4 per thousand, store carbon in global soils

[izentrop]

In Canada they are optimistic, they have the TERATON initiative (the "teraton" represents 1 000 billion tons)

The company plans to include 3 000 farmers around the world, with over a million acres in 2019 ....
Some farmers have already adopted the techniques. Russell Hedrick, a regenerative farmer growing non-GMO, non-GMO corn, soybean, barley, oats and triticale in Hickory, North Carolina, measured carbon in his 1 000 acres and the best he has ever done is 1,5 ton per acre. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the ... re-bury-it

For 1 million acres it is 1.5 million t / year, compared to the 37 billion tonnes issued in 2018, we are still far from it.

And so Russell stocks at most 3.7t / ha / year.
A table corner calculation with the "4/1000" initiative on an average of 30 cm of arable land and a solid CO2 Ps of 1.562 t / m3, we arrive at 18,7 t / ha / year ... very also optimistic, especially with RC, the CO2 from the soil will evaporate even more
... though glyphosate can work wonders.

[Did67]

Just a point: from the start, there is a bug. Are compared (because the INRA plots for which the same techniques have been applied in the same way for long enough - there are in the US long series still long) the effects of different tillage techniques

And basically - I have not read, I come across this thread by chance today and it only interests me marginally - no matter how you work the soil, the mineralization is the same. For a given contribution, you inevitably tend towards stabilization at a given level.

To store, you have to change the "model": stop working the land, don't leave it bare (because bare soil does not produce biomass, which, if not produced, will not be incorporated - therefore no storage of C) ...

No doubt that in a few years, we will have long series of non-work, and we can compare. But it's obvious, these soils will be richer in OM.

And so will have, compared to the situation today, stored C.

I do not have the data anymore, but it seems to me that the 4 per thousand relates to cultivated land. Because elsewhere, it is the destruction of standing biomass (forest) that must be stopped!

The figure is obviously "marketing". 4 per thousand, that doesn't seem like much. But it has been discussed elsewhere: levels of stable OM in soils vary very, very slowly. In the direction of the decline (it took 50 years of "bad practice" to halve the stock of OM - roughly 4% to 2%)

2% / 50 years = 4 for 10 000 and not for 1 000!

If we reverse the technique, it will take so much time! So 4 for a thousand is far from won; we must reverse the trends and accelerate by a factor 10 !!!!! Provided, in addition that everyone goes there ...

Blah blah ... We can dream ... The researchers are gifted for that ...

Then you have to launch ideas. "World hunger" was very trendy in the 70s ... and we are still running. Finally we hang around in our slippers!

[izentrop]

Hello,

And basically - I have not read, I come across this thread by chance today and it only interests me marginally - no matter how you work the soil, the mineralization is the same. For a given contribution, you inevitably tend towards stabilization at a given level.

For the mineralization I have other bell sounds

By mineralization, it is destroyed annually 1,5 2%
stable humus stock in cultivated soil and about 1% in unworked fallow. The mineralization rate is
always higher in hot climate and
moist, in well aerated soil at pH
neutral or slightly alkaline, when
cultural ways promote activity
organic. Various calculation systems
computers can qualify the value
the K2 coefficient according to these conditions. https://agriculture-de-conservation.com ... -humus.pdf

Besides, I seem to have heard that in the Amazon rainforest, there is practically no humus, all the MO is above ground, because of the rains and the tropical climate ... Except zones where the man with practiced terra pretta.

With global warming, we will try to store, much more soil carbon will end up in the atmosphere.

Climate change can also precipitate the de-stocking of organic carbon by accelerating the rate of mineralization of organic matter in mountain soils or peat soils in wetlands. https://www.gissol.fr/thematiques/sols- ... climatique

[Did67]

For the mineralization I have other bell sounds

OKAY. My sentence was too short: for the same place, the same soil, the same climate, the mineralization does not vary much depending on the tillage technique. In short, you plow, that you "rotavatores", that you spade, as soon as you work the soil, that is to say that you aerate it, you accelerate, in the same place, the mineralization ... And conversely, non-work slows down oxidation (aerobic mineralization).

This is why the INRA test comparing tillage techniques does not show a significant difference.

But if they had compared to a plot of no-till, in the same place, there is probably one.

It is this "contradiction" that you seemed to point out at the very beginning. And which is not ... since only modalities of job of the ground !

Otherwise, basically, every factor plays: hot and humid climates accelerate mineralization, light soils mineralize more than heavy soils, etc ...

[izentrop]

This is why the INRA test comparing tillage techniques does not show a significant difference.
But if they had compared to a plot of no-till, in the same place, there is probably one.

What study is it?

The
The results show that it appears more efficient, in terms of soil C storage, to increase
inputs of organic matter to the soil, by implantation of ligneous species in association or replacement of
bare soil, by plant cover, rather than attempting to reduce the rates of mineralization of
organic materials by no-till practices. https://www6.inra.fr/ciag/content/downl ... -Chenu.pdf

It is also written:

The amount of organic carbon that is stored in the world's soils is considerable: between 1
200 and 2 000 Gt (1Gt = 109t) carbon in the first meter of soil, two to three times the amount of
carbon present in the atmosphere as CO2, and 700 Gt of C in the first 30 cm of
ground. In metropolitan France, the C stock of the first 30 cm of soil is estimated at 3,2 Gt (Martin and
al., 2011). An increase in 1 ‰ of these stocks, 3,2 106t C would offset 12% of emissions
French agricultural and forestry enterprises, which are 94 106 t eqCO2, that is 26 106 t eq C (CITEPA 2012).
Increasing C storage in soils through agricultural practices therefore appears as a steering wheel
action plan for the mitigation of climate change.

Significant but largely insufficient and even lost when the RC really warms up.

[Did67]

I am sorry ; I read superficially and write too quickly. So bullshit. Not that, but enough!

Forget them!

My excuses.

[izentrop]

The results of the last INRA study on SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION - DECRYPTION https://reseauactionclimat.org/etude-in ... n-carbone/

researchers point out that carbon storage in soils is limited in time (the study focuses on 30 years) and is potentially reversible. Finally, the practices that require leaving organic matter on the soil (the practice of intermediate crops used in the model involves leaving all biomass production on the ground) do not take into account the fact that this material could have been used to other uses potentially sequestering.

RESULTS HIGHLIGHTING MARKET HEIGHT
The current stock of organic carbon from French soils on 0-30 cm represents 3,58 Gt of carbon (C). The additional potential in agricultural and forest soils assessed by INRA researchers is 5,78 Mt of C on the 0-30 cm horizon (or 8,43 on the first 100 soil). This value corresponds to 1,9 for 1000 for the entire French agricultural and forestry area. Most of the additional potential (86%) is found in arable crops, in particular because the soils concerned are currently low in carbon and therefore have a high potential for progress.

This potential, according to the calculations of the INRA, would compensate 6,8% of the current emissions of France and 41% of the only agricultural emissions.

It's quite small, not counting the additional losses caused by the RC

Yujie He's team worked on a scenario of a continuous increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 throughout the 21st century (RCP 8.5 scenario, see table above), taking into account their new observations (see paragraph“Carbon has been stored much less in the soil since 1750 than estimated by the IPCC”). This means that the IPCC has overestimated the carbon storage capacity in soils by 40% by 2100 [6].

Other studies in progress estimate what could be the storage capacity of the soil. Bertrand Guenet details them: "With the new soil diagrams, and the RCP 2.6 scenario, we observe 50% less storage compared to the previous version. For the RCP 8.5 scenario, it's more complicated, the effect is a little depreciated. https://reseauactionclimat.org/stockage ... limatique/

[sicetaitsimple]

The results of the last INRA study on SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION - DECRYPTION

For those interested, the summary of the INRA study in about ten pages is here:

https://inra-dam-front-resources-cdn.we ... is-pdf.pdf

As already underlined in Izentrop's post, 86% of the potential for increasing storage capacities would be linked to arable land, and the increase in the depth of the French "carbon sink" would nevertheless remain low in relation to emissions. current (6,8%).

[izentrop]

Storing 4 for carbon 1000 in soils: the potential in France summarized with some videos http://institut.inra.fr/Missions/Eclair ... s-francais

The full report of 117 pages with all the technical details https://inra-dam-front-resources-cdn.we ... is-pdf.pdf

These figures 20 page are better than a long speech:

[izentrop]

Hello,
The intervention of Claire Chenu confirms what was written previously
"organic matter stable in soils is not humic substances and moreover molecules that persist for a long time in soils, apart from charcoals we do not really know"
"sugars that's what sometimes persist for centuries of millennia"
"these small molecules persist because they are stabilized by adsorption on clays or by trapping within the porosity of the soil where they are hardly accessible to microorganisms"