Understanding Carbon Farming
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2020
- In this video, I'll show you some information about Carbon Farming and how it can reduce agriculture's impact on the environment.
Podcast interview with Mitchell Hora: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Be sure to check out www.thefarmtraveler.com
[www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/glob...]
(www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/glob...)
(fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11404.pdf) - Наука та технологія
I’m a 4th generation farmer from Alabama.. myself and most other farmers in my area already use most all the practices mentioned to increase carbon sequestration.. (no till, cover crops, crop rotation etc. It seems to me we are already generating millions of carbon credits that are unaccounted for and obviously unpaid... Naturally we love the idea of being paid for what we have already been doing for years. However simple supply and demand tells me that if all the credits we are generating suddenly become measured and available on the market then supply of carbon credits would drastically out weigh the demand... therefore driving the dollar value of credits way down... good for the environment, great for big business that need to buy credits in order to continue polluting... bad for the farmers bottom line... please let me know if I’m wrong about this
That is a good point, that I haven't thought about. Like you said, farmers have been doing these practices for years, but now climate scientist are just now figuring out these tactics work, when farmers knew it all along!
Something to consider here, with the new change in political office the government may now be pushing for all companies to make efforts in reducing their carbon emissions or face fines. This alone may push large companies to look for those carbon credits you think will flood the market. This is comparable to organic farming in a way (hear me out). Organic farming is like regular farming except you just follow certain government guidelines and your product is sold at a much higher price. With carbon farming your just following certain government guidelines and getting paid more than you used to.
Hello, a good move would be to start documenting it. i am launching a grocery company that pledges zero net carbon. and I'd be investing and buying from farmers like you so that it is more cost-effective to offset carbon
I would say quite the opposite. The momentum that fossil fuel's effects have will take awhile to slow down, even if we stopped using them today. Plus the amount of carbon we need to sequester, remember, is almost everything we have put out in the last 100 years; which creates a huge demand. At any rate big business is going to do a very sloppy job at carbon sequestration as their big ag models don't apply well to the actual process of sequestering carbon into the soil. Lots of more intensely managed farm plots and crops will sequester magnitudes more carbon per acre than simply roto-crimping a cover crop. Most of the carbon and nitrogen in the plant is still exposed to the atmosphere and oxidizes off, you need to actually bury the plants and convert them into a carbon-neutral (C-0) form of carbon so it CAN NOT be released to the atmosphere when exposed too it, think of coal. And a lot of these distinctions will be part of the qualifications for getting carbon credits in the future. So if you have a multi-generational farm using these techniques, the biology of your soil should be at a level of complexity where your soil will sequester more carbon per square foot than one of these mega farms. So just keep treating your soil will respect as you already have, and your farm should actually be more lucrative from a carbon side of things. And if your soil is more rich in carbon you will obviously get higher yields and less disease which means a higher profit margin on your crops. I believe in you!
I put feed lot manure on my land. I have put this over 50 years...many acres I have added over 100 tons of carbon per acre. This land has produced 10,000 bu of corn and 1,000 bu of wheat and sometimes soybeans. The residue left behind is massive. The SOM started at 1.8% then a max of 3% in the top 12 inches. One 485 acre circle I stopped applying manure 25 years ago and now SOM is down to 2.2% There is an equilibrium. We are farming on the southern great plains a silty clay loam that has a natural carbon %. Lots of people fudge the amount of carbon increase by just testing the top few inches.
This is a great video, thanks, Farm Traveler!
Well packed information, thanks!
Thank you so much! Thanks for watching!!!
Great overview of Carbon and how farming fits into the equation.
Thank you very much! And thanks for watching!
Healthy carbon rich balanced soil gives off a lot of CO2.
Great video!
Thanks so much!
Do a video on how to grow healthy crops to reduce or illuminate the need for inputs. That would be a great start.
I put feed lot manure on my land. I have put this over 50 years...many acres I have added over 100 tons of carbon per acre. This land has produced 10,000 bu of corn and 1,000 bu of wheat and sometimes soybeans on each acre. The residue left behind is massive. The SOM started at 1.8% then a max of 3% in the top 12 inches. One 485 acre circle I stopped applying manure 25 years ago and now SOM is down to 2.2% There is an equilibrium. We are farming on the southern great plains a silty clay loam that has a natural carbon %. Lots of people fudge the amount of carbon increase by just testing the top few inches.
Simply returning back to ancient and pioneer farming practices before market-to-market stock trading driven starting early 1900's
As simple as it is…😳🙄🙄
That was when the population didn't bloom as fast as today. Although they could be used for small-scale farming.
Thank you!
You're most welcome!
Great!!
Thanks for the video--lots of useful factoids. The sum total of the carbon contributed to soil through photosynthesis is much greater than the parts of the plant. A vegetative plant secretes 30 to 70% of the carbon sugars it manufactures in the form of exudates from its roots to feed soil mycelium and bacteria in exchange for minerals and nutrients. Check out the work of Australian soil microbiologist, Dr Christine Jones. BTW carbon farming 275 acres in Vermont.
Thanks so much for watching, glad you found it interesting! I'll be sure to check out Dr Jones!
thank you!
Thank YOU!
Family farms in Maine already doing this. And have been doing so for decades.
Totally agree! It just seems that outside industries are pushing Ag do these practices when most have been doing them for a long time.
I am a no till farmer and I think it’s the way of the future, although it’s gonna take time to help the other farmers see the way we do make more money and no till farming then versus chilling but it’s just takes time to move towards that no till system
Thanks for what you do! The key thing you said is that it "Takes time." It takes time to adapt it to different farms and for everyone to get on board. Thanks for the comment!
No till is a great system. It's a lot better that zero till. I have a neighbor that was getting payed carbon credits for being zero till and they killed the land. It took me a few years to bring it back with organic methods. Any money payed on a system vs a results basis is a scam.
we underpay farmers
Awesome
Thank you!
Seems like there is a lot of scientific support around adding biochar to soil for carbon capture. I wonder how that is measured...
Very interesting! Need to look into that.
Nice vid. Only was wondering where the numbers came from.. can you share that?
Also was wondering what you think of regenerative agroculture
Thanks! Most data was found on the EPA website. Links are below in the video.
@@limathecat And I think regenerative ag is an awesome practice that should get adopted more, at least where it will actually be effective on those farms. It's not a once size fits all solution, but it has some great practices that most could potentially follow.
@@FarmTraveler yes I think there are good ways to manage the way we farm. Even though I think we should focus more on fossil fuels, industry etc.. farming on a way like for example, how cattle always lived for approx 100.000 years would be most beneficial, as I believe cows and other livestock are part of our lifecycle, and are not the problem. Unfortunately government/lobbies push the focus on this group, so we don't look at the real problem (where the money is been made), industry.
There are also different explanations on regenerative ag, but in general it would be an awesom construction 😃
Thanks for replying
Good explanation
Thanks so much! And thank you for watching!
Good❤
I like this
Thank you!
*1 question*
*_Why did scientists and media outlets frequently discuss the possibility of an ice age between the 1950s and 2000s, despite the Earth experiencing a consistent warming trend for the past 120 years?_*
Problem is compost manufacturers use fuels in their operations. Are they reducing enough carbon than what they emit?
Great question! Not sure about that but definitely something to look into.
So corn takes three times more carbon out of the air than a natural Forest am I right
❤
Wait 2 tons on 1 acre. I got 2.5 acres I can actually make a relitivley significant difference
That can definitely make a huge difference!
At $30/t. Yes what a 'huge' difference.
Are greenhouse gases produced by composting?
Just looked it up, and it seems like it is. However, because of compost using be using as gardening soil, USUALLY, it goes back into the soil and helps absorb CO2 from the air. Which if just sent to a landfill, it just rots.
Good question!
THE "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. It "runs" the weather. 98% of all so called greenhouse gasses is water vapor.The greening of the world from a small rice in Co2 in the atmosphere has made the earth 35% greener in 90 years.the forests has tripled. www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth (These people are in the climate business, so scare is also a part of their work!!?) Co2 is made from all kinds of combustion.The Co2 has been 10 times higher in the earths history. Without causing any problems but a very green world! That is from your body, when cells burn carbohydrates and from all other "engines". It is also produced when things rot. That is also a kind of "engine". (The carbon cycle) In the earths beginning the atmosphere was most Co2.(80%) Since then it has been stored in the mountains and in the oceans. Continents drifting add some back into the inner earth, and is released from volcanic activity. So today we are at a very low content. 410 ppm. Under 150ppm everything gets problems, and all life on earth would die! The earths "heating" from infrared radiation and Co2 is "done" at 400ppm, and a doubling to 800ppm does no extra heating. In the end the earth dies from lack of Co2. (That is not to happen in the near future!!! So do not be scared!) So do not worry, we are in the coldest time on earth in 10 000 years. That was in 1850. Since then slightly warmer by aprox. 0,8 C. (In january 2021 it was 0,4C!!!)
Think of this: The earth spins, at equator,at 1000 miles per hour and around the sun at 30 kilometers per second!( 3 845 010.26 miles) If we hit a stone at that speed, that could be a problem! I tiny amount of the fertiliser Co2 is just a good thing! Cow fart means nothing!
@@arnehofoss9109
The so called "greenhouse gas effect" was proven WRONG! By dozen Laws of Physic!
Even i can show that there!
NASA is just a bunch of liars, proven there:
ua-cam.com/video/VNy7tTY0Vek/v-deo.html - a HORRIBLE KO for NASA (Glaciers&Graphs fake)
Jane, depending on how you compost, there will be CO2 and /or methane produced. The compost you add to your soil will help plants to take up more minerals from the soil and air to produce healthier food. Maybe someone who is doing a video on farming should not have to look it up?
hi I was wondering how do pesticides affect carbon sequestration
Great question! I'll have to do some digging, but assuming it would have little to no effect on capturing carbon. If anything, it could allow the plants to capture more as the crops would have fewer weeds competing for nutrients in the soil. But I'll look up to be sure. Thanks!
@@FarmTraveler Oh okay! Let me know what you find! Also I love ur channel sm
Hi I own 600 acres of land how can I sell my carbon credits?
You won't be owning your property soon. 😳
Thought this was a video about carbon farming
I mean it does talk about carbon farming and carbon farming practices. So, yes?
Have you ever done research in Indonesia about carbon?
What the heck your underrated
Well Thank you so much!
Good explanation, but I think the sole focus on carbon farming is not really the way; it ignores 'carbon opportunity costs'. Untouched nature captures way more CO2 than any farming system possible. Concentrating farming on a small area should be the way in my opinion. To some degree, this also requires carbon farming, because you need to keep your soil productive.
Carbon income shouldn't be what offsets the profit on any land. Land that are harder to irritate can be huge solar farms. With state of the art solar panels that catch energy X5 to X10 more effectively are much smaller. It will be coming out soon. Entire country like China can easily be running on solar systems.
Farms in Japan have solar income already and reduce their harvest acres.
The largest increase in CO2 is from carbon being released from tundra heating and the release of methane frozen in water ice.
🤫🤫 you are not allowed to tell the truth. 🤪
Just let God take care of it. He knows best
Something not questioned is the fact crop yields have continued to get better alongside the PPM of parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. yet for some the idea, it (CO2) also changes the weather more than the relationship between the earth and the sun or sun spots on the sun.? My opinion is still in the research stage so I will give that a pass. An also very certain change in food production will follow a lower PPM of CO2 if the use of fuels and other sources of CO2 reduces its availability to enhance the yields.
My point is making CO2 available is necessary to avoid famines resulting from lower yields. The direct application into the soil will become necessary just to feed everyone and the animals we grow to eat. The climate change cult has NOT taken this into consideration and likely would prefer folks to starve if they could get rid of fossil fuels being used.
The technology exists to harvest CO2, and turn it into a liquid so it can be injected directly into fields keeping the growth rates and removing any weather effect it might be having. If it is the sun changing the weather the better crop yields would still be worth it because along with no-till and other methods the soil and food value would make every life better.
The cause of global warming is not known. It is known that noncondensing greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane can not increase earth's greenhouse effect that adds 10°F (5.55°) to earth's temperature from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. As long as water vapor is not near zero water vapor holds the greenhouse effect in saturation. Increasing greenhouse gasses can't make it go higher. The greenhouse effect takes place within 20 meters of the surface. After 20 meters from the surface the inferred electromagnetic radiation is considered completely absorbed by greenhouse gasses and heat conduction is by convection i.e. molecules bumping into each other. The is high school earth science.
At 1% average tropospheric water vapor concentration carbon dioxide has about 1/4% temperature share of the greenhouse effect. Reading the UN IPCC climate reports when they were less than 200 pages, provided you read the entire report, only discuss greenhouse gasses as a cause for global warming and only sampled greenhouse gasses at 20 THOUSAND meters altitude far into the stratosphere where water vapor is near zero causing carbon dioxide to have a 20% share in the temperature forcing gasses or 80 times carbon dioxide's share in earth's greenhouse effect.
In the early 1990s a study funded by large oil and chemical companies on what effects human caused carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was causing was reported and used in numerous TV new talk shows and documentaries with the results being carbon dioxide from human activities in the atmosphere was non poisonous and reasonably responsible for raising average global temperatures 1/100°C. In the early 2000s another study could only find about half of that amount and it is very likely actually a share because earth's greenhouse effect is in saturation and can't produce more temperature gain. Nevertheless 1/100°C was a well known and excepted figure through the 1990s. 80 X 1/100°C = 0.8°C which is well over half of 1.1°C that was reported for global warming in the early 1990s. That is exactly what the IPCC has been saying "that over half of global warming is due to human activity primarily the burning of fossil fuels".
Global warming after rising at 2/10°C per decade in the 1980s and at similar rates in the 1960s and 1970s suddenly paused at a reported 1.1°C in the early 1990s and has never reached its next notable increment of 1.2°C. Global warming was on track to reach 1.5°C in 2010. In 2022 global warming was reported at 1.1°C. During this thirty year period carbon dioxide levels continued to increase in earth's atmosphere much as they had in the 1980s with no correlation with global warming at these end points.
I'd like to point out that China produces a lot of crap that we use in the U.S. So we are responsible for some of the emissions they release.
That's very true. And I'd say they are also responsible for what we create that they use. Very interesting to see how that would work. They have to pay Carbon Taxes on items they make that we buy? And vice versa. Very interesting!
Farming is the worst thing in the world for the environment and somehow they have everyone convinced that cattle are the problem
Incorrect. Industry and Transportation are the leading causes for all greenhouse gases. Literally every study says so.
@@FarmTraveler yeah we will see about that in 50 years when the soil is dead and we can't even grow back native grasses to pasture livestock on.
If credits are worth $30 / ton and land captures 2.7 tons per acre every year... that's only $81 per acre every year. Not too impressive unfortunately.
Its all a massive grift.
Cracks in the logic dam are thankfully starting to spread.
Alright, I'm just going to say it: I would take this video much more seriously if it wasn't made using paper (a little ironic for a video about taking pre-cautions to help the environment) and if you didn't mess up so much. It just got confusing when you wrote different numbers from what you were speaking, or crossing out labels and re-writing them. Overall, very informative and nicely put together for the most part. I'm just peeving about the presentation aspect, hahaha.
Thanks? Glad you took it sorta seriously!
It happened to me too. As the video advances I even became uncomfortable with the paper waste. I totally agree about the contents being useful and welle explained
Good concept but too many facts and stats are stated which is but difficult to follow
Ok. Thanks for watching!
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the benefits of a warming environment? Science was wrong when they claimed the world was headed into an ice age in the 70's and 80's, Isn't it kind of stupid to take such speculative "science" as truth? There are so many variables involved and so much money influencing the outcome of studies, I have rational and objective reasons to question the "science". That being said I do like carbon sequestration in farming. Modern chemically driven "conventional farming" horribly depletes the amount of carbon on such farms and destroys the waterways with the runoff of silt, nitrogen, topsoil, herbicides and pesticides. I think going back to organic farming, especially with biochar introduction into the soil is good for the food's and the environments health. Then again I'm not making billions off of selling GMO's like Bill Gates and won't make any profit from my beliefs, I also don't spend millions on studies designed to sell GMO's like Bill, and scientists are not dependent on my financing to stay employed like they are with Bill. Hmmm... could Bill actually be tipping the scales and spreading propaganda for money? Bills been buying land like mad... could it be to take advantage of carbon credits? Could Bill actually be making money by promoting illness from farming chemicals so he can profit from the Medicine. He's playing both sides of the fence. Oh yea, Could the "science" on cow farts actually be wrong? Wouldn't Bill's "fake meat" and GMO farming make way more profit if he bans his competitors in the organic field. Always follow the money to understand the Truth... you don't get to be one of the worlds richest men unless you are immoral and greedy as Hell in my opinion. This is just simple logic, objective and rational thought. Either way growing your own organic food is by far the healthiest and best way to grow food. All of the monocultural life deserts created with conventional farming practices would be greatly reduced, stopping the destruction of soils and water supplies. Yards would sequester far more carbon if they were not small monocultural grass life desserts as well. As the price of food rises hopefully more people will ditch the useless grass to grow their own food organically. Always work for a better world, you likely will be reincarnated into what you leave behind, and definitely the children will live in what is created.
Economic math gymnastics. Not scientifically valid.
Your point?
@@FarmTraveler Modern big ag practices will not solve the issue of climate change and this idea that we can be "net zero" is not scientifically valid. All the science is saying we need to be going carbon negative as fast as possible to avert extinction. This whole "Net zero" argument is designed with the idea that we can maintain economic growth. And you cannot maintain a system of continual exponential growth and consumption of resources on a planet that has FINITE resources available to us. You cannot make deals with physics. Even the damn UN admits the only way we can sustainably feed the populations is with small scale regenerative farming.
@@davefroman4700 good luck feeding 9 billion people 3 times a day with smaller scale farms.
@@FarmTraveler I know people who are already using these methods and they are turning out 40% more than their industrialized farming neighbors per acre. We do not need 20,000 acre farm. We need to put people back on the land and being self sufficient. 1000 people on 2 acre properties will out produce our current model hands down.
@@davefroman4700 I agree but I don't think that model will ever come back. People want convience. Now they Need convenience. I don't see civilization ever going back to everyone living on and with the land. I hope a great starting point is a happy medium with carbon farming/sequestration techniques while also figuring out how to reduce carbon emissions.
People are finally waking up to this massive grift.
Net zero accountability.
Great Irony is you are taking about climate change, writing on sheets and wasting them!
Ok...?
This is not a good video; first this isn't sequestrating carbon and second it just reinforces the corruption and elitism of subsidies rather than regulation.
I think the title is very misleading too; for example adding biocarbon to soil is a genuine way of sequestrating carbon that if done correctly is a very long term carbon sink while also being a boost for agriculture.
The main input on most farms is from NITROGEN that is made from fossil gas as well as other resource intensive fertilizers but removing this and going organic means replacing that with massive amounts of animal agriculture which is a methane disaster.
There is veganic farming but again because of subsidies this does not get them which is why subsidies work against innovation in agriculture and farmers are very conservative in fighting both against innovation and for subsidies that make things much worse.
I suggest if non-landowing; non-farming people wish to really do something they need to demand veganic products and demand the end of conservative farming subsidies; and if you really want to be practical burn biomass as winter or cooking fuel and instead of completely combusting it or allowing it to become contaminated create biochar and use this as a long term carbon sink.
It's literally the definition of carbon sequestration from multiple sources.
Fake news.