News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Soil carbon doubts unfounded 

Soil carbon doubts unfounded

22 Mar, 2009 01:00 AM
A cluster of independent researchers, agronomists and farmers think doubts about the ability of Australia’s agricultural soils to sequester and hold carbon in meaningful quantities are unfounded.

Mainstream science, largely represented by soil scientists within CSIRO and the State departments of Primary Industry, have harboured such doubts, especially about the amounts of carbon sequestered, being enough to earn farmers an income from emissions trading schemes.

But independent scientist Dr Christine Jones has argued that giving soil carbon its due will require a re-evaluation of our agricultural methods.

Since 2005, she has helped put soil carbon on the national agenda, by hosting the first conference on the subject.

Most studies of soil carbon have been based on standard agricultural practices.

They rely for measurement on the “Roth C” model, which focuses on the breakdown of organic matter into forms of soil carbon.

Dr Jones, however, contends that conventional agriculture and biomass breakdown are not alone going to deliver the soil carbon gains necessary to make agriculture part of the climate change solution.

She is instead, promoting “regenerative agriculture” to develop “liquid carbon pathways”—plants pumping stable carbon-rich compounds into the soil as part of their interaction with soil microbes.

The best understood of the soil microbe families—and potentially the most useful to agriculture—are the mycorrhizal fungi.

They're found on the roots of around 80 per cent of flowering plants, including the grasses.

Mycorrhizae attach themselves to plant roots and grow thread-like hyphae out into the surrounding soil.

The fungi feed on sugars exuded by the plant. In return, the hyphae act like a greatly extended root system, siphoning nutrient molecules back to the plant.

For the soil carbon story, the most significant part of this interaction is the protective carbon-rich sheath that is created around the hyphae of arbuscular mycorrhizae - a family of fungi associated with grasses like wheat and rice.

The sheath is made of a substance called glomalin, which was only identified in 1996.

Glomalin is 30-40 per cent carbon, and according to some research can account for a quarter of the carbon held in fertile soils.

A greenhouse trial by Mike Amaranthus of Mycorrhizal Applications, Inc (MAI) in the United States found that inoculation of tall fescue with mycorrhizial fungi almost doubled carbon production in a year. Professor Amaranthus believes that glomalin was responsible for the increase.

Glomalin can resist breakdown for between seven and 42 years, making it a long-term carbon store.

As an organic glue, it contributes to the production of humus.

As well as being a highly stable form of carbon storage, humus underpins natural fertility.

According to humus researcher Glenn Morris, in its pure form humus can hold at least four times its weight in water.

“Humus is critically under-studied and thoroughly underestimated as a component of land and water management systems,” wrote Mr Morris, a northern NSW farm manager, in his 2004 Masters dissertation.

Dr Jones believes the “humification process” that glomalin assists is behind some outlier results she has collected showing that soil carbon accumulation in Australian agricultural soils can be much higher than has been thought possible.

However, farmers wanting to encourage mycorrhizal fungi may have to reconsider how they farm.

“Many conventionally grown crops have little or no dependency on mycorrhizal fungi because they receive lots of inorganic fertilisers that don’t warrant the carbon ‘cost’ of forming the relationship with the fungi, for want of a better expression,” said Dr David Johnson, a mycorrhizae specialist at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

“So moving to low input farming systems is likely to encourage plants to form mycorrhizas and therefore increase carbon allocation to this group of organisms.”

Long fallows, heavy tillage and many agricultural chemicals are known to also kill off mycorrhizae and other soil life.

On the upside, former CSIRO forestry researcher Dr Nick Malajczuk, who manages MAI’s Australian operations, said that in MAI’s estimation, mycorrhzia-inoculated cereal crops needed about a third less fertiliser than crops without good populations of the fungi.

Dr Jones believes agricultural systems need to move toward low-input “year-long green farming” methods that maintain green, growing plants for as much of the year as possible.

* She will make a case for these methods on May 22, when the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS), the voluntary soil carbon program Dr Jones set up with the backing of philanthropist Rhonda Wilson, presents test results and carbon sequestration payments to ASCAS farmers at its “Managing the Carbon Cycle” forum in Canberra.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
More power to her arm. If agriculture is to be any sort of a beneficiary of the CPRS/ETS, this is the only way it can be done. The problem will be in legally defining the processes so that farmers are the ones who get the cheque for it & not the government or some idiotic extremist green group that hijacks it.
Posted by Trev, 23/03/2009 5:55:09 AM
The industrial farming system has brought about higher vegetative yield, decreased nutritional soil and plant levels, soil degradation, and increases in health problems. Working with nature is the only answer to sustainability and overall fecundity. Hopefully Dr Christine and company's work will receive copious media coverage so that people will be aware methods of farming other than the Non Profit Kingdom method.
Posted by Richard Woolley, 23/03/2009 6:45:08 AM
The only viable and permanent way to capture carbon is by way of trees-bogs-coal. The youngest coal seams are around a million years old, the oldest 3 or 4 hundred million years. Even bogs and peat contain up to 40% Carbon. PLANT trees if you want to help.
Posted by jaimie, 23/03/2009 6:47:30 AM
Allowing farmers to claim for locking carbon in soils is unlikely to happen. It would mean that the government would actually have to be honest about its carbon trading scheme and may have to make payments to people who have done something positive, instead of issuing licenses to pollute. The carbon trading scheme is just another tax and has little if any relationship to the primary task of capturing carbon from the atmosphere. The greatest farmers of all are the government, and we are the ones being farmed. I have not seen any comments by greenies in support of the activities of farmers in this regard. I doubt if the acknowledgement of the possibility that farmers are part of the solution would fit well with the new dogmatic greenazi religion.
Posted by ozfirst, 23/03/2009 7:12:32 AM
It should be remembered that the whole basis of sequestering carbon is based on bulldust. There is and has never been any reason to sequester carbon.
Posted by Len, 23/03/2009 7:52:33 AM
I am getting pretty sick of hearing about Dr Jones's claims. The theory is fantastic and the application is what we call 'current practice'. Do you genuinely believe that landholders are not already doing all they can financially and physically to maintain their major asset - their land. Land holders spend their days working on their land, trying to make it better with what resources they have, to ensure that they grow a crop for the world to eat. If they were not looking after their land, then the supermarkets wouldn't have food magically appearing on their shelves daily. All landhodlers know to grow food - or as non-landholders call it - sequester carbon - they need to apply inputs such has water and nutrients to enable the system to work. Why are people so amazed by the notion that if you grow something the carbon will be bound with in it - it is organic chemistry 101. Everything that grows is a carbon based structure!? The problem is it must be bound for 100yrs or you have to pay back the credits. Grow a plant - it isn't bound for 100yrs, soil carbon - not bound for 100yrs unless it becomes humus and even then it isn't certain without ongoing moisture avaiabilty...this is Australia so don't count on that. And my final point of gripe...if there was any money in the system, don't you think BHP and all the other big guys within the carbon headache would be buying up the land and trees etc. to manage their own issue? They would be stupid to not have control over it and they have enough money and brains to have it covered. Hence no market for the little guys anyway.
Posted by bear, 23/03/2009 8:10:40 AM
Congratulations Dr Christine Jones, we would love you as a speaker for our next WISA meeting! We are living best practice and know the Qld DNR&W have no idea of best practice (actually quoting 10 year old garbage as world's best practice) so good luck with the CSIRO and DPI&F mindset. They seem to stick like super-glue even when they know they are wrong! Keep up the great work, would love to help in any way it is about time Primary Producers got something back for the hundreds of thousands of dollars we put into changing for the betterment of our soils. Joy
Posted by JED, 23/03/2009 3:09:51 PM
While farmers can increase soil carbon levels via sensible grazing and cropping methods, the problem is that climate change is a natural event & nothing to do with rising CO2 levels. The medieval warm period (1100 AD - 1300 AD) when temperatures were 2 degrees warmer than today proves that. Farmers being paid for extra soil carbon will be too complex & will not occur. Eventually the whole climate change scare will be revealed as a hoax. That's why farmers should forget about thinking there will be any cash in the CPRS. As for improving your productivity - yes go for it.
Posted by Climatesceptic, 23/03/2009 4:57:01 PM
Carbon accumulation in the soil through mycorhizal glomalin is an attractive theory. Finding a dependable method for it's quantification, especially in a tricky medium like soil would be a big challange. Satisfying the concerned authorities involved in certification is probably going to be the biggest hurdle!
Posted by Dr.C.R.Kulkarni, Pune, India, 23/03/2009 7:25:38 PM
In my seaches, I've come across a particular website that already performs a Soil Enhancement and Carbon Sequestration Program that benefits farmers (www.primecarbon.com.au) - the farmers are the ones that recieve payment for the activities they perform to increase microbial activity in their soil. I agree that Climate Change is a natural event. Ice ages have occured before, however this time there will be approx. 20 billion people to feed. We must remember that soil sequestration isn't about ONLY capturing the legacy load but instead feeding future generations. As for implementing a verification process, it wouldn't be hard. In fact, it would create new jobs in rural districts (something we need in times of economic stress). Prime Carbon even released a methodology explaining the benefits of the Voluntary Carbon Market to the economy and society. Check it out, it may just change your mind.
Posted by captain carbon, 24/03/2009 8:52:08 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Independent scientist Dr Christine Jones has argued that giving soil carbon its due will require a re-evaluation of our agricultural methods.
Independent scientist Dr Christine Jones has argued that giving soil carbon its due will require a re-evaluation of our agricultural methods.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
18 March, 2009
19 March, 2009
20 March, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...