Australia’s Global Climate Change Policy (post Kyoto), with farmers able to generate recognised offsets to the CPRS (ie . A tradeable soil carbon credit.)”

The balance of the proposed recommendation to Government and Business includes:

1. The establishment of a high level Task Force ‘responsible for overseeing the implementation of Sustainable Biological Agriculture (SBA) based on NSF and including biological farming and planned grazing.’

2. Priority access to Caring For Our Country grants to establish demonstration farms linked with education programs.

3. Adopt as a nation the objective of 80% of Australia’s agricultural and rangelands converting to SBA by 2020.

4. Soil carbon as a tradeable offset under CPRS.

5. CSIRO and other scientific bodies assist in developing Measurement, Monitoring and Verification methodologies for soil carbon increases and nitrous oxide and methane emissions reductions.

The official guests were subjected to a program of presentations and site visits staged with military precision. The General spoke first of the crisis in Australia’s water and soils and how important the meeting was. Peter Andrews spoke of the natural irrigation system that the continent had created for itself centuries ago and the need that we should allow that system to re-emerge. Farmers had to learn how to read the landscape and understand the needs of the water cycle. Professor David Goldney gave a theoretical explanation of NSF, followed by Professor Richard Bush who reported on the scientific work he did on Gerry Havey’s NSF program at nearby property “Baramul”. David Mason-Jones (a journalist) demonstrated with a sponge and a jug of water how a floodplain fed by a river (in this case the Hunter) could hold 1.6 gigalitres of water in the soil while still releasing water for downstream users and losing far less to evaporation than conventional dams and irrigation systems allow. Then John White, whose company Ignite Energy controls 75% of Victoria’s brown coal, exlained how he had found a way to use his coal as a soil ameliorant, returning the peaty coal to the soil in a biofert combination devised by Adrian Laurie of LaurieCo. This and other biological soil treatments were positioned to the audience as the means of kickstarting the landscape before the NSF effect kicks in. Adrian Laurie gave a tight presentation on his Biological Farming Systems and Tony Lovell’s presentation explained how elements of Holistic Management (HM) fit in to the broader picture – and also made the plea for science to follow the market, the only sane solution.

The meshing together of NSF, HM, and biological farming in a single presentation was a brave attempt to present Carbon Farming as a holistic system, albeit with a ‘first among equals’ twist, placing NSF at the hub of the wheel. Peter’s system earned the right to “first” place by making the event happen. But life isn’t neatly arranged, and there are as many farmers passionate about planned grazing or pasture cropping (which did not get a guernsy on the day, though we spotted some oats direct drilled on Tarwyn Park.) The program was in danger of causing ‘soil carbon overload’ in the minds of the official guests. And those Carbon Farming techniques not present were acknowledged several times during the event.

Once in the outdoors Peter led a convoy of 4WDs to visit the pastures his system has produced. A rich, species diverse matress of luxuriant native perennials mixed with clovers, sewn once many years ago. The soil, which had been salt-ravaged in 1974 when Peter took on the property, is rich and dark. Then on to a weir built across the stream which slowed down the flow and turned an ‘incised’ V-shaped gully into a lush, ‘rainforest’.

The senior public servants were obviously impressed with the enthusiasm and knowledge of the presenters and observers (including Carbon Coalition affiliates Maarten Stapper, Walter Jehne, Martin Royds,and Tom Nicholas). The highest policy advisers in the land made themselves available, a tribute to Peter and the General. One was able to engage them in conversation easily and without ceremony. Ken Henry revealed that he had read both Peter’s books and used his techniques on his own property. Perhaps the most important official for the soil carbon movement was Ken Henry because the Government won’t have too many excess dollars for Agriculture. It wil be looking for good ROI from its investment. And Carbon Farming is a good investment.

Peter's NSF principles have always been considered to be a foundational infrastructure issue to be considered by every farmer wanting to grow carbon in soils and wanting to encourage natural fertility systems in their landscape. This event further reinforces that belief. Congratulations to the NSF organisation on a triumph.

Farmers on the front foot in Copenhagen

The International Federation of Agricultural Producers released a Declaration this week. It is called "Farmers’ solutions to climate change - proposals for including agriculture in a post-Kyoto agreement". (The NFF is a member of the IFAP).

It calls for Agriculture to be included as a full member of the post-Kyoto agreement, with full consideration of the unique contribution it can make and the unique challenges it faces.

HIGHLIGHTS:

"THE SPECIFICITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED

"• Agriculture is different by nature and must be differentiated from other sectors
Most of agriculture’s green house gas (GHG) emissions are directly linked to natural biological cycles. The future accounting framework should allow a distinction to be made between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic emissions. Farmers cannot be held accountable for natural biological processes.

"• The origin, monitoring and reporting of emissions from agricultural land is inherently different from those associated with fossil fuels. Agriculture should not be penalized for natural emissions that are beyond human control, independent from management effects. Natural emissions are due to climate conditions such as variable rainfall, drought and bushfires.

"==> Agriculture cannot compete with other sectors in terms of cost-efficiency in reducing GHG emissions, unless its carbon sequestration and displacement potential are recognised."

DESIRED OUTCOMES:

"Specifically, farmers represented in IFAP are seeking the following desired outcomes from the negotiations

• Official recognition of agriculture as a sector that is adversely affected by the effects of climate change and, at the same time, as a sector with a huge potential to provide solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

• A commitment for a substantial increase in investments in and support for agriculture. The sector must be prioritised in international and national strategies as well as in budgets in order to increase agriculture’s resilience to climate change while boosting economic growth.

• Support for the full integration of agriculture in the post-Kyoto agreement. Agriculture being a cross-cutting issue, it should be mainstreamed under all the different components of the Bali Action Plan and beyond.

• Recognition of the specific characteristics and needs of agriculture in the post-Kyoto agreement in order to take full advantage of the sequestration and adaptation potential of the agricultural sector. The current Kyoto accounting rules do not reflect these specificities.

• Establishment of an appropriate financial mechanism to reward farmers for the carbon sequestration and ecosystem services that mitigate climate change, providing them with the right financial incentives to adopt the most sustainable practices.

• Recognition of Farmers’ Organizations as partners, as the link between farming communities and the international carbon market, and as the link to the international institutions. "

UN Supremo says soil carbon is on track

This is good news coming out of the Copenhagen process:

Addressing the participants at a Land Day gathering held on Saturday, 6 June, in Bonn, Germany, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, stressed the significance of climate change on future food security and said 89% of mitigation in agriculture can be achieved by soil carbon sequestration through measures such as cropland management, restoration of organic soils and degraded land, bioenergy and water management.

De Boer said "Copenhagen is the time to make sure win-win effects become reality across the world."

Recalling that scientific and political challenges that inhibited the comprehensive elaboration of land-based adaptation and mitigation strategies for the Kyoto Protocol, De Boer said "science has since caught up, and monitoring carbon sequestration into soils can be monitored with much greater accuracy" and that "a successful outcome will include incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to adopt decisive mitigation measures."

While the climate change negotiating process was moving to better accounting processes, he said, progress will depend on the ability to manage some of the uncertainties, which, he added, "this forum, and by linking climate change to the broader development agenda can do." For the full statement visit: website: http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/landday/docs/090606_speech_Bonn.pdf

Ostrich strategy still popular in Agricultural Industry Leadership

NSW Farmers Association Board Director Louise Burge took us aside one day in 2006 when we were about to address a group of landholders at Cobar and said, "You don't know what you are dealing with." Pretty positive way to start. She meant we were ignorant of the methane and nitrous oxide issues, the dark side of the soil carbon equation. And she was right: we were. But not for long. And when we understood the size of the downside, we believed even more in the need to win the right for farmers to trade in their soil carbon. What alternative is there: face the methane and nitrous oxide liability without offsets? Louise led us to believe that if we made a fuss about soil carbon, the Government would notice us. We would draw attention to agriculture and its emissions. It is the ostrich strategy. I thought it couldn't have been that blatant, that I must have misunderstood her. But in The Land this week there she is, still pushing the ostrich solution. "Proponents of carbon credits schemes are responding to perceived opportunities, perhaps without fully considering the carbon liabilities that will apply to agriculture." The Climate Change denialists, who dominated the debates for so long in agriculture, left the way clear for the Government to do whatever they want with Agriculture because as an industry we weren't at the negotiating table. The whole industry didn't turn up. They didn't get it. And the leadership so comprehensively failed the membership that they should resign en masse with an apology. Even today, they refuse to engage with the issues: "It is hard to see how the quantities of emissions now attributed to agriculture by the Federal Government can be offset by carbon storage in soils or in trees along the edges of paddocks." It's hard to see if you don't look. If, instead of seeking to block the soil carbon message and undermine us for three years, these people got behind the campaign and we got some real science behind the rate of growth and the tonnages possible that we know are possible, they would not be reduced to the traditional 'poor bugger me' defence. That worked when agriculture was a political force. But The Nationals are reduced to the clowning self promotion of Barnaby Joyce who gets the nod from John Hewson in the Australian Financial Review last Friday. Both Barnaby and Louise have got to face facts: there will be some form of carbon trade in permits or a tax - we have to pay. Penny Wong's people have told us agriculture will be covered one way or the other. I can't see the Nationals winning Government anytime in the next 100 years and reversing history. So, given that, why not try to get a fair deal for farmers? Why do they want to leave farmers exposed by opposing soil carbon credits? What is their motivation? Who benefits? (John Hewson's article is a gem. Whoever briefed him has our gratitude. You did a good job.)

PS. Jock Laurie, President of NSW Farmers, was the first prominent leader to endorse our campaign.

LAL LAYS DOWN THE LAW: Briefing Notes for Copenhagen

PROFESSOR RATTAN LAL, the world's leading soil carbon scholar, has written a briefing paper for the Copenhagen round of negotiations for The International Food Policy Research Institute. In it he has laid down some basic precepts that should inform the debate and lift the level of discussion.

PHOTOSYNTHESIS CAN BALANCE THE CARBON BUDGET: "The natural rate of photosynthesis in the global biosphere is about 120 billion mt of carbon per year. Fossil fuel combustion emits about 8 billion mt of carbon annually, and deforestation and land-use conversion emit another 1.6 billion to 2 billion mt of carbon per year, for a total of 9.6 to 10.8 billion mt of carbon emissions per year. Thus, if roughly 8 percent of the carbon being photosynthesized by the biosphere is retained within the soil and biotic pools, the global carbon budget would be balanced."

NO-TILL ALONE NOT ENOUGH: "Examples of soil and crop management technologies that increase soil carbon sequestration include no-till (NT) farming with residue mulch and cover cropping; integrated nutrient management (INM), which balances nutrient application with judicious use of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers; various crop rotations (including agroforestry); use of soil amendments (such as zeolites, biochar, or compost); and improved pastures with recommended stocking rates and controlled fire as a rejuvenate method."

50 YEARS: "The technical potential of carbon sequestration in world soils may be 2 billion to 3 billion mt per year for the next 50 years. Thus, the potential of carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation together is equivalent to a draw-down of about 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2100."

CARBON JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PRODUCE: "One way to think of soil carbon is as a commodity. It can be produced and, if carbon markets exist, traded like any other farm produce. Additional income can be an important incentive for the resource poor farmers in developing countries to invest in soil restoration and adopt RMPs. The economic potential may be as much as 60 percent of the technical potential, or 1.2 to 2.0 billion mt of carbon per year. Furthermore, measuring and monitoring protocols of change in carbon pools at the landscape, farm, and regional scales are available to facilitate carbon trading."

DEGRADED SOILS HAVE HE MOST POTENTIAL: "The greatest potential for sequestration is in the soils of those regions that have lost the most soil carbon. These are the regions where soils are severely degraded and have been used with extractive farming practices for a long time..."

ONE TONNE CARBON PER HECTARE PER YEAR: "Most soils have a technical or maximum sink capacity of 20 to 50 mt of carbon per hectare that can be sequestered over a 20-to-50-year period."

COPENHAGEN GOALS: "Suggested negotiating outcomes:
Carbon sequestration in soils and plants is the only strategy that can remove carbon from the atmosphere and, over time, reduce atmospheric concentration of CO2. Initiatives to support reduced emissions from deforestation (REDD) are well underway. Funds for soil carbon mitigation should also be made available. Support should be provided for:
• crop mixes to include more plants that are perennial or have deep-root systems in order to increase the amount of carbon
stored in the soil;
• cultivation systems that leave residues and reduce tillage, especially deep tillage, in order to encourage the buildup of soil
carbon;
• shifting land use from annual crops to perennial crops, pasture, and agroforestry in order to increase both above- and belowground carbon stocks; and
• activities that restore degraded and desertified soils and ecosystems, especially those affected by accelerated erosion,
salinization, and nutrient depletion."

LOW-COST MONITORING: "Carbon offset payments should be allowed for carbon sequestered in soils where low-cost monitoring is available. Funds for the development of these monitoring systems should be part of any outcome."

WIN-WIN: "Soil carbon sequestration is a win–win strategy. It mitigates climate change by offsetting anthropogenic emissions; improves the environment, especially the quality of natural waters; enhances soil quality; improves agronomic productivity; and advances food security. It is a low-hanging fruit and a bridge to the future, until carbon-neutral fuel sources and low-carbon economy take effect."


...............


The Potential for Soil Carbon Sequestration
Rattan LaL Focus 16 • Bri eF 5 • May 2009

Rattan Lal (lal.1@osu.edu) is Director of the Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center and Professor of Soil Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources.

Agriculture and climate change are inextricably linked, and thus, agriculture must be on the Copenhagen agenda. Indeed, it must be on the agenda of negotiators well before COP15. The International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI) 2020 Vision Initiative approached leading experts around the world to share their views on the key negotiating outcomes that must be pursued now in order to effectively put agriculture on the climate change agenda. Their perspectives are compiled in a set of policy briefs on “Agriculture and Climate Change: An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen”, which is available at http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus16.asp.

Is there a role for agriculturalists in soil research?

Here's a lesson: Unsound science looks like sound science if you don't know what you are looking at... Science can produce inaccurate results if the methodology adopted to simulate farming practices is unrealistic. For instance, in 2003 (just 6 years ago) The Australian Journal of Experimental Science published a scientific paper titled "Effects of Grazing and Management on Herbiage Mass..." 2003, 43, 892-905. They were trying to test the claims of Holistic Management and Grazing For Profit's grazing management systems that they produce more vegetation than conventional grazing. Practitioners of these grazing techniques will tell you that it can take approximately 7 years for the full impact of grazing management to kick in with any dramatic results, unaided. It seems that the soil biology has to reach a critical mass. As well, anything less that 35-55 paddocks defeats the purpose because rest (or freedom from grazing) is the key variable in vegetation growth. Animal impact - bunching them up so that they graze the paddock evenly, disturb the topsoil and fertilise it with their dung and urine - is a key part of the system, which is why such a time controlled grazier would graze 25-50 sheep per hectare for the period of grazing, which is in many case less than a week or two weeks. Table 1. compares how the simulation of the land management technique was designed for the experiment with reality of how that technique is practiced.

Naturally the researchers concluded that there was no effect on herbiage mass from rotational grazing. Therefore, they concluded 'recipes' (exotic grazing management systems) don't work. One alternative explanation that they did not consider was that they were not good rotational graziers. And had they been aware of what was necessary to make such a system work, perhaps they would have produced a more useful research result. As it is, this piece of research adds little to the knowledge base, but it was given the status of 'scientific fact' by virtue of its publication and no doubt used by extension officers and district agronomists to knock rotational grazing systems which are taught by the organisations mentioned above which engage their students in a mentoring relationship, which means they no longer rely on the extension staff for advice. They also promote a low-chemical/low artificial fertilizer regime which most extension officers would not have encountered in their training and would therefore be uncomfortable with.
But had practitioners been part of the research team and allowed to have input on the methodology, the findings might be more useful. The Evergraze project has 4 landholders consulting to the research team, I believe. Even then it has a 4 paddock and a 20 paddock rotation. The phenomenon of scientists being unable to verify what farmers on the ground are finding was demonstrated in a paper called Production-Oriented Conservative-Impact Grazing Management. It was prepared for a WA Department of Agriculture workshop in 2002, by Ben Norton. He points out that the majority of published research studies of rotational grazing find that continuous grazing is better than or comparable to rotational grazing in terms of either animal or plant production. Yet “Hundreds of graziers on three continents claim that their livestock production has increased by half or doubled or even tripled following the implementation of rotational grazing…” The answer to the conundrum lies in the methodology adopted by the scientists: the research trials employed only 16 paddocks or less in the rotation. A typical real-life rotational cell will have 40 to 80 paddocks, the high numbers affecting the amount of time animals are intensively grazing each paddock and the amount of time the paddocks have to recover.

Someone should tell them....

The St Paul of Soil Biology...

IS Maarten Stapper's story is a parable about Agricultural Science in Australia?.He is not the Messiah. IS he the St Paul of Biological Farming - his "Road To Damascus" was the road to Canberra. The Romans persecuting the earliest Christians - the CSIRO? The dominant paradigm (religion) Industrial/Dominate Nature vs Biological/Mimic Nature?
Does the aggressive response to the natural farming movement reflect the realisation by those in extension mentoring roles that they are losing contact with the farmers. (Both Scott Macalman and Peter Cook admit to hiding somewhere on their farms when the district agronomist came visiting.)
The GRDC is investing in its agronomist network in the CENTRAL WEST OF NSW, Home of Carbon Farming and Conservation Tillage. It has also announced a major investment in soil biology. Was the "Cost Of Humus" saga really The Chaser Team? Could be.... It was hinted at, at a major sustainability conference in Canberra recently when a very senior government manager, after sitting through presentations by Adrian Lawrie, Christine Jones, and Bob Wilson, said, of soil biology, "This is something we are yet to learn about."

A compassionate analysis: soil biology neglected in a country where the soil science is dominated by physicists and chemists. The industrial solution losing its effectiveness. The "Moron" response - put more on - also loses potency. Farmers demand for soil biology noted by NSWDPI 2004 (Tamworth event overbooked), Cotton CRC 2005 (survey)... meanwhile Arden Anderson and Elaine Ingham derided. Meanwhile Governments close agencies, slash staff (LWA, DPI, DAFF etc.). Carbon farming derided - "Mythbusters" seminars try to win back hearts and minds of landholders while justifying denying farmers access to carbon credits to offset against their emissions...

More farmers want to understand, don't want to be told. LawrieCo is forming support groups who learn from each other. "Microscope Clubs" are springing up - farmers search for and discuss the microbes they discover in their soil.

Grassroots farmers should not be ignored. They may not have PhDs, but they work in their laboratory (farm) everyday.

Tagasaste Bob Wins Inaugural GAIA Award

Carbon Coalition Counsellor Bob WIlson from WA won the first GAIA (Green Agriculture Innovation Award), selected by Dr Christine Jones. Bob, vice president of WA's Evergreen Farming Group, has earned the name "Tagasaste Bob" because of his work introducing new edible shrubs, including "Tagasaste" and other 'exotic' grasses such as native perennials (native to the eastern states) which grow well on the silver loams (ie. sand) in south western WA. Bob has been a guiding presence in the Carbon Coalition since we began 3 years ago. His award is recognition of his success as a pioneer. Bob's (and Tim WiIey's) work in adaptive grazing management has given hope to the farmers of the region and beyond. Well done, Bob.

PS. Christine Jones received a generous donation from businessman Alan Hill to establish the award hich will run for 5 years.

Photo:Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke was present to see Bob given his award at the Dinner as part of the 10th National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development, held at Parliament House last night. Christine Jones is seen in the background.

Please take some grassroots action - read the Draft Standard

and make some comments...

THe American farmers' groups who have developed the Agricultural Soil Credit Standard are appealing to those with an interest to comment on it. Australian farmers have an interest in this Standard because of the global political environment in which the USA is flying the flag for Agriculture worldwide. Agriculture relies on grassroots action to see change. This standard is to be submitted to the US Government by the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations.

Click here for access to a pdf copy of the Draft Standard.

The group developed this standard to validate soil-based carbon offset methodologies and systems that can be broadly accepted. The standard used elements from ISO 9001, ISO Guide 65 and National Organic Program (NOP).


>> The comment period will last only until June 26, 2009

>> Please direct all comments to Gary DeLong, Managing Director of Novecta, by email.

His address is: garyd@novecta.com

>> Comments should be noted by page number and section as appropriate.

>> The comments will be assembled into a matrix format for review by the committee and any others who are interested in doing so.

>> At the conclusion of the comment period the comments will be review by the committee and then submitted to United States Department Agriculture (USDA) for review.

Land Management Practices for Carbon Credits

Land management practices are spelled out for farmers wanting to sell carbon credits based on soil carbon, in the Draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard to be submitted to the US Government by the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations.
Click here for access to a pdf copy of the Draft Standard.

Part D - Management Practices
Sec. 400 General.
Projects generating credits for sale or trade shall comply with the applicable provisions of this Part. Management practices shall result in additional soil carbon or emission reduction. The practices shall be maintained or improved throughout the duration of the contract to sell carbon credits.

Sec. 405 Credit and Reduction Practices.
The net greenhouse gas impact in a carbon credit or emission reduction method shall be less than the greenhouse gas impact in standard agricultural practices. The following baseline or business as usual practices listed in (a) shall be changed by using one or more method listed in (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.

(a) Baseline or business as usual includes:

(1) No soil management plan;
(2) No grazing plan for rangeland;
(3) No management plan for grassland;
(4) No nutrient management plan for crop, grassland, or rangeland to account for the
emission of GHGs; and
(5) No fuel use plan to reduce the quantity of petroleum-based fuels used.

(b) Cropping systems, including planted grassland or rangeland. Cropping systems shall reduce greenhouse gas impact by executing one or more of the following practices to sequester carbon in the soil:

(1) Reduction of soil disturbance when performing cropping activities such as no-till or
conservation tillage as defined by the current edition of the NRCS Handbook of
Conservation Practices;
(2) Modifying crop rotations to add biomass to the soil, including cover crops;
(3) Plantings crops that add carbon to the soil; and
(4) Any other practice or technology approved by the Agricultural Carbon Board that results
in additional carbon sequestration.

(c) Grazing Plan for Rangeland and Grassland. Grazing plans for rangeland and grassland shall increase carbon sequestration by increasing biomass from vegetation. All of the following requirements shall be met:

(1) Low-to-moderate grazing based on rainfall or irrigation;
(2) Seasonal rotation to increase vegetative production cycle; and
(3) Any other practice or technology that results in increased carbon sequestration in the plant material and the surrounding soil profile and that is approved by the Agricultural Carbon Board.
Note: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guides publish
guidelines for managing the controlled harvest of vegetation with grazing animals. Stocking rates
and livestock distribution criteria are defined according to County and State in the NRCS
“Prescribed Grazing Specification” code. A formal grazing plan may be developed with the input of
NRCS, BLM, USFS other non-profit agencies or private rangeland consulting firms. Regardless of
the source of the grazing plan, it shall at a minimum adhere to NRCS standards.

(d) Nutrient Planning. Methods used to enhance soil fertility shall facilitate net reductions of GHG emissions into the environment compared to the baseline; a nutrient plan shall include at least one of the following:

(1) Reduction of the amount of fertilizer used and variable rate application;
(2) Selection and use of fertilizer that reduces emissions, such as slow release fertilizers
(nitrification inhibitors, and urease inhibitors);
(3) Crop rotations that add nutrients to the soil;
(4) Management of the timing, placement and method of application of nitrogen fertilizer
(including split applications and not using fall application);
(5) Use of organic nutrient sources; and
(6) Any other fertilization practice approved by the Agricultural Carbon Board that results in
net reductions of GHG emissions.

(e) Fuel use plan. Cultural practices shall reduce the amount of petroleum-based fuel. A fuel use plan shall include at least one of the following:

(1) Overall reduction of fuel use;
(2) Use of biological-based fuel such as ethanol or bio-diesel;
(3) Use of equipment that reduces GHG emissions;
(4) Any other fuel reduction or emission method approved by the Agricultural Carbon Board that result in reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

MMV not revealed in Draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard

MEASUREMENT NOT CONCLUSIVE

Although the detail of the Measurement approach adopted is not given in the draft*, it is described as a mix of “from modeling, assessment and quantification through approved methodologies. Methods of quantification methodology shall be scientifically evaluated, verified, validated and accepted as scientifically valid by a government agency, accredited university, or technical advisory committees of the Agricultural Carbon Board.” The latter is a governing body with stakeholders represented. “Approved methodologies include models, modeling and protocols with validation and verification developed on a foundation of statistically valid sampling representative of the conditions subject to carbon credit.” “The Project Owner or Aggregator shall use an approved quantification methodology to estimate the amount of net primary greenhouse gas change in the soil over time with statistical representation of the credit validated by appropriate direct measurement.”

*Draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard to be submitted to the US Government by the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations. Click here for access to a pdf copy of the Draft Standard.

Sec. 302 Validation of quantification methods.
A quantification method shall:
(a) Determine net change in primary greenhouse gases in accordance with prevailing conventions for accuracy, precision of measurement and statistical validity. The quantification methods shall be robust to operate over an appropriate range of soils, cropping practices and environments, and scalable over the scope of the carbon credit. The methodology shall be replicable and thoroughly documented; and
(b) Be validated by an approved domestic or international body, which shall include those
organizations that can demonstrate no conflict of interest and whose work processes are
accredited by appropriate national and/or international accreditation agencies. The methodology for quantification shall conform to prevailing principles of quality management.

Obama considers Draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard

Concepts such as ‘additionality’ and ‘permanence’ as designed for industrial sequestration and mitigation projectts are not approprite for agriculture, according to the authors of a Draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard that will be submitted to the Obama Administration which is designing its Cap & Trade system. The Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations commissioned its consulting group Novecta to compile “an agriculture-based, industry-supported standard for the creation of carbon credits that can be marketed in a commodity trading system.” A committee of industry and trade reporesentatives are directing the project.

The Draft Standard features new, agricultural-based, definitions of additionality and permanence, two criteria which are critical to fungible carbon credits. “Typically, industrial credit projects are very stable and have specific points of measurement. Changes in carbon emissions or mitigation of emissions can be measured at a specific site over an agreed upon period of time, supporting the existing definitions of additionality and permanence. Agriculture does not fit well into the current model because production occurs in annual cycles influenced by seasonal activities and varying weather patterns. Soil types, irrigation, use of fertilizer, natural disasters, and individual producer situations contribute to the variability of agriculture,” says the Committee.

ADDITIONALITY REDEFINED

The Corn Growers have reconceptualised additionality to remove the ambiguity of the need to read motivations to determine intention. Ie. business as usual is no longer the source of perverse outcomes because farmers who have been sequestering for years are punished and the emitters rewarded for their late arrival. The replacement is much simpler: “GHG project activities shall result in carbon benefits additional to those that would have taken place in the absence of the activity and that are not already required by law or regulation.”

The Committee believes that additionality for agriculture “results from a cropping cycle that is either planted directly or is naturally occurring as in rangeland. If there is more carbon in the soil at the end of a crop cycle than there was in the beginning of the cycle, then "additionality" has occurred.” It says that this definition is “supported by existing science”. The Committee also assets that science also supports “the concept that
agricultural carbon becomes more stable over a period of time as it migrates to greater soil depths.”

Additionality also occurs when reducing emissions from standard agricultural practice such as the application of fertilizers or the use of farm equipment. The Standard considers that “additionality results from the ongoing augmentation and maintenance of existing soil carbon stocks as well as from avoided emissions.”

PERMANENCE REDEFINED

Permanence has also been redefined in a way more suitable to agriculture. The concept of collective persistence will ensure duration over time. Soil carbon reserve pools (implicit and/or explicit) would serve as a risk buffer to provide insurance of adequate credits should a Project Owner fail to produce agreed upon quantities.

Permanence is “a function of the farm aggregate collectively using credit practices of avoided emissions and carbon sequestration rather than the function of an individual producer.” While individuals might temorarily change their sequestration rate for whatever reason, not all farmers involved are likely to do the same. “As an aggregate there is a
collective persistence of carbon credits,” says the Committee which states that more work will be done to substantiate the claim that when the effects of large groups of producers are measured collectively, credit practices increase each year.

Biochar threatens biodiversity and soil biology?

Ross Garnaut lambasted Australian business leaders for not making the effort to understand the issues behind climate change and the CPRS. He could have included anyone who eulogises biochar as the miracle solution to biosequestration and soil fertilty. Hip Hooray for Stephen Joseph and his wonderful team to be given $1.5 million for research. It can;t be the only research being done on it. We suspect it is a drop in the ocean. Stephen's response to the announcement is revealing: He preferred to have the money put towards building a pyrolisis burner that can produce 10,000 tonnes: "There is not a facility in Australia that the research community has access to." Why not? How expensive are they? What will be the cost of biochar once it is up and running? Could it be that biochar doesn't need scientists, it needs market economists and management accountants?
Why are we questioning biochar? Because it threatens to distract government and industry attention from the soil carbon solution. Lumping soil carbon in with biochar is misleading. They are not brothers or even cousins. Biochar is primarily a manufacturing process producing fuel, energy and soil ameliorants. A side effect of the manufacturing process is hte conversion of vegetation into char - a stable form of carbon. Its stability is similar to that of humus. But it cannot be compared. Because in the next 10-15 years agricultural soil management can produce hundreds of millions of tonnes of humus and biochar will struggle to produce one million in that time. The relative performance as a process for reducing the "Legacy Load" can be see in the conclusion of 20 IPCC soil scientists in the Royal Society's Journal which decided that the world's soils can extract 5-6 billion tonnes of CO2e per year.

There is another reason we want to draw attention to biochar's limitations: it could have a negative impact on biodiversity and soil biology. This morning we had an enquiry from our CMA. A local farmer wants to put the dead and fallen timber on his property through a pyrolisis burner, creating char and offsets for the nearby cement manufacturer to buy. He mentioned that he had heard about biochar and the idea of using 'waste' vegetation on his farm from Tim Flannery during his visit to the Central West last week. Tim did suggest this idea during his lunch time speech to the 150 farmers on a bus tour of 'carbon cockys'' But after his visit to Michael Inwood and Graham Ross's properties, he heard many things about the importance of soil biology and the role fallen timber plays in providing living quarters to microbes and worms, et al. Tim described it as 'waste' because fallen timber is considered only as a source of methane as they decompose. In his latest book - Now Or Never - Tim arrives at accurate conclusions about soil carbon: Soil, he says, is ‘the fastest way of sequestering carbon’. He has reached a clear understanding of the reason why soil is so important: The Legacy Load: “Standing stock of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is around 200 gigatonnes... The strongest prospect of very large draw-down of atmospheric carbon lies in changes to our global agriculture and forestry practices," he says. He acknowledges capacity of the 4 billion hectares of rangeland. Increase the soil carbon in ‘world’s dry rangelands by a mere 2 per cent… we could pull down around 880 gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere.”

It would be a tragedy if Biochar caused a battle for biomass.

Time for new leadership in Agriculture

Agriculture must look like a bunch of chooks with their heads chopped off as the industry reacts to the looming Emissions Trading Scheme. Afraid to take on the denialists in their midst, the leadership of the industry at every level has let farmers down. Falling back on the argument that there were many points of view was easy then. Hard now.
Those of us in the Carbon Coalition – campaigning for soil carbon rights so farmers could offset their methane and nitrous oxide emissions – have had a unique view of the way the industry has responded to the challenge of an impending ETS. We always believed that the industry had to engage with the ETS up front and fight for a fair deal on emissions and sequestration. Most people in Agriculture didn’t want to know. The establishment research institutions promoted the view that farmers should forget trading soil carbon: it’s too hard. One ran a series of campaigns (and is still running them) to discredit soil carbon. (It told a Senate Committee that there were no such campaigns.) If the energy and resources that were put into the campaign against soil carbon had been put behind it, farmers would be trading soil carbon today, and we’d have a very different negotiation with the Government.
Not everyone was asleep at the wheel. The grassroots farmers have been interested. Two years ago, when our local Farmers’ Association chapter took a motion to State Conference about soil carbon credits to help farmers, it was “speared” by one of the retired farmers who hang around the Association’s committees. “I speared it,” he announced to me at an event in Cobar. When asked why, he said a friend told him it as bad for farmers. Another senor Association person urged us to keep quiet about soil carbon because the Government might notice we were there and make us pay for our methane emissions. This is the level of debate we have encountered, even among scientists. There are two types of scientist: 1. Those who feel threatened and use terms like ‘snake oil’ to describe our message. 2. Those who sit down with us and are willing to listen and exchange views and collaborate on experiments. They speak at our conferences and don’t hide behind terms like “Soil Carbon Mythbusters”.
Not only has there been an unwillingness to engage with the issue, many protagonists believe they can enter the debate without understanding some of the basic concepts underlying soil carbon trading. The ignorance of some scientists who comment publicly is astonishing.
The Nationals at Federal Level have been missing in action until now. Senator Joyce is exploiting the situation for himself, but not helping the people he claims to represent. Where has he been for the past 3 years? Even the new boy, Mark Coulton, the Member for Parkes, is playing a constructive role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt MP.
Farmers are being hung out to dry because of poor industry leadership. But if you aren’t dealt in, you can’t play. Out-manouvered at every turn by the energy industry, Agriculture did not get a seat at Howard’s Roundtable in mid 2007. The Carbon Coalition had briefed the NFF a year earlier. They knew what was coming. Agriculture stood by and watched the coal industry get hundreds of millions of dollars for climate change research. When soil carbon was given $20million by the Government recently – the largest amount ever allocated for soil carbon research in Australia - the CSIRO’s Dr Jeff Baldock didn’t call one of the industry funding bodies to say thanks. He called the snake oil salesmen. The Carbon Coalition.
Climate Change is on us right now. We can’t afford to wait for the laggards to catch up. There is no leadership coming from the Leaders of Agriculture. We must provide our own leadership. Christine Jones, Ken Bellamy, Col Seis, Bob Wilson, Tim Wiley, Tony Lovell – these, and many more like them, are our leaders. They don’t have titles. They lead by just getting on with it.
Leadership groups are emerging: Think tanks and action groups focussed on sustainable agricultural philosophies and practices, such as a 'deep thought' group in the New England and the new “Eco-Ag” group forming after a recent meeting in Orange, NSW. Another alliance of activists is forming around Major General Michael Jefferies, the former Governor General, who is ready to use his influence to get the sustainability message heard. These must lend their support to each other, fuse where they overlap, and accept that together we make each other stronger. Now is not the time for sectional interests to pursue their agendas.
We know who the enemy is: ignorance and fear. And that disunity is death.

Bravo, Ken Bellamy - Soil Carbon Trading Pioneer

Prime Carbon, the pioneer of the regional soil carbon trading model, has been slogging through an intense negotiation process with the Department of Climate Change's Dr Bill Slattery to refine a trading model that would enable soil carbon to be traded on the voluntary market. Bill is head of agriculture in the DCC and has said we need to demonstrate that we want it enough before we will achieve our aim. The negotations have resolved Bill's issues with the model and he has referred Ken Bellamy - the Carbon Coalition member who has invested heavily in this development work - to the Secretary of the Department.
Meanwhile, the targeted microbial formulations for nutrient transfer in agriculture developed by Ken's company Vital Resource Management Pty Ltd (VRM) have been accredited to The Australian Technology Showcase. The Showcase is a joint State and Federal Government program to promote leading-edge Australian technology Globally. To become accredited to the Showcase this technology has demonstrated to an independent assessment panel that it is: . Clearly innovative . Scientifically credible . Developed with significant local content . Commercially attractive . Demonstrably marketable and exportable . Socially and environmentally beneficial. Ken's regional trading model engages local communities, waste management services, big polluters, farmers, and local government organisations in a mutually rewarding process. The products which grow out of this accreditation are also approved on the Prime Carbon list of approved products as catalysts for soil carbon sequestration.

First NZ Soil Carbon Conference

The first NZ Soil Carbon Conference is to be held in Hawke's Bay in June. Held over three days, the NZ Soil Carbon Conference will focus on the reality of climate change, biological farming and the huge opportunity the soil carbon market presents for New Zealand. International and national key note speakers have been secured including world renowned scientists and Louisa Kiely, convenors of the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming in Australia.
The programme will also feature case studies presented by successful New Zealand biological/carbon farmers, local and central government perspectives, the stock exhange views. The Conference will also present a practical focus for growers on how to grow carbon and two optional field trips are planned for the last day of the Conference.
Master of Ceremonies: Brent Clothier, Science Leader, NZ Plant & Food Research

Day One
Tuesday 23rd June 2009
8.15am Delegates' registration at the Napier War Memorial Centre
8.45am Welcome to the NZ Soil Carbon Conference
9.00am The Global Food Crisis and Soil Carbon. Why the world needs Carbon Farmers: A Message from Professor Rattan Lal (Videolink) - Soil is the beginning of the food chain. Without it, we cannot feed the world.
9.20am Climate Change Reality - Dr David Wratt, Chief Scientist at NIWA
9.50am The ability of NZ soils to store carbon & the carbon cycle - Brent Clothier, Science Leader, NZ Plant & Food Research
10.20am Morning tea
11.00am Carbon Farming: the big picture - Louisa Kiely, Carbon Farmers of Australia. NSW rural woman of the year 2008
11.30am Policy constraints to carbon trading - Blair McClinton, executive manager of Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association
12.00pm The carbon opportunity - Paul Smith
12.30pm Lunch
1.30pm Teaming with microbes - Nicole Masters
2.00pm Visual indicators for assessing the potential for carbon sequestration & GHG's - Graham Shepherd
2.30pm Paper: The importance of soil porosity - Dr Markus Deurer
2.45pm Afternoon tea
3.30pm Papatuankuku, Whenua, Oneone Nga Whanaunga The earth, the land the soil and their relationship - Percy Tipene, Chairman Te Waka Kai Ora
4.00pm Case Study: Microbial indicators and Carbon testing in the Waikato. Robin Janson, EcoSynergy Group
4.30pm Case Study: Growing milk and soil carbon - Hamish Galloway
4.45pm Case Study: Growing kiwifruit biologically - Tim Oliver
5.00pm Close of Day One.

Day Two
Wednesday 24th June 2009
8.30am Delegates gather at the War Memorial Centre
8.40am Welcome
8.50am The NZ farmer and the politics of the ETS - Max Purnell
9.15am Carbon measurement
9.45am The mechanics of trading: lessons from Canada - Blair McClinton
10.15am Morning tea
10.45am Carbon footprinting: Professor Caroline Saunders, Director of Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University
11.15am Carbon and the stockmarket: Joanna Silver
11.45am Panel Discussion: question and answers from the speakers
12.30pm Lunch
1.30pm Paper: "The effects of Management in Three Primary Sectors on Soil Organic Matter and Structure". Peter Carey, Land Research Services
2.00pm Methods for increasing soil carbon - Frank van Steensel MSc
2.30pm Cover cropping and compost - Steve Erickson
3.00pm Afternoon tea
3.45pm Growing beef nutritionally - Ewan Campbell
4.15pm The future of farming - Dr Jon Tanner
4.45pm Soils for optimum wine production
5.00pm Finish
6.30pm Gala Dinner in the ballroom of the War Memorial Centre (optional) with keynote speaker Michael Kiely.

Day Three (Optional)
Thursday 25th June 2009
8.30am Strategy Meeting (Breakout Room 1 at the War Memorial Centre) until approximately 11am.
11.30am Field Trip A: Dairy trip to Onga Onga.
Cost $55 including lunch.
A bus visit to two successful biological diary blocks building soil carbon and nutrition. Delegates will be returned to the War Memorial Centre at approximately 5.00pm
11.30am Field Trip B: Pipfruit & Viticulture trip to Havelock North & Omahu.
Cost $55 including lunch.
A bus visit to a biologically managed organic apple block that is focused on building soil health. This will be followed by a trip to a conventional vineyard incorporating the biological approach with great results. Delegates will be returned to the War Memorial Centre at approximately 5.00pm.Delegates will be returned to the War Memorial Centre at approximately 5.00pm.

www soilcarbonconference.co.nz

Minister Burke Responds to the Petition - PLEASE COMMENT

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENT ON THE MINISTER'S REPLY TO THE PETITION IN THE COMMENTS SECTION BELOW

THE MINISTER'S LETTER

Thank you for your email of 6 march 2009 about the Soil Carbon Research Program (SCRP) and your petition of 10 March 2009. Climate Change is one of the greatest challenges facing primary industries, but also offers opportunities if we engage farming communities and invest in research and industry preparation. It is encouraging to see the depth of community interest shown in your petition. The Australian Government has committed itself to examining the opportunities for producivity gains that may flow from improving the level of carbon in agricultural soils.

The program covers all states and the Northern Territory. It will identify land uses and management practices that have the poptential to increase the levels of carbon in the soil across the nation's diverse farming systems - including cereal crops, sheep and beef grazing, sugarcane and vegetable farming, and irrigated and non-irrigated dairy. The SCRP will develop a national standard for measuring soil carbon levels and will assist with the development of a national dataset of soil carbon levels.

The Government recognises the important role that sound, peer reviewed science can have on influencing international accounting rules, negotiations and policy. The SCRP is a scientific research program and its findings wll be subject to peer review.

It is also important to highlight that the projects to be undertaken under the SCRP were recommended by an independent panel with extensive links to Australia's agricultural indstry, research institutions and fsrming sector. I believe that the panel is well positioned to select projects that address gaps in our knowledge.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Burke

THE PETITION

Collaborative Science in Agriculture
A Brief Submission on Maximising Return on Investment in Soil Carbon Research

Statement of the Opportunity: The Minister for Agriculture has announced a $20 million investment in research into Soil Carbon, for which we are very grateful. The Soil Carbon Movement has long petitioned for this outcome, and we are anxious that Soil Carbon be given the opportunity to perform to its potential. That justice is seen to be done is the key to the Farm Community’s acceptance of the outcomes, given that the economic viability of many farm enterprises will be determined by these outcomes.

Context: The controversy over the sequestration potential of Australian soils is based on a methodological flaw in the National Carbon Accounting Scheme which saw gaps in the data skew the results and lead to the conclusion that Australian soils were more likely to be a source of emissions than a sink. The gaps in the data – the absence of new land management techniques that sequester carbon in soil – have been acknowledged by a former Australian Greenhouse Office executive. Unfortunately, the consensus opinion was formed before the ‘key gaps in the data’ were filled. Those gaps are still waiting to be filled – even after the projects that you announced this week are complete. The common belief led policymakers to see Agriculture as ‘problem’ rather than ‘opportunity’. Funding for trials was denied. Meanwhile farmers were recording rates of soil carbon increases 10 to 100-times faster than official science (by focussing on soil biology). Official science has also started to record higher rates of sequestration than the models, based on incomplete data, will allow.

Core Issue: A farmer could see the gaps in the NCAS research at a glance because he knows what to look for. Scientists are not fully briefed on emerging land management practices, they might construct methodologies that potentially do not reflect practical reality. This in turn could compromise the research. Where the outcome of this research underpins public policy that will affect the financial well-being of an entire industry, it becomes a critical issue.

Core Proposition: We recommend that a collaborative approach to science in Agriculture be pursued.

The professional farmer or grazier can help identify the landscape issues that should inform the construction of the study. The farmer in turn will learn more about scientific method. The Carbon Coalition has been developing these types of relationships for three years, engaging scientists and practitioners in five knowledge-sharing events, two of which have been National Carbon Farming Conferences. The scientists involved have included Prof. Richard Eckard, Prof. Peter Grace, Prof. Alex McBratney, Dr Jeff Baldock, Dr Brian Murphy, Dr Annette Cowie, Dr Greg Chapman, and Dr Yin Chan, who has long championed the capacity of Australian soils to sequester.


Collaborative Science in Agriculture is not novel. It was a finding of the 2020 Summit’s Rural Stream: "New participatory approaches to research, including on-ground research extension, are needed … The most effective way of generating on-ground change is by having producers actively involved in participatory approaches to research since ‘farmers are often first order innovators’."

We believe your announcement this week of nine key projects, the strategic nature of these studies, and their timing makes it imperative that we engage farmers in the process.

Recommendations:

1. That the Minister requests the CSIRO which has overarching responsibility for the nine projects to engage members of the Carbon Farming community in discussions about the methodology chosen for the studies.
2. That the scientists listed above be consulted as to the sincere collaborative intention of the Carbon Farmers. And that the credibility of the studies in question would be guaranteed by such transparency.

Request: That a meeting be arranged as soon as possible between the relevant people at the Ministry, the CSIRO and a delegation of Carbon Farmers.

Thank you.

Michael Kiely
Convenor
(And attached signatories).

Penny Wong's Emissions Trading Dream Becomes Nightmare

The Rudd Government's capitulation on its Climate Change legislation is good news for Agriculture because it paints the Government as a "Paper Tiger" - more bark than bite. Minister Wong would appear to be under pressure following the collapse of her legislation to establish Australia's emissions trading scheme. PM Rudd announced today that the scheme would be delayed for 12 months to allow for more negotiations. Introduction of the ETS is now planned for mid-2011 instead of mid-2010.
Penny Wong's 'crash through or crash' approach ended in the latter. PM Rudd announced that the Government was giving business the delay they wanted and a reduction in the price of carbon to $10/tonneCO2-e, down from $20 for the first year, a major concession to big emitters. The Government also offered the green lobby a possible emissions target of 25% of 2000 levels.
The announcement follows a decision by the Australian Greens to lower their demand for a 40% reduction in carbon emissions to 25%.
For Agriculture - and soil carbon in particular - the current dilemma shows what can be achieved with a little pressure. As Minister Burke urged, "There is no time like the present for producers around the world to be making the case to their governments as we go through the Road Map towards Copenhagen..." He says, in the latest Farm Policy Journal (February Quarter 2009) that we need to have the Kyoto process changed so that 'the science matches the accounting and the accounting matches the science..." He says: "Well managed pastures are not currently counted, but eventually we will have to find a way to include them if the accounting is to match the science... Good natural resource management on a farm is a better sequester of carbon than a plantation forest."

Moves afoot overseas support Soil Carbon trading

Our international contacts tell us the gathering tidal wave of support for soils to be treated fairly is on track to swamp the Australian position and could leave Australia running to catch up. The FAO is staging a rolling series of meetings,honing the wording of a strategic motion to be put in Copenhagen. President Obama is holding a series of meetings with various government - the USA taking an independent route to Copenhagen on its own terms. It is bringing China with it - as predicted - as its gambling chip. And it has a strong position on Agriculture (due to the strength of its farm lobby) which it refuses to compromise. It has gathered a coalition of nations and organisations (Australia is not one of them) which are demanding that Agriculture be considered as a separate, self contained issue which should remove inequities and absurdities such as 'net-net accounting' provisions under Article 3.4, accounting for non-anthropogenic emissions from drought or bush fire, additionality, permanence, and measurement.
The question is: how bad does Climate Change have to get before decision-makers are so desperate that they will call on the farmers of the world to commence carbon farming in earnest? Shift their mindset from "The Mitigation Solution Must Fit The Accounting System" to "The Accounting System Must Serve The Mitigation Solution".

The Mitigation Solution is this: soil can sequester enough GHG to give the world time for alternative energy to gain critical mass. Fifty years is the horizon for soil to work its interim strategy.

The Carbon Coalition's Position on Kyoto is this: it is not designed to achieve its objective. It's creators did not consider the unique features of Agriculture. Their judgement was clouded by an unrealistic concept of the potential of soils and a "Green Bias" against farming as a cause to environmental destruction. No farmers were part of the construction team.

Net-net accounting: Kyoto says that if you include soils you must be accountable for emissions from non-human sources. This is an absurdity. The game is all about "Anthropogenic" sources.

Additionality: How do you ensure that the farmers continue with Carbon Farming to slow Climate Change if you don't incentivise them?

Permanence: Carbon cycles. It cannot be locked up for 100 years. But it can be contained within the dynamic of its cycles. So long as there is more held tomorrow than was held yesterday, of whatever fraction, sequestration has happened. The permanence of trees is a myth. The permanence of biochar is guaranteed. You have got to admit, it has a fan club of scientists.)

Soil Carbon on Landline Sunday

Landline this week features a follow-up story on the Christine Jones item earlier in the year. It shows Dr Brian Murphy and the Central West CMA's John Lawrie taking soil samples, Louisa Kiely applying inoculant to pastures, Thea Ridley putting the soil samples under a microscope, and the moment of truth... will there be any microbial life to display for the camera. Col Seis also has a starring roll explaining pasture cropping. Several people were interviewed at the Carbon Farming Conference in Orange late last year.
This is a great opportunity to get the word out at a time when the Government is under maximum pressure and in need of friends. The soil carbon solution needs decision makers to have the courage to tackle the issue head on rather than relying on 'sound science' as a proxy for making decisions. (If you make 'sound science' the proxy for judgement, how do you judge the soundness of the science relied upon?)

Soil Carbon Seminar Series Starts in Wambangalang

Wambangalang Environmental Education Centre,
Obley Road, Dubbo, NSW - 29th April, 2009 - 9.00am-5.00pm

The Future under Climate Change seems to be all BAD NEWS: higher costs, lower returns, higher temperatures, lower rainfall… But there is a lot of GOOD NEWS. And that is what you will hear at this Seminar on Soil Biology, Carbon Farming and Your Future.

NEW WAYS: There is a range of soil management practices that help with new conditions: • prevent erosion, • keep the topsoil cool and moist to attract microbes, • hold more water around the roots for longer • unlock natural nutrients in the soil, and • build carbon levels in the soil to enrich it…

NEW MARKETS: There will also be new markets and new commodities. • “Food Miles” will open local markets. • Trading schemes for soil carbon are emerging. • Learn how to measure your soil carbon and then do a “Whole Farm Carbon Budget” – an essential tool for the future.

NEW KNOWLEDGE: Hear how our soils in the Central West perform for carbon sequestration and get specialist advice on soil management. You will also hear about your farm’s Soil Biological Community and how it can be the source of all your success.

YOUR SPEAKERS: Dr Brian Murphy, Senior Soil Scientist, Department of Environment and Climate Change; John Lawrie, Soils Coordinator, Central West Catchment Management Authority; Michael & Louisa Kiely, Carbon Farmers of Australia; and After Dinner Speaker Dr Dean Revell, CSIRO, on sustainable grazing and native shrubs.

RSVP: 24/4/09 to John Lawrie - Call 6840 7804 or 0428 998 959

Dear Tony, How long...?

Dear Minister Burke,

On 10 March, 2009 we submitted a request to you for information as to the scientists working on the projects covered by the $26 million which you announced. We need to see the methodologies and to understand the scope of the work being done. We call this Collaborative Science in Agriculture.

As I have several thousand people waiting to hear the outcome of our request - from signatories to the petition an their clients and members - could we please have a time frame for your response.

Warm regards,

Michael Kiely

Their Silence Condemns

The Silence about the injustice of the treatment Agriculture is getting from the CPRS Legislation, speaks volumes. Complaining it is 'too hard' to understand the issues surrounding Agriculture and the Scheme, many who do very well out of the industry, are willing to see farm families deprived of the capacity to offset their methane and nitrous oxide emissions by using the value of the soil carbon they sequester.

This will speed the depopulation of the Murray-Darling Basin and other regions and lead to the displacement of the family farm. It will be an evil outcome, born of injustice.

Evil can succeed only when the good refuse to stand against it. (Edmund Burke) The only voice to call for justice is that of Ross Garnaut who accuses the majority of decision-makers of laziness and refusal to engage mentally with the issues. Falling back on the 'too hard' line suits the Government. The wilful refusal to engage with the issue of soil carbon trading has been plain for all to see. Speakers from all kinds of backgrounds have been willing to assume the role of expert on trading mechanisms in raising questions about the realities of the market. None seek answers, only pose questions which are supposed to stand as arguments. It seems that everyone has an opinion, but no one professes knowledge of the issue. Not one has mentioned the fundamental commodity trading tools which protect buyers and sellers.
They tried to scare farmers off by telling them they would be acting as unprotected individuals in the market and that they would have to pay back any money they get if there is a fire, etc. The facts are easily obtainable by consulting the practices of the markets that are operating already: Canada and the USA. Growers are pooled and losses by misadventure are managed by a "Buffer Pool" representing 30% of the tonnes submitted for sale. Other techniques for 'making good' losses include starting over the sequestration process until the make good level has been reached. Further practicalities ignored by the fear-mongers include the fact that soil carbon is rarely destroyed by any than the fiercest fires, and that forests are far more vulnerable.
At the same time, no one has questioned the Government's assertion that it is "too hard" to measure emissions from the ruminant animals owned by Australia's 140,000 farm enterprises. Australia has 800,000 businesses and the Tax Office has no trouble calculating their individual liabilities vis a vis the tax system. All animals are registered for sale or on annual returns. The data exists. All that is required is a model for estimating emissions by certain categories of beast under certain climate conditions. In the words of one of the most senior of Penny Wong's mandarins, "Everything is estimated under Kyoto." Nothing - except soil carbon - is directly measured.
A second 'anti-soil C trading' argument is to be found when the speaker dwells on the fractions of soil carbon, especially the labile and volatile fractions. Of the two trading schemes closest to launch, neither is concerned by the volatility of these fractions, one measuring only the humic fractions and the other Total Carbon*.
A carefully orchestrated series of 'communications themes' that have been amplified through certain journals and in many seminars have included such classics as "Too old and degraded to sequester" (a nonsense), "Costs too much to grow humus" (soil biology doesn't exist), "Don't think about credits, think soil health" (an insult), and the latest: "Don't believe the myths" (ie.
forget soil carbon. There is no Hope. Give up.)
Given the damage that could be done to farm family incomes, rural communities, and regional economies by the operation of an "unbalanced GHG balance sheet" as a result of the combined efforts of these individuals and institutions, the Carbon Coalition is believes there should be a judicial inquiry into the activities of certain parties.

*Buyers are not interested in particular molecules of C. They are concerned about the quantum. Therefore the volatility of the fractions is irrelevant. What matters is that Total C moves from A to A+X over period Y. They pay for X. The X value is to be held... not the particular molecules that made up X on day 1 of the relevant time period.

"Go Veg" cult leader claims to speak to Martians

If you check out the people behind the television campaign “Be Veg! Go Green! Save Our Planet!” you will find that hey are from a well-funded Taiwanese sect run by “Supreme Master Ching Hai” who says she speaks to Martians. From one of her many blogs: “Through both her inner knowledge and telepathic communication with the Mars people, Supreme Master Ching Hai has on several occasions spoken of Mars’ past – how the planet is still recovering since global warming like that now being faced on Earth led to a mass extinction 40 million years ago.”

This information should be used to discredit the Meat = Methane argument.

How to defeat the "Meat + Methane" & the Attack of the Vegans

Zegna suspending his contest for the best Australian fleece because of PETA-inspired bad publicity over mulesing should ring alarm bells for meat producers. The ham-fisted way the wool industry handled the response to a consumer activist group should be the gold standard for what not to do when attacked. The MLA, it appears, did not learn that lesson.

The advertising campaign featuring the cryptic reference to Earth Hour (visual: a clock, hands made from cattle and sheep), the message: it’s always Earth Hour in the meat producing industries) was a brave attempt to take on what could be the greatest threat to the industry’s future. But it shows that the MLA’s strategists do not understand what they are up against. It will be PETA repeated.

There are four fatal mistakes a producer group can make when facing such a challenge from consumer activists:

FATAL MISTAKE NO.1. Not knowing it is an issue until the consumer groups are well-organised and well-resourced. The vegetarian, vegan, and animal rights groups were publishing advertisements in US magazines 2 years ago. Anyone with Google could have picked them up when they appeared. It’s hard to manage a public issue when you are blind-sided and starting on the back foot. AWI were on the back foot with PETA from the start. The MLA is as well.
FATAL MISTAKE NO.2. Underestimating the strength of the opposition’s public support. Dismissing them as fringe lunatics. The organizations behind the ‘Meat = Methane’ campaign include the United Nation’s FAO and WWF and the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who set the rules for Climate Change targets. They are not considered lunatics by world opinion leaders.

FATAL MISTAKE NO.3. Underestimating the strength of the opposition’s argument. The superficial logic of the ‘Meat = Methane’ argument is easier to believe than the ‘Farmers = Environmentalists’, which is what the MLA countered with, an entirely unbelievable proposition, even if it was the truth. The first rule of communications is: Perception is reality. If the average person believes something, it is real. Does the average city-dweller think farmers are environmentalists or do they think they are environmental vandals? OK. The second rule of communications is that people don't change their minds simply by being told that the opposite to what they believe is true.

FATAL MISTAKE NO.4. Choosing to fight on their battleground: For instance, answering their arguments directly, as though a propaganda war is about who has the best facts, gives the activists too much crediblity. The MLA should know better after the AWI debacle, which was a classic case of bad generalship.

A good general chooses the battlefield. Instead of fighting a losing battle on Meat and Methane, the MLA has one ally more powerful than the activists: the meat eater. There are millions of meat lovers and only a handful of vegans and even fewer 'meat = methane' activists. The MLA could enlist McDonald’s, etc. to urge their customers to join the “Save the Burger” Campaign by signing a petition to go to the Prime Minister. Stage a rally in the city square. Television advertising on this theme could actually increase sales to reward the fast food chains. Bumper stickers could read: “I Love Meat and I Vote”.

Imagine staging a national "No Meat Day" by getting all the meat outlets to 'strike' for a day tobring the danger of the "Meat = Methane" threat to their attention. Only the MLA could pull it off.

At the same time a good general knows when to counter attack and where: at the point where the enemy is weakest. Vegetarians have the highest rates of eating disorders in western societies**. Eating disorders are largely due to psychological problems such as low self esteem and lack of emotional stability. Vegans are even more prone. Questions in Parliament could crystalise the issue crudely: Does the global community want the world’s future decided by potential nut cases? Will we become a nation of bulmia sufferers under the Rule of the Vegetable?

The MLA can then use medical authorities to support the nutritional value of a meat-inclusive diet, as a follow-up strategy that demonstrates how "fringe" the activists are. Finally, scientists working on the methane issue go public with their findings (which are that • herd sizes may fall as more efficient, less-emitting genetic strains are developed; • inoculants can reduce rumen activity; • pasture management can eliminate much of the methane emitted by animals by providing them with fresh fodder as often as possible, etc.) This action reassures the public that the methane issue is being handled without the need for radical changes to their diet.


*Michael Kiely spent 25 years in marketing before becoming a woolgrower and founding the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming to campaign for soil carbon credits in 2005. www.michaelkielymarketing.com.au

** See Finnegan, B., "Vegetarianism & Disrdered Eating", National Easting Disorder Information Centre,Toronto, Canada, www.nedic.ca. There is a body of research, including the following: Neumark-Sztainer D., et al. 1997. Adolescent vegetarians: A behavioral profile of a school-based population in Minnesota. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
151(8): 833-838. Klop, Sheree, et al. 2003. Self-reported vegetarianism may be a marker for college
women at risk for disordered eating. Archives of Journal of American Dietetic
Association, 103:745-747.

Ex-Greenpeace leader advises "aggressive advocacy" on soil

Paul Gilding, ex- Executive Director of Greenpeace International, founder of Eco Corporation and advisor to major corporations on sustainability, identifies soil as a major solution for Climate Change.
In an article in The Land by Matthew Cawood, Gilding says it is far too late for simply emitting less CO2. "We are going to have to absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere. The mechanical ways of doing that are incredibly expensive. Industrial emissions are only a small part of the entire carbon cycle, so we will need major tweaks to industry to make a difference. You can make minor tweaks to agriculture to increase carbon sequestration in the soil and have a very large impact." He advises farmers to adopt 'aggressive advocacy and action on climate change."