Data that I have seen support the increase of carbon in soils undergoing conservation tillage, and highlight that the increased carbon begins in the upper layers. It may take many more years for the carbon build-up to reach deeper layers. I suspect that the deeper carbon is much older, which if true supports the finding that no-till leads to increased carbon storage.

Aside from the scientific data, it makes sense and is logical – if you reduce oxidation of soil carbon more will cycle to humic materials and eventually kerogen-like resistent carbon compounds.

What amazes me the most, however, is the quality of studies that end up in published literature. There are hundreds of studies on no-till vs. till that restrict the depth of measurement to some 15 cm, often less. I am stunned that fellow soil scientists could be so…”shallow.” It is blatantly obvious that tillage mixes the soil, and that tillage below 15 cm will result in dilution of C in the upper 15 cm of soil (as C decreases with depth generally), thus under-estimating its total content in tilled treatments. Furthermore, soil scientists are, in general, ignorant of errors associated with depth layer determinations. Correct assessments must be based on equivalent soil mass layers (as per Ellert and Bettany 1995, for example), and not depth layers, which has distorted numerous assessments.

I sometimes lament at the lack of intelligence demonstrated in so many publications, and am further amazed at how these errors get past reviewers and editors in top soil science journals. To reach any conclusion regarding total carbon sequestration in a study only involving the upper 15 cm of soil is impossible, and such studies by simple logic should be summarily excluded. Regrettably, they form the majority of studies that support increased no-till carbon sequestration. One wonders if studies–and journals–are looking for research to support a foregone conclusion.

The problem I have with your tone is that agricultural ergonomics is a matter of life and death both now and in the future. Furthermore its connection (via rising fossil fuel prices) with rising food prices and technical solutions are not discussed much in the public sphere. You are working on an issue of a higher profile and your dismissive comments will become attached to these practices in a way that may mislead the public about their value. People, and it seems like you as well, do not think enough about how food gets on their table.

So, whether or not no-till is a key method of carbon sequestration, it is a key energy solution in an area that is more vital for your survival than your daily commute. So, no-till and low-till are part of the wheat not the chaff…unless you have devised a more efficient agricultural energy solution…

Something of the same sort might be true of SOC. In any case, no-till saves on diesel fuel.

Joe, again I gnash my teeth after clicking on this bookmark.

My default is that if someone p!sses off both sides they must be doing something right, but in this case you are engaging in binary logic: an either/or assessment of a strategy.

There is no reason to reject no-till as a mitigation strategy. That is your argument as I read it.

First, in an adaptive environmental management strategy (see Sylvia’s blog or here for more) – where we’re headed even tho the IPCC isn’t doing a good job introducing scenarios into popular dialogue – having a 95% CI [especially when *ahem* certain pundits insist we need to start yesterday] isn’t a luxury.

Second, your read of the literature isn’t from an ag or hort standpoint. I suggest you check with a few experts. An analog: I’m a green infrastructure guy. There are folks who are promoting urban forests as carbon sequesters based on a misunderstanding read of just a couple of papers and concluded promoting aboveground C sequestration is a way to increase tree canopy cover – they wish to promote urban forests, which is laudable for many reasons. But the scant literature says “it depends” wrt climate, and in the Front Range, it ain’t gonna happen although some folk don’t want me to say that.

Now, here, for whatever reason, you have – just as some urban forest proponents have done – misread a couple of papers and come to a conclusion. I’m not as familiar with the literature as some in this thread – my formal education that included soils and crop science ended some years ago – but its clear that wrt this topic “it depends”, not “no way”. I suggest you contact some soil researchers to have them explain where and when particular tillage techniques give a better chance at soil C sequestration (SCS).

Next, consider that in an adaptive management regime there is a multitude – a basket, if you will – of channels that contribute to the sequestration basket. In that basket, let’s say that some smart person sets up a bunch of different funds (like we have today to choose stocks) and that some funds have soil C sequestration with a factor – say .25 that allows you to offset your C. Meaning some methods are better than SCS to sequester carbon, but you can still choose soil if you want. You have a bunch of options to choose from.

That is: soil C sequestration isn’t the only egg in the basket, and it isn’t a whole egg because it isn’t the best strategy. But the head of your company’s dad was a farmer and they want to promote ag, so your company’s offset goes into this fund. SCS gets traded, promoted, talked about, chosen among a rich variety of choices. Just like we do Socially Responsible Investing today.

Your negativity-laced yammering often gets in the way of creating innovative solution sets, Joe, in my view. Not always, but more often than I care to see.

SCS is one way to go. It’s not a silver bullet, and it may not be great, but it helps to create a dialog that helps to create market choices. So it doesn’t do everything you think you want. Sheesh. Hello.

HTH.

Best,

D

Sorry if people don’t like the tone of this post, but I personally feel duped about this whole matter. Now we have the possible next president of United States using the 100% offsets as his primary cost-containment method in his cap&trade, featuring on offset that has not been conclusively proven to reduce carbon, and which some studies suggest may increase carbon.

Sorry people, as I have said many times, the time to act is now, if not yesterday. We need to cut the wheat from the chaff, to use an agricultural metaphor, ASAP.

DANO — you miss the point of this post I think. Absent a very high degree of scientific certainty, one must stick with the null hypothesis on an issue of this importance.

Moreover, the financial additionality of these credits has been openly questioned in both the New York Times and the Washington Post.

http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 07/ 30/ magazine/ 30carbon.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ story/ 2008/ 01/ 28/ ST2008012800764.html

A debate for another day, perhaps, but soil carbon is looking less and less appealing as an offset type.

Joe, I find this yet another post of yours that ululates something that is too early to conclude.

My undergrad is in EnvHort, and allows me to I agree with many of the above commenters regarding AVOIDED carbon (your ’saving carbon’), SOC stocks, and Sylvia’s point that loss of soil carbon is the point – industrial ag is very good at losing soil carbon.

Lastly, I reiterate that the tone and antagonism here is a self-marginalizing issue for your efforts. I have serious issues with RPs Jr and Sr, and think they are borderline FUD enablers, but if the person behind Dano were debating/presenting with them in public, I wouldn’t take your approach.

Jus’ sayin’.

Best,

D