He told me about the offset calculator he has on the home age of his website. This contains calculations to offset methane emissions on farm. He told me that he had set this up using what seemed to him to be the logical way of comparing the two gases. That is, he had set it up using a molecule versus molecule comparison basis. The results of his work are on his website and are, at this stage, unchanged despite subsequent advice he has received.

The subsequent advice was from an Australian scientist who had been involved working in a CRC on the issue of carbon accounting. Alan later sought clarification of this subsequent advice from a scientist who had been involved with IPCC process and the advice was confirmed.

The subsequent advice was that Alan had not fully understood the IPCC accounting rules for CO2 equivalence of CH4. He was told that the rules required a kg versus kg approach. The scientist then said that Alan’s calculator was in error by a factor of 2.7.

Now 2.7 sound pretty close to 2.75 to me! And so the error in analysis that I found out about from the conversation with the prominent scientist has come to light via a completely different source and in a completely different situation. 

It would appear to me therefore that, despite the wisdom of the scientist who advised him to do it on a kg versus kg basis, Alan is correct scientifically and the scientist is only correct if he/she accepts the poor kg-for-kg analysis of the IPCC’s comparison. 

Thursday 18th November 2010
Wool producers highlight their carbon sequestration role

The Wool Carbon Alliance (WCA), an organisation comprised of Australian wool producers, has resolved to reset the carbon agenda and recognise the role sheep play in the natural carbon cycle, a role not properly recognised under current carbon accounting protocols.

WCA chairman Chick Olsson said consumers should be encouraged to rethink their views on sheep and greenhouse gases. While the climate may be changing, so must the understanding that sheep are part of the solution not part of the problem.

Carbon in plants and animals is continually passing through a natural atmospheric carbon cycle where carbon has been recycled for millions of years.

The WCA recognises that wool is 50% carbon by weight. Australian woolgrowers grew 370 million kg of greasy wool in 2009, equating to approximately 500 million kg of CO2 equivalents which have been captured and stored from the atmosphere as each kg of greasy wool stores the equivalent of around 1.3 kg of CO2.

The European Commission reports that a household can cut its CO2 emissions by up to 300kg a year and energy bill by 5-10 per cent simply by reducing its heating by a mere 1°C. Energy prices are expected to rise significantly in the next few years4 consumers have a natural solution by wearing natural fibres such as wool.

Professor Tim Flannery, Dr Christine Jones and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have described the vital role of terrestrial or land based carbon in drawing down atmospheric carbon as part of a natural system.
 
“Optimising Carbon in the Australian landscape”, a paper produced by The Wentworth Group states “at a global scale, a 15% increase in the world’s terrestrial carbon stock would remove the equivalent of all the carbon pollution emitted from fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution.”

Australian woolgrowers are enhancing their land in tune with the national Landcare movement through initiatives such as Land, Water & Wool, Evergraze, Grain and Graze.

 
Fri 16th July 2010
Tamar Valley (TAS) farmers measure CO2 emitted and CO2 absorbed

A report has recently been launched showing that farmers in the Tamar Valley are locking up more carbon dioxide than they are releasing. 

The report by Tamar Natural Resource Management reveals a study of 17 farmers in the Tamar Valley had average emissions of 1,526 tonnes of CO2 but they sequester an average of 2,630 tonnes of CO2, giving net greenhouse gas emissions of minus 1,014 tonnes of CO2. This result may go a long way to help bust the myth that  farming and livestock production were inherently large scale contributors to thebuild up of global warming gases in the atmosphere.  

"The report shows that many farmers are locking up carbon, and they are not net contributors of greenhouse gas emissions," Tamar NRM president Ian Sauer said.

"These results are remarkable as the study measured only what is sequestered through trees planted post 1990 as part of the Kyoto protocols. 

"If farmers were able to measure the carbon locked up in soil through minimum tillage and other soil conservation techniques, and included managed and rehabilitated vegetation on farms, then the benefits could be enormous.' he said.  

Mr Sauer said there needs to be a nationally recognised process for auditing greenhouse gas emissions which would enable a value to be put on carbon. 

He says this would make it possible for farmers to create an alternative income stream and value the environmental benefit farmers can provide.

 Friday 9th April 2010
FAO livestock policy officer admits weakness in UN analysis
A report by Asa Walquist in the Australian Newspaper on 8^th April 2010 has shown that at least one of the co-authors of the 2006 UNFAO document, ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’ has admitted to serious errors in the way in which the emissions of livestock were calculated. UNFAO Livestock Policy Officer, Pierre Gerber, told BBC News he accepted the criticism that has been made about the way in which livestock emissions has been calculated.

 To those outside the closed circle of the UNFAO authors, many conclusions reached in Livestock’s Long Shadow were obviously poorly based right from the start and the document was outrageously inept in its analysis. Many of those who criticised the report however, had to live with jibes of being global warming resisters and recalcitrants. Now, however, their valid criticisms of Livestock’s Long Shadow are being justified as sound science. Now, the boot is on the other foot and the UNFAO authors are being recognised as the incompetents. Finally the weakness of the report can no longer be denied and the welcome admission by Pierre Gerber will go a long way to restoring some scientific sense in the analysis of net global warming gas emissions from livestock.   

By way of background the 2006 FAO report, Livestock's Long Shadow, had stated that livestock were responsible for 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But the warning signs were there as soon as the report was published because it was at odds with the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The IPCC had concluded that livestock were responsible for just 4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

In March a Professor from the University of California, Professor Frank Mitloehner, deeply criticised the FAO report, saying that not only was it scientifically inaccurate, but it distracted people from embracing effective solutions to global warming. Professor Mitloehner told the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society that reducing the consumption of meat and dairy products would not have a major impact in combating global warming.

Livestock's Long Shadow claimed livestock emitted more greenhouse gases than transport. But Professor Mitloehner said in the US transportation was responsible for 26 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions and livestock accounted for just 3 per cent.

Professor Mitloehner said the problem was the FAO paper used two different methodologies to calculate greenhouse gas emissions: for livestock it used full life cycle analysis, including land-clearing in the Amazon and growing and transporting feed; but the transport analysis only counted fossil fuels burned while driving and did not count all the life cycle-related factors.

Pierre Gerber, a co-author of the original flawed report, told BBC News he accepted the criticism. ‘I must say honestly that he has a point -- we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport’

The Australian Newspaper reported that Chief Executive of the Australian Farm Institute, Mick Keogh, said the FAO report had been used by a number of people, including Paul McCartney, Al Gore, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri and Lord (Nicholas) Stern, ‘along with a host of other B to Z-grade celebrities who have decided they can save the planet by eating less meat’.

Thursday 28 January 2010

Australian Professor changes his mind on soil carbon 

A well known Australian scientist, Professor Tim Flannery, has thrown his weight behind the role that soil carbon can play in climate management. This shows there is a significant groundswell of scientific support for the role that farmers can play in sequestering carbon in their soils.

One of the previous doubters – an influential scientist and Australian of the year in 2007, Tim Flannery – has now had the courage to change his mind on soil carbon. This change of stance has been clearly outlined in a recent paper published by The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists of which he is member.

Before I explain his opinion shift I will outline the basis of why I say he has changed his mind. I have no personal direct knowledge of Tim Flannery’s prior position but I recently lunched with a prominent New South Wales cattle owner. When I told him what Tim Flannery had said at a recent seminar, the cattle owner look up and expressed considerable surprise.  He said, ‘Well that’s a change. About four years ago I phoned Tim Flannery to talk about soil carbon sequestration. I told him of the role that grazing animals could play in drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it as carbon in the ground.

‘But at that time Tim Flannery told me he had great doubts about the effectiveness of the soil carbon option. I was not able to persuade him and, by the end of the conversation, I had not progressed the case for soil carbon as all with him,’ the cattle owner said.

So what did Tim Flannery say of significance on the issue at the lunchtime seminar in Sydney, NSW, recently. The other people on the panel were The Climate Institute’s, Corey Watts, Murdoch University Professor of Sustainable Agriculture, Nick Costa, NSW livestock producer and Nuffield Scholar, Sam Archer and Beverley Henry from Meat and Livestock Australia, and they all supported what Flannery said. 

During his talk, among other things, Professor Flannery said, ‘Plants do a really important job for the environment. Every year they draw down around 8% of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He pointed out that plants and animals have evolved together all the time they have been on earth. Acting together they help sequester carbon in the landscape.

He said that using this relationship between plants and animals in Australia we can boost the carbon storage capacity of our soil. He said that this can take place in the extensive grazing rangelands of Australia. 

Tim Flannery’s conclusion was, ‘You’ve got to use the Planet to solve the problem.’ 

This is a huge breakthrough for many farmers and graziers who are aware of the techniques that farmers can use to lift their soil carbon levels and who are actively pursuing carbon farming strategies. 

Tim Flannery’s comments were endorsed by Corey Watts from the Climate Institute.

The really encouraging thing is that the groundswell of support is now coming from influential scientists, not just from one or two lone voices. The Wentworth Group, a high profile group of leading Australian scientists, recently published a paper advocating the role that farmers can play in soil carbon sequestration.

In part the paper said, Changing farming practices, such as Carbon Grazing, have the potential to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while simultaneously increasing productivity, reducing costs and producing wider natural resource management benefits.’  

The 28 page document is titled Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape. 

 
    ****** 
Wednesday 16^th September 2009

Tipping point or turning point?  

(Media Release from Julia McKay of Natural SeqenceFarming 

They said it couldn’t be done – to bring together at least 55 farmers and agricultural consultants representing every conceivable pastoral philosophy for 2 full days and nights for harmonious dialogue. Add to this a dose of 19 scientific and social academics, 9 bureaucrats, two journalists, 5 former soldiers and a socio-economist and you probably have a recipe for disaster.

Not so, particularly when one of the former soldiers doubles as a former Governor General and his name is Michael Jeffery. At ANU’s Kioloa Coastal Campus on the NSW South Coast last weekend some of Australia’s brightest and best converged to find a solution to the nation’s agricultural and environmental crisis.

The event was sponsored by the Federal Departments of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (combined under Caring for our Country), CSIRO and NSW Industry and Investment (formerly the DPI). ANU’s Centre for Dialogue and the Fenner School of Environment and Society provided vital in-kind support while facilitation was brilliantly handled by Global Learning.

Entitled “The Land Restoration Imperative – Many Pathways, One Goal”, the Dialogue provided the opportunity for round table discussion of all the major issues facing our food and agricultural sector – water, soils, vegetation, animal husbandry, human nutrition, rural employment and climate change. Experts in each field spoke briefly on each topic to stimulate wider discussion. As the programme developed, it became clear that everyone had a way to deal with the problems and the similarities in results were startling.

The goals of maximum moisture retention, balanced soil biology, resilient pastures, healthy animals, mineral-dense food, engagement with the urban community and adaptation to climate variability were universally embraced. The methods adopted by permaculturalists, natural sequence farmers, cell grazers, pasture croppers, holistic managers, biological/bio-dynamic/organic practitioners in achieving these objectives might seem to be diverse, but on closer inspection are surprisingly similar.

Having established a commonality of purpose, the Dialogue moved inexorably to the “How To Fix It” stage. Farmers are a proud and independent bunch and none of them believed that it was solely a government hand-out solution. Caring for our Country could provide a major portion of the funding for whole of catchment projects but landowners, business, the energy sector, taxation and employment avenues were also part of the answer.

However, Michael Jeffery pulled an unexpected rabbit out of his hat. He introduced the assembled gathering to Outcomes Australia, a pro-bono organization under his chairmanship and comprising a who’s who of Australian movers and shakers. Those who give their time free of charge to address difficult issues include bankers, doctors, lawyers, the media, engineers, company CEOs, scientists and professional thinkers. Outcomes Australia has recently agreed to put its considerable weight behind the Land Regeneration project with a major emphasis upon the recognition that water, its supply, use and regulation is pivotal.

“Our water has to be controlled at the national level with a value attached to it that equates to its importance”, General Jeffery told the Dialogue. “Unless we can address the threat to world-wide water and food security, we stand to see conflict on a scale unknown since WWII. World peace in the face of catastrophic global warming, depends substantially upon providing safe water and nutritious food to a population set to double by the middle of this century.”

General Jeffery encouraged his agricultural troops by saying, “Australia can lead the way in demonstrating to the rest of the world that degraded landscapes can be rejuvenated.”

For those who attended the Dialogue and those who wanted to be there but couldn’t, the work now starts. Everyone present knows the job ahead is enormous and they have already formed into expert teams to develop policies and plans to ensure that Outcomes Australia does indeed cure the ailing landscape.

Further incrmation contact:  Julia McKay  02 48 444457

Monday 7^th September 2009

Research breakthrough on soils and methane 

University of Sydney researchers have found that Australian soils can absorb methane at high levels. In fact the soils studied in the research project could absorb more methane annually than cattle could produce from grazing the same land.

A significant scientific breakthrough may go part of the way to diffusing the issue about livestock and the production of ‘global warming’ gases.

No ruminant animal can create a single atom of carbon from nothing. Even the entire Australian cattle herd cannot even create an atom of carbon that did not previously exist. No scientist or biologist would argue with this proposition. 

It follows therefore that a ruminant animal cannot somehow create an extra molecule of carbon dioxide that did not already exist in the atmosphere before the animal was born. In terms of the straight carbon dioxide molecules the life cycle of a cow is completely neutral.

What the argument has always come down to in the past is the extent to which the methane (CH4) molecules cows belch frrom their digestion cause extra global warming gases. Some of the heat may now be taken out of this argument as a result of research conducted by University of Sydney.     

University of Sydney researchers have found that Australian soils can absorb methane at high levels. In fact the soils studied in the research project could absorb more methane annually than cattle could produce from grazing the same land.

At this stage this is still only a preliminary finding but it adds another piece of evidence to counter the vilification of cattle that has been taking place in recent years in such documents as the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation’s document ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow.’

The research was carried out in the Snowy Mountain region. The grazing land in the study had high organic matter at around 5% - 7%. These high country soils were found to oxidise methane at a rate of 100 milligrams per square metre per hour, or roughly 8760 kg of methane per hectare per year.

By contrast, 100 head of cattle produce about 5400 kg methane per hectare per  year.

“In other words, high country grazing is easily methane-neutral and may even offset cow-methane from other parts of the landscape,” says Professor Mark Adams, Dean of Sydney University’s Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.

Prof Adams said more work is needed to tighten up his “back of the envelope” calculations, and to determine exactly what is happening in the soils being studied.

Bacteria in the soil consumes the methane as part of its metabolic process and oxidizes it to produce carbon dioxide (CO2). But, in oxidizing the methane molecule, the bacteria only release the same number of CO2 molecules into the atmosphere as were originally there before photosynthesis in plants took it from the atmosphere and converted it to animal food.

Prof Adams described the process demonstrated in the research as “very significant, and very consistent” in soils on high plains of the Snowy and Bogong. It must be noted that the study specifically involved soils with high organic matter. 

Like so many other significant scientific discoveries of the past the methane finding had not been expected. This is because the original aim of the study was to research the interactions between grazing and bushfires. But the results emerged as part of the process of researching the original aim. “We reasoned that we also needed to know a little about how land management was going to affect greenhouse gas emissions, including what we thought would be methane emissions from the soils,” Professor Adams says.