México: Un panel del T-MEC falló en contra de México en el caso del maíz transgénico

/in , , /by

Escrito por Mercedes López Martínez, Representante de la Colectividad Demandante contra el Maíz Genéticamente Modificado

La derrota del gobierno de México ante el  panel de controversias de Estados Unidos, era una derrota anunciada, por la propia naturaleza de la demanda, con un sentido estrictamente comercial: defender los intereses de empresas transnacionales contra la soberana decisión de México de decidir qué compra y su soberanía alimentaria.

No obstante, el fondo de la controversia es falso, porque la prohibición del uso de maíz genéticamente modificado en el consumo humano no ha implicado una afectación comercial, al contrario, de 16 millones de toneladas de maíces amarillos genéticamente modificados que México importaba a inicios de 2024, incrementó su compra a casi 20 millones.

Lo importante es que a pesar de esa resolución negativa para México, continúa la prohibición de la siembra comercial de maíz genéticamente modificado por una medida precautoria dictada en septiembre de 2013 a favor de una demanda colectiva civil representada por Mercedes López, integrante de Vía Orgánica; además de que está por aprobarse una reforma constitucional que prohibe la siembra de maíz GM en México y prohibe su consumo humano.

Desde Vía Orgánica y la sociedad civil demandante seguiremos luchando y defendiendo los maíces nativos mexicanos que son cultura, tradición, gastronomía, cosmogonía, artesanía, preservación del medio ambiente, derechos humanos y soberanía alimentaria.

Escucha la entrevista realizada a Mercedes López en Radio Bilingüe el 10 de enero de 2025:

VIERNES 10 DE ENERO – PROGRAMA N.° 10651 12:00 PM PT

Edición México.

Un panel del T-MEC falló en contra de México en el caso del maíz transgénico, alegando que la prohibición mexicana no está basada en la ciencia y socava el acceso al mercado acordado en el T-MEC. En respuesta, la presidenta mexicana Sheinbaum destacó la relevancia del maíz como patrimonio cultural y biológico, los riesgos que enfrenta por las variedades transgénicas y propuso una legislación que prohíba el cultivo de maíz transgénico en el país. “Sin maíz, no hay país”, afirmó. Expertos debaten los próximos pasos.

Encuentre más información sobre Línea Abierta y  programas previos en nuestra página de Línea Abierta.

How Much Goes it Cost to Preserve Mexican Biodiversity?

/in , /by
by Mercedes López Martínez, Delegate for the Demanding Collective Against GMO Corn

For the past 11 years, Vía Orgánica has been fighting to protect the 64 native corn varieties and hundreds of local strains in Mexico. These corn varieties not only represent a traditional food source for millions of people but are also key to the country’s biodiversity, culture, cosmogony, and religious rituals. Above all, they are part of the defense of ancestral seeds that have been passed down over 10,000 years by generations of farmers, contributing to both Mexico’s and the world’s
agricultural heritage.

We have successfully halted the planting of genetically modified corn in the heart of the crop’s origin region through a civil lawsuit that led to a precautionary measure preventing its commercial cultivation. This victory also serves as a powerful defense against multinational corporations like Bayer-Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dow Agrosciences.

We invite you to support this vital struggle through your donation. Every contribution helps sustain our efforts to protect ancestral resources, food sovereignty, and the right to preserve the culinary traditions of Mexican cuisine, which UNESCO has recognized as Intangible Heritage of Humanity.

AROES (Agroecological, Regenerative, and Organic Ecosystem Services)

/in /by

by

Introduction

Ronnie Cummins and I saw an urgent need to scale up agroecological, regenerative, and organic systems, the three main ecological agricultural movements, to regenerate our ecosystems, climate, and communities. We have been actively involved in organic agriculture in various ways for decades. I have been an organic farmer since the early 1970s.

We spent several years researching this and examining the markets, standards, and verification systems. The more we studied it, the more concerned we became about the credibility of carbon credits and biodiversity offset schemes. The media has been highly critical of these, and journalists and scientists have found many of these systems fraudulent.

Our book, The Regenerative Agricultural Solution, outlines the multiple benefits of regenerative practices. These benefits include increasing rainfall, improving regional cooling, reversing vapor pressure deficits, and increasing soil organic matter. These practices create tangible values that need to be paid for rather than taken for free, neglected, and therefore regarded as worthless. Paying the people who provide these services will give them real value.

Equally important is the need to regenerate our food and farming systems away from toxic monocultures. These systems destroy soil organic matter and reduce biodiversity, destroying the soil’s capacity to capture and retain water. This leads to vapor pressure deficits that heat the land, causing droughts and torrential flooding rains. The Regenerative Agricultural Solution explains the concept of vapor pressure deficits and their critical importance.

Even if the world transitioned to 100 percent renewable energy tomorrow, it would not stop the rise in temperature and sea levels since current CO2 emissions will persist in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years, heating the climate. It must be actively removed and stored in the soil, the largest terrestrial carbon pool.

It is critical to scale up diverse perennial agroforestry systems. The book provides many examples of agroecological systems based on perennial trees, shrubs, herbs, and grasses combined with annual crops. Permanent covers of photosynthesizing plants are essential to draw down CO2, increase soil organic matter, increase transpiration to cool regions, and reduce vapor pressure deficits.

The oceans’ heat, however, will continue adversely affecting the climate until it dissipates over hundreds of years. Our research shows that scaling up tree and forest regeneration is the fastest way to cool the planet. The world has become 1.5°C (2.7°F) warmer, and adequate tree cover would increase transpiration and provide regional cooling to compensate for this.

Forests moderate local climates by keeping their local environments cool. They do this by shading the land and releasing moisture from their leaves. This process, called transpiration, requires energy extracted from the surrounding air, thus cooling it. A single tree can transpire hundreds of liters of water in a day. Every hundred liters (25 gallons) has a cooling effect equivalent to two domestic air conditioners daily.

Temperature differences between forest and clear-cut land are up to 10 degrees Celsius (18°F) in parts of Sumatra. Research in the Amazon found a difference of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4°F) between the cool of the forested Xingu indigenous park and surrounding croplands.

Researchers have found the reforestation of the Eastern US over the last century has had a cooling effect that resulted in a lack of regional warming in the 20th century. This stands in contrast to warming trends across the rest of North America during the same period. Their study shows that forests across much of the eastern United States have a substantial adaptive cooling benefit for air temperatures. Ground and satellite‐based observations showed that these forests cool the land surface by 1–2°C (1.8 – 3.6°F)annually compared to nearby grasslands and croplands, with the strongest cooling effect during midday in the growing season, when cooling is 2–5°C (3.6 – 6.5°F).


Image: Mallory L. Barnes et al., “A Century of Reforestation Reduced Anthropogenic Warming in the Eastern United States,” Earth’s Future 12, no. 2 (February 2024)

This critical information shows that regenerating forests can reverse the warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F).

The regeneration of tree cover is one of the most effective strategies for climate change mitigation. The destruction of ecosystems contributes to global warming, whereas regenerating these forests and rangelands would cool the climate.

In The Regenerative Agricultural Solution, as well as other articles, we present strong evidence that regenerating ecosystems and farmlands by growing more plants and increasing soil organic matter can reduce emissions more than the current levels and cool the planet. Doing this will not only reverse global warming; it will stop the great extinction of biodiversity currently underway, reverse the global water crisis, qualitatively improve public health and nutrition, and eliminate poverty among the planet’s 3 billion farmers, farmworkers, and rural villagers.

A Framework for Rewarding Ecosystem Services

The trillions of dollars spent on carbon credits, environmental asset derivatives, and numerous other ineffective schemes, such as carbon capture and storage, primarily benefit traders, scheme owners, government bureaucrats, and consultants. Those of us who work on the front lines and visit the communities see few tangible benefits. The people who manage the ecosystems rarely see much of the funds. Most of it is spent before it reaches them.

We must redirect a percentage of the trillion dollars currently being misused into regenerative systems.

Incentive to Change

Farmers are only paid for their yields, not their ecosystem services. This system favors farmers who can produce the cheapest commodities using economies of scale. This rewards a race to the bottom—the owners of CAFOs and large-scale industrial monocultures with their damaging environmental, health, and social effects reap the benefits. The true cost of damaging the climate, biodiversity, human health, and communities will be paid later—by future generations.

These systems are stealing from our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

The current system treats carbon as a tradable commodity—with arbitrary and, in many cases, illogical rules around permanency and additionality. Many climate change meetings and academic and political discussions are tantamount to walking in endless circles. Participants fiddle over academic, political, and financial disagreements while Rome burns. The fact is climate change indicators are worse despite decades of meetings.

Instead of treating carbon as a tradable commodity that rewards financial markets, commodity exchanges, traders, scheme owners, and consultants, the approach Ronnie and I discussed before he passed away involves paying a fee for service. This would change the focus. When we pay for a plumber, dentist, lawyer, doctor, mechanic, or accountant, we aren’t buying specific commodities. We pay them for the results of their service.

Paying for the services of removing CO2 and regenerating ecosystems, such as biodiversity and climate, would result in a massive financial incentive for changes in land management practices. Instead of a race to the bottom to produce commodities for profit, there would be an incentive for regenerating ecosystems and food and farming production systems. By paying farmers to adopt practices that draw down CO2 and cool the regions, we would transform agriculture from one of the most significant emitters to the leading climate change solution.

Agroecological, Regenerative, and Organic Ecosystem Services (AROES)

Ronnie and I developed the initial draft of the Agroecological, Regenerative, and Organic Ecosystem Services (AROES) framework to pay landholders for ecosystem services, refined through appropriate worldwide consultations over several years.

Regeneration International is setting up AROES as a registry and secretariat to validate and coordinate all the primary services and payments. It is based on payments to farmers, traditional owners, and land managers for:

  • Conserving and/or regenerating biodiversity
  • Removing carbon dioxide through aboveground biodiversity and/or soil organic carbon to reverse climate change
  • Improving gender equity
  • Improving fairness in labor, production, and marketing

Regeneration International and our partners can achieve multiple objectives through public education, market demand, farmer-to-farmer training, grassroots lobbying, and policy reform with adequate funding. This registry will develop, clarify, and channel financial incentives and investments into ecological goods and services.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV)

Emerging stories of fraudulent carbon offset schemes have damaged the credibility of the carbon offset markets. Companies now demand a reputable monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) framework as a top credit purchasing criterion. (Over 90 percent of buyers consider MRV a significant factor in credit purchase decisions.) The certificates must have a transparent verification system to show their impact, which can be used to defend their credibility against the ever-growing claims of greenwashing.

Organic certification systems are the world’s oldest, most reliable, and most trusted agricultural verification systems. They are based on internationally accepted best practices. Regeneration International will use credible organic certifiers and PGS verification systems to verify our ecosystem projects, combined with our own purpose-developed AROES standard to suit the precise purposes of regeneration. Certified operators will also have the option of being certified to national organic standards for market access, including major standards such as the USDA National Organic Program (NOP), the EU regulation, the Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS), and so on.

The AROES standard is short, simple, and straightforward rather than a lengthy or complex regulatory document. It is designed to be easy for farmers and landholders to use. Most farmers in the developing world have limited education and cannot understand complicated certification standards. The standard prohibits degenerative practices and inputs. These include animal cruelty, CAFOs, hydroponics, GMOs, chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, and damaging tillage. It uses guidance rather than mandated practices so that farmers can select the most appropriate. The success of these practices will be measured using evidence-based results as part of the MRV processes.

Trained experts will conduct measurements and provide technical expertise and objective results. These measurement systems will be simple and practical and will not employ highly complex scientific methodologies. New technologies such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) are being used to improve accuracy, save time, and reduce MRV costs.

The use of proxies is a key component of reducing costs and workloads. Soil organic matter levels are a good proxy for soil health and carbon sequestration. They are easily measured and can be used to determine how well a farmer is regenerating soils. Tree and plant diversity and bird calls are good proxies for biodiversity. Increases in plant species and bird calls are signs of healthy ecosystems and biodiversity. These proxies can be used as the basis for ecosystem service payments.

A Worldwide Network

As a worldwide network of 600 partners in 80 countries on every arable continent, Regeneration International will multiply the number of certified farmers and acreage by using financial and agronomic incentives to encourage and motivate producers to adopt the best organic, regenerative, and agroecological practices. Our network building is designed to be scalable. We expect it to multiply, especially in the Global South, as farmers and land managers learn the benefits of adopting agroecological, regenerative, and organic best management practices, verifying them, and then getting paid for them. The first pilot projects have started and will become catalysts for change in their communities.

Scaling Up Best Practices Regenerative Agriculture to Regenerate Our Climate by Maximizing Photosynthesis

/in /by

by 

In the previous article, (Soil Organic Matter – the Most Critical Cause and Solution to Climate Change), I showed how the climate models and negotiations completely neglected soil organic matter (SOM) and how its destruction through industrial agriculture is the largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2), more than fossil fuels. Adopting regenerative agricultural systems that reverse this loss, remove CO2 from the air, and store it as SOM will reverse climate change.

In that article, I showed how the models and data used for the Global Carbon Budget were inaccurate, resulting in significant variations in CO2 emissions and removal estimates.  The complete absence of the largest terrestrial carbon pool, soils, in the calculations is a fatal flaw that completely invalidates the current policies around the adaptation and mitigation of climate change.

One figure can be used accurately: The amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased by an average of 19 Gt (billion tons) yearly for the last decade. This average is based on measurements from primary research stations, such as Cape Grim and Manua Loa. (Friedlingstein et al. 2023) Most CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, deforestation, and loss of SOM are removed through photosynthesis of plants on land or cyanobacteria in the sea. Maximizing photosynthesis is the key to regenerating our climate.

Removing more than 19 Gt of CO2 yearly will reverse emissions and climate change. This can be done by scaling up best-practice regenerative agriculture. (Cummins and Leu 2024)

Helpful Explanations of Technical Terms

This article quotes from published scientific papers. I have ‘translated’ the information into plain English to make it easier to understand. Most use the metric system. These can be understood by following simple conversions:

2.5 acres to a hectare. Pounds per acre are the same as kilograms per hectare. US tons and metric tons are approximately the same. A gigaton (Gt) is one billion tons.

Industrial Agriculture Cannot Remove Enough CO2

There are claims that no-till systems using herbicides are the best for removing CO2 to mitigate climate change. Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 74 published studies comparing no-till and full-tillage management. They found many examples of no-till reducing soil organic matter (SOM) and causing crop yield losses. (Ogle, Swan and Paustian 2012)

The most comprehensive study comparing industrial no-till with an organic agricultural tillage system compared multiple parameters. The organic system had better soil quality, including SOM levels. The results found that systems incorporating high amounts of organic inputs from manure and cover crops can improve soils more than no-tillage systems despite reliance on a minimum level of tillage. (Teasdale, Coffman and Mangum 2007)

Research from Ohio State University compared soil carbon levels between no-till and tillage fields. They compared the carbon storage between no-till and plowed fields with the plow depth of 20 cm (8 inches) and found that the carbon storage was generally much more significant in no-till fields than in plowed fields. When they examined to 30 cm (12 inches) and deeper, they found more carbon stored in plowed fields than in the no-till ones. The researchers concluded farmers should not measure soil carbon based on a shallow surface depth. They recommended going as much as one meter (3 feet) below the soil surface to get a more accurate assessment of SOM. (Christopher, Lal and Mishra 2009)

A review of 120 papers on SOM sequestration by researchers from universities in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio compared the difference between the no-till and tilled plots.  Their findings did not support CO2 sequestration claims of the no-till industry. They found that the no-till subsurface layer often loses more SOM than is gained in the surface layer. (Olson 2013)

Professor Rattan Lal is a highly regarded soil scientist whose research and review papers on SOM in agriculture are widely cited. He has published articles on the potential of the global scaling up of agricultural systems to sequester CO2 to offset anthropogenic GHG emissions. (Lal 2004, Lal et al. 2007) His maximum estimation is 4.4 Gt of CO2 per year, far below the more than 19 Gt that needs to be removed.

These studies and many others have been used to criticize using agriculture to draw down CO2, as their data sets are from industrial-agricultural systems that decrease SOM or have meager increases. The papers correctly show that industrial-agricultural systems are unsuitable for scaling up to achieve the sequestration levels needed to mitigate climate change. (Amundson and Biardeau 2018, Lam et al. 2013, Olson 2013, van Groenigen et al. 2017, White 2022)

A fundamental weakness in their arguments is that they cherry-picked the studies supporting their viewpoints and omitted the data sets showing good increases in SOM. The authors have ignored extensive published studies showing that regenerative agriculture systems, such as organic agriculture and regenerative grazing, can sequester significant amounts of CO2 and increase SOM over many decades. (Gattinger et al. 2012,  Aguilera et al. 2013, Leu 2013, Machmuller et al. 2015, Teague et al. 2016)

Many of the examples cited by the critics are industrial farming systems that use synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, which long-term data shows deplete SOM. Researchers analyzed the results of a 50-year agricultural trial. They found that applying synthetic nitrogen fertilizer had resulted in all the carbon residues from the crop disappearing and an average loss of around 10,000 kg of soil carbon per hectare. It equates to GHG emissions of 36,700 kg of CO2 per hectare (36, 700 lbs per acre) over and above the many thousands of kilograms of crop residue that is converted into CO2 every year. Multiple researchers have found that the higher the application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, the greater the amount of SOM lost as CO2. (Khan et al. 2007, Mulvaney, Khan, and Ellsworth 2009, Man et al. 2021)

A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation (see Appendix) extrapolating this on 90% of croplands shows that conservatively, 51 Gt of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere yearly by the oxidation of SOM. It does not include the extensive emissions from inappropriate tillage, overgrazing, and soil erosion. The loss of SOM is the largest source of CO2, more than fossil fuels (37 Gt), and is not accounted for in the models or climate change negotiations.

The evidence shows that industrial agricultural systems using synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and toxic pesticides contribute to CO2 emissions and cannot remove enough CO2 to mitigate climate change. Reducing fossil fuel emissions and not reducing the large amount of CO2 from nitrogen fertilizer use, soil erosion, overgrazing, and destructive plowing means that the trillions spent on climate change will have no effect.

Research and funding priorities must be focused on evidence-based agricultural systems that can remove large amounts of CO2 and not on systems that contribute to climate change.

Regenerative Agriculture

The best regenerative systems maximize photosynthesis to increase the capture of CO2 and store it in the soil as SOM through organic matter biomass and root exudations. (Prescott et al. 2021) A substantial body of evidence, starting in 1904, shows how root exudates feed organic carbon compounds to the soil microbiome, thereby increasing SOM. The key is to maximize photosynthesis to capture CO2 and convert it into numerous organic compounds. (Leu 2021, Badri and Vivanco 2009, Jones, Nguyen and Finlay 2009, Verma and Verma 2021)

Depending on the management system and the species, root exudates can distribute 10% to 40%, with an average of 30%, of the carbon captured by photosynthesis into the soil while the plants grow. (Verma and Verma 2021) The carbon compounds from root exudates penetrate deeper into the soils due to the depths of the roots than above-ground or tilled biomass. Above-ground and tilled biomass can rapidly oxidize into CO2. Systems with deeper roots are encouraged as their exudates build more durable SOM, as deep soil carbon is more stable.  (Christopher, Lal and Mishra 2009, Verma and Verma 2021, Leu 2013, Leu 2021)

The key is ensuring the agricultural systems have photosynthesizing plants for the most prolonged periods in their climates. This is achieved by using a diversity of correctly managed species to ensure they can capture the maximum amount of sunlight per acre as the energy needed to convert CO2 into the organic molecules that build SOM through the soil microbiome. Permanent covers of living plants and limited tillage systems are preferred to increase SOM. (Leu 2021)

Further research has found that synthetic chemical fertilizers produce a higher percentage of the CO2 fixed through photosynthesis of above-ground biomass growth rather than being excreted by roots as exudates to feed the soil microbiome and increase SOM levels. (Prescott et al. 2021) As stated, root exudates build deeper, stable SOM compared to above-ground biomass that readily oxidizes into CO2.

Many long-term trials show that organic farming systems have higher rates of SOM increases than industrial agriculture (Leu 2013). Organic farms do not use synthetic chemical fertilizers, which causes SOM to decline and produce lower percentages of organic carbon-based root exudates.

Examples of Best Practice Regenerative Systems

The evidence shows that agriculture needs to change from chemically intensive to biologically intensive. The new paradigm reduces and ultimately avoids the use of synthetic chemicals. Plant biology and living soil science must be at the forefront of this research.

A general rule is that the soil is covered with the maximum number of living plants for as long as possible during the growing season. Dead plants and bare soil do not photosynthesize, so the most productive regenerative systems avoid killing plants as weeds with herbicides and excessive tillage. Instead, plants are managed as cover crops to build soil fertility by maximizing root exudates.  Various strategies are used to manage weeds and use them as cover crops to build fertility. Grazing is one of the most widespread management tools in these regenerative systems. (Leu 2021, Teague et al. 2016)

Regenerative Grazing
A meta-review published in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation found that transitioning to regeneratively managed ruminant grazing systems can result in more sequestration than emissions, turning ruminant agriculture from a significant emitter to a major mitigator of GHG emissions. The researchers stated: “Permanent cover of forage plants is highly effective in reducing soil erosion, and ruminants consuming only grazed forages under appropriate management result in more C [CO2] sequestration than emissions.” (Teague et al. 2016)

 Most studies looking at the emissions from livestock systems do not factor in the SOM sequestration levels that can result from different livestock management systems. Researchers doing life cycle analysis comparing different livestock management systems found that converting to a regenerative grazing method called multi-paddock (MP) grazing resulted in significant increases in SOM and removed more CO2 than emitted. ”In our study, the highest [SOM] stock occurred upon converting to MP [Multi-paddock] grazing, indicates that among the three different grazing practices we analyzed, MP has the highest carbon [CO2] sequestration rate. Combined with its potential to significantly lower GHG emissions, we conclude that MP serves as the best carbon mitigation option.” (Tong et al. 2015)

In a later study, the researchers found similar results and recommended the widespread adoption of regenerative agriculture systems, not just for the increasing SOM; they found considerable ecological and biodiversity benefits. “Incorporating forages and ruminants into regeneratively managed agroecosystems can elevate soil organic C,[SOM] improve soil ecological function by minimizing the damage of tillage and inorganic fertilizers and biocides, and enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitat. We conclude that to ensure long-term sustainability and ecological resilience of agroecosystems, agricultural production should be guided by policies and regenerative management protocols that include ruminant grazing.” (Teague et al. 2016)

Teague and colleagues showed that regenerative livestock systems can remove 11 tons of CO2  per hectare per year (11,000 lbs per acre). Implementing this grazing system on the world’s permanent pastures would remove 37.4 billion tons of CO2 annually. Deployed on 10% of the world’s permanent pastures, it could remove 3.7 Gt of CO2 annually.  (Teague et al. 2011)

Researchers using regenerative grazing practices in the southeastern United States removed 29.36 metric tons of CO2 per hectare per year (29,360 lbs per acre). The authors give other examples from worldwide research that have achieved similar levels of SOM sequestration through regenerative grazing. Hence, the results of this research paper are not an isolated outlier. (Machmuller et al. 2015)

If these regenerative grazing practices were implemented on the world’s permanent pastures, they would remove 99.8 billion tons of CO2 annually. By deploying them on 10% of the world’s grazing lands, they could remove 10 Gt of CO2 annually. (See Appendix)

The push to reduce livestock reduction is based on their methane emissions, which are used incorrectly to calculate the greenhouse gas (GHG) contributions to climate change. Most publications will quote them as a percentage of anthropogenic GHGs, not in their measured contributions to trapping infrared (heat) energy as a cause of climate change. The extra trapped energy fuels extreme weather events—floods, storms, droughts, and fires.

The study, which has the most comprehensive datasets and solid methodology, states that CO2 is the principal anthropogenic GHG as it amplifies the GHG effect of water vapor and clouds, the primary GHGs.

CO2 is responsible for 20% of the total increase in GHG infrared energy. Water vapor and clouds are responsible for 75%. All the other anthropogenic GHGs are responsible for 5%. The contribution of methane, at most, is a 1.6% increase in GHG heat energy. (Schmidt et al. 2010)

Most methane emissions come from leaking gas, oil wells, and permafrost melting.

Ruminants are only a percentage. The bulk of this comes from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). While methane and other greenhouse gas outputs are considerable for (CAFOs) and intensive industrial livestock production systems, this is not true for regenerative grazing livestock practices on pasture.

In ranch ecosystems, much of the methane emitted by animals on pasture is degraded by soil and water-based methanotrophic (methane-eating) microorganisms. These organisms do not exist in CAFOs and intensive livestock systems, so 100 percent of their emissions go into the atmosphere. Furthermore, methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas with a half-life of 12 years. It decays into CO2. This CO2 is sequestered into the soil by photosynthesis in correctly managed grazing systems. This does not happen in CAFOs and industrial animal production systems. Scaling up regenerative grazing will reverse climate change.

Pasture Cropping
Pasture cropping is an innovative regenerative agriculture system where the crop is stripped-tilled into a perennial pasture instead of bare soil. There is no need to plow out the pasture species or kill them with herbicides before planting the cash crop.

Colin Seis in Australia first developed this. The principle is based on the ecological fact that annual plants grow in perennial systems. The key is to adapt this principle to the appropriate management systems for specific crops and climates. Pasture cropping can be used on permanent pastures and arable cropping lands. Dr. Christine Jones researched Colin Seis’s property, Winona, and showed he had removed an average of 16.85 tons/ha (16,850 lbs/acre) of CO2 annually. (Winona 2022)

Neils Olsen further innovated pasture cropping. He developed equipment that combines cultivation, mulching, aeration, fertilization, and mixed species seeding into narrow tilled strips in the perennial pasture in one pass. The field is grazed down or mulched before planting to reduce competition with the cash crop.

Pasture cropping is an excellent system for increasing SOM. Olsen was paid for sequestering 11 tons of CO2  per hectare per year under the Australian government’s Carbon Farming Scheme in 2019. He was paid for 13 tons of CO2 per hectare (13,000 lbs per acre) in 2020. (Soil Kee 2019) He was the first farmer to be paid for sequestering soil carbon under the Australian government-regulated system. (Emissions Reduction Fund 2022) If this system was deployed on 10% of all permanent pastures and arable/croplands, it could sequester 6.38 Gt of CO2 annually. (See Appendix)

BEAM
BEAM (Biologically Enhanced Agricultural Management), developed by Dr. David Johnson and Dr. Hui-Chun Su Johnson of New Mexico State University, produces compost with a high diversity of soil microorganisms. The BEAM system aligns with research by Prescott et al., which shows how organic carbon-based inputs such as composts encourage higher proportions of root exudates than synthetic water-soluble chemical fertilizers. (Prescott et al. 2021) Multiple crops grown with BEAM have achieved very high CO2 removal levels and yields. Research published by Johnson and colleagues shows: “… a 4.5-year agricultural field study promoted annual average capture and storage of 10.27 metric tons’ soil C ha-1 year -1 while increasing soil macro-, meso- and micro-nutrient availability…” (Johnson, Ellington and Eaton 2015) These results are currently being replicated in other trials.

These figures mean that BEAM can sequester 37.7 tons of CO2 per hectare (37,700 lbs per acre) annually. BEAM can be used in all soil-based food production systems, including annual crops, permanent crops, and grazing systems, including arid and semi-arid regions. If BEAM was deployed globally on just 10 % of all agricultural lands, it could sequester 18.5 Gt of CO2 per year. (See Appendix)  

No Kill, No Till
Singing Frogs Farm, run by Elizabeth and Paul Kaiser, is a highly productive “no-kill, no-till,” biodiverse, organic, agroecological horticulture farm on 3 acres (1.2 hectares) in northern California. The key to their no-till system is to cover the planting beds with mulch and compost instead of plowing them or using herbicides, planting directly into the compost, and having a high biodiversity of cash and cover crops that are continuously rotated to break weed, disease, and pest cycles.

According to Chico State University, the Kaisers have increased soil organic matter (SOM) by 400 percent—from 2.4 percent to 7–8 percent, with an average increase of about 0.75 percentage points per year—in six years. This farming system could apply to more than 80 percent of farmers worldwide, as most have fewer than 5 acres (2 hectares). It is a highly productive system that dramatically increases yield and lowers costs due to the absence of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides. It would assist in ending poverty and food insecurity for most of the world’s farmers.

If the increases in Singing Frog Farm’s soil carbon were adopted by 10% of arable and permanent croplands, it would sequester 17.9 Gt of CO2 annually. (See appendix)

The Agave Agroforestry System
The Flores brothers and Dr. Juan Frias initially developed the agave agroforestry system in the high desert of Mexico. Based on endemic Agave and Mesquite plants, it is a highly productive agroecosystem that regenerates degraded landscapes. The previously indigestible parts of the plants, such as the agave leaves and thorny mesquite leaves, are finely chopped and fermented. This breaks down the toxic compounds such as lectins, saponins, phytates, oxalates, and tannins that plants use to protect themselves from predators, turning them into highly nutritious stock feed.

This is a significant breakthrough as most of the species in other agroforestry systems could

also be fermented to remove the toxic compounds and used as high-quality feed, as has been demonstrated with agave. Selective harvesting for feed would increase the productivity of all of these systems. For example, the agave agroforestry system can be applied to Savory’s Holistically Managed Grazing system to provide forage in the drier and cooler seasons when the pasture grasses do not grow and can be easily overgrazed.

Research by Dr. Mike Howard shows that the agave agroforestry system can sequester 8.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per hectare per year. This does not count below-ground SOM sequestration or the amount of carbon sequestered by the companion trees. (Howard 2024) The potential for soil carbon sequestration is very high due to the role of deep roots excreting around 30 percent of the carbon compounds created through photosynthesis into the soil. This could sequester a total of 11.3 tons of CO2 per hectare.

A 10% adoption of the agave agroforestry system across the world’s permanent pastures could sequester 3.8 Gt of CO2 annually. This possibility does not include the extra functions that such a system provides, such as cooling the region through regenerating forests and permanent pastures. The shading and rehydrating of the landscape will reduce the ambient temperature.

High levels of SOM increases

The above examples of increases in SOM are much higher than the levels quoted in most of the published literature. (Lal 2004, Lal et al. 2007, Lam et al. 2013, van Groenigen et al. 2017, White 2022)

Consequently, some authors and researchers express skepticism about their credibility. The material and methods used in the above examples are published and can be replicated. They are evidence-based systems. Just dismissing them based on an opinion is the opposite of science. The only way to prove or disprove these results is to replicate the material and methods and see the results. Until this is done, these published results are valid.

There is an urgent need to transform agriculture from a significant source of GHGs to a major mitigator. Agriculture must contribute to the suite of solutions necessary to remove CO2 emissions, reduce the extra trapped energy, and avoid the intensification of extreme weather events it causes.

The above examples of regenerative agricultural systems and other outliers have the most potential. They should be the focus of future research, not rejected because of personal opinions. They should be replicated to see their accuracy in different climates and soil types. If the results are positive, they should be scaled up to remove CO2. Further research should be prioritized to improve these systems.

Conclusion

Using conservative figures, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that transitioning a small proportion of agricultural production to best-practice regenerative organic systems will remove more CO2 than the current emissions. (See appendix for details and methodology on calculations.)

  • 10% of grasslands under the Teague regenerative grazing could sequester 3.7 Gt of CO2 annually.
  • 10% of agricultural lands under pasture cropping could sequester 5.3 Gt of CO2 annually.
  • 10% of global agricultural lands regenerated by the BEAM organic compost system could sequester 18.5 Gt of CO2 annually.
  • 10% of smallholder farms across arable and permanent croplands using Singing Frogs Farm’s bio-intensive organic “no-kill, no-till” system could sequester 17.9 Gt of CO2 annually.
  • 10% of arid and semiarid drylands under the agave agroforestry system could sequester 3.8 Gt of CO2 annually.

This would result in 49.2 Gt of CO2 per year being sequestered. This is better than the annual atmospheric increase of 19 Gt of CO2 per year and would, therefore, start to reverse climate change and regenerate the climate.

Combining these regenerative systems is not double- or triple-counting. Many permanent pastures are unsuitable for cropping and can only be used for grazing. Pasture cropping can be used in most arable and grazing systems where machinery can be safely operated, and there is sufficient soil moisture in the rainy season to grow an annual crop. BEAM can be used in all systems. Singing Frogs Farm’s bio-intensive organic “no-kill, no-till” system can be applied to most of the world’s one billion smallholder farming families. The different systems give landholders flexibility and more options for adoption.

These figures do not include avoiding a conservative 18 Gt CO2 emissions from synthetic nitrogen fertilizers by changing 10% of agriculture to best-practice regenerative agriculture.

Furthermore, 10% adoption rates are realistic goals, especially for working with early adopters. This can be increased over time to regenerate all agricultural systems. This would increase CO2 removal and stop the largest source of CO2 emissions, the loss of SOM through synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, inappropriate tillage, overgrazing, and soil erosion.

The systems quoted in this paper are only five examples of the many regenerative agricultural systems that have the potential to draw down large quantities of CO2 if scaled up on global landscape scales. Many emerging systems, especially perennial agroforestry systems, have the potential to achieve higher increases in SOM. Even if the results were half that of the back-of-the-envelope calculation, the outcome would be impressive and a massive contribution to removing more CO2 than emitted.

In the final chapter of The Regenerative Agriculture Solution, Ronnie Cummins and I explain how this can be scaled up and funded. The following article in this series will summarize this.

Appendix

These calculations are back-of-the-envelope, rough estimations. They are not intended as scientific proof. They are a simple way to understand the potential of these systems.

Synthetic Nitrogen and CO2 Emissions Calculations

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) has estimated that the land use:

  • Arable cropland: 1.4 billion hectares (3.5 billion acres)
  • Permanent crops: 0.15 billion hectares (0.38 billion acres)

Total 1.55 billion hectares

90% of this uses synthetic nitrogen fertilizers = 1.39 billion ha x 36.7 tons of CO2 per hectare = 51 billion tons.

This means a conservative estimate of 51 billion tons (Gt) of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere yearly by industrial agriculture’s oxidation of soil organic matter. It does not include the extensive emissions from inappropriate tillage, overgrazing, and soil erosion. The loss of SOM is the largest source of CO2 and is not accounted for in the models or climate change negotiations.

Calculations for Achieving Negative Emissions

Global Agricultural Land Figures
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that the total land used to produce food and fiber is 4.9 billion hectares (12.2 billion acres).

This is divided into:

  • Permanent pastures: 3.4 billion hectares (8.5 billion acres)
  • Arable cropland: 1.4 billion hectares (3.5 billion acres)
  • Permanent crops: 0.15 billion hectares (0.38 billion acres) (FAOSTAT 2015)

 Regenerative Grazing Calculations
To explain the significance of Machmuller’s figures: 8.0 Mg ha−1 yr−1 = 8,000 kgs of carbon stored in the soil per hectare per year. Soil Organic Carbon x 3.67 = CO2, which means that these grazing systems have sequestered 29,360 kgs (29.36 metric tons) of CO2/ha/yr. (Machmuller et al. 2015)

If these regenerative grazing practices were implemented on the world’s Permanent pastures, they would sequester 98.6 Gt CO2/yr. 29.36 X 3.4 billion ha = 99.8 billion tons of CO2

If this system were deployed on 10% of the world’s grazing lands, they could sequester 10 Gt of CO2 annually.

Teague et al. achieved 11 tons per hectare annually.  11 X 3.4 billion ha =  37.4 billion tons of CO2. Deployed on 10% of the world’s permanent pastures, it could sequester 3.7 Gt of CO2 annually.

Pasture Cropping Calculations
Olsen’s pasture cropping system achieved 13 tons and 11 tons a hectare. I have chosen to use the more conservative number of 11 tons. If applied to permanent pastures and arable/croplands, it would sequester 63.8 Gt of CO2 per year. (Permanent pastures and arable croplands 4.8 billion hectares x 11t CO2/ha/yr = 52.8 Gt annually

If this system were deployed on 10% of all permanent pastures and arable/croplands, it could sequester 5.3 Gt of CO2 annually.

BEAM Calculations
BEAM sequestered 37.7 metric tons of CO2 per hectare per year in a documented field trial.

If BEAM were extrapolated globally across agricultural lands, it would sequester 185 Gt of  CO2 annually. (37.7 t CO2/ha/yr X 4.9 billion ha = 185,168,175,790t CO2/ha/yr)

If this system were deployed on 10% of agricultural lands, it could sequester 18.5 Gt of CO2 annually.

No Kill, No Till
Paul and Elizabeth Kaiser of Singing Frog Farm have managed to increase their soil organic matter from 2.4 percent to an optimal 7 to 8 percent in just 6 years, an average increase of about .75 percentage points per year. According to Dr. Christine Jones, “An increase of 1 percent in the level of soil carbon in the 0–30 cm soil profile equates to sequestration of 154 tons CO2/ha with an average bulk density of 1.4 g/cm3.”³ It follows that .75 percent organic matter = 115.5 metric tons of CO2 per hectare (115,500 pounds an acre per year). This system can be used on arable and permanent croplands for a total of 1.55 billion hectares (3.9 billion acres). Extrapolated globally across arable and permanent croplands it would sequester 179 Gt of CO2 per year (1.55 billion hectares × 115.5 metric tons of CO2 per hectare = 179 billion tons.) If this system were deployed on 10 percent of arable and permanent croplands, it could sequester 17.9 Gt of CO2 annually.

The Agave Agroforestry System
Research by Dr. Mike Howard shows that the agave agroforestry system can sequester 8.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per hectare per year. This does not count below-ground SOM sequestration or the amount of carbon sequestered by the companion trees. The potential for soil carbon sequestration is very high due to the role of deep roots excreting around 30 percent of the carbon compounds created through photosynthesis into the soil. This could sequester a total of 11.3 tons of CO2 per hectare.

Extrapolated globally across the 3.4 billion hectares (8.5 billion acres) of permanent pastures, the agave agroforestry system could sequester 38.42 Gt of CO2 annually. 10% adoption would sequester 3.8 Gt annually.

References:

Aguilera E, Lassaletta L, Gattinger A and Gimeno BS, 2013. Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 168:25-36.

Amundson R and Biardeau L 2018 Opinion: Soil carbon sequestration is an elusive climate mitigation tool, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,  USA 115:11652–11656.

Badri DV, Vivanco JM 2009, “Regulation and function of root exudates”. Plant, Cell & Environment. 32 (6): 666–81. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01926.x

Christopher S. F, Lal R and Mishra, U, 2009. Long-term no-till effects on carbon sequestration in the Midwestern U.S. Soil Science SOMiety of America Journal, 73: 207-216.

Cummins, R and Leu A, The Regenerative Agriculture Solution: A Revolutionary Approach to Building Soil, Creating Climate Resilience and Supporting Human and Planetary Health, Chelsea Green, September 2024

Emissions Reduction Fund, Case Studies 2022, Australian Government Clean Energy Regulator, Soil Carbon https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Infohub/case-studies/emissions-reduction-fund-case-studies#Soil-carbon Accessed Sept 4, 2022

FAOSTAT 2015, United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, FAOSTAT data on land use, retrieved December 4, 2015

Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Decharme, B., Bopp, L., Brasika, I. B. M., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chau, T.-T.-T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Dou, X., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Ford, D. J., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Joos, F., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Lan, X., Lefèvre, N., Li, H., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Ma, L., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., McKinley, G. A., Meyer, G., Morgan, E. J., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O’Brien, K. M., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Paulsen, M., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Powis, C. M., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., van Ooijen, E., Wanninkhof, R., Watanabe, M., Wimart-Rousseau, C., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2023, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369

Gattinger A, Muller A, Haeni M, Skinner C, Fliessbach A, Buchmann N, Mäder P, Stolze M, Smith P, El-Hage Scialabba N and Niggli U, 2012. Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:18226-18231.

Howard Mike, In Publication, Pers Com, 2024

Johnson D, Ellington J and Eaton W, 2015, Development of soil microbial communities for promoting sustainability in agriculture and a global carbon fix, PeerJ PrePrints | http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.789v1 | CC-BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 13 Jan 2015, publ: 13 Jan 2015

Jones DL, Nguyen C, Findlay RD 2009, “Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil–root interface”. Plant and Soil. 321 (1–2): 5–39. doi:10.1007/s11104-009-9925-0

Khan, S.A., R.L. Mulvaney, T.R. Ellsworth, and C.W. Boast. 2007. The myth of nitrogen fertilization for soil carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1821-1832. \

Kulp SA & Strauss BH 2019, New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding, Nature Communications, (2019)10:4844,  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z, www.nature.com/naturecommunications

Lal R 2004 Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security, Environmental Science, 11 June 2004

Lal R, Follett RF, Stewart BA and Kimble JM 2007, Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate Climate Change and Advance Food Security. Soil Science, 172, 943-956.

Lam SK, Chen D, Mosier AR and Roush R 2013,  The potential for carbon sequestration in Australian agricultural soils is technically and economically limited. Sci. Rep. 3, 2179; (2013).

Leu A 2013, Commentary V: Mitigating climate change with soil organic matter in organic production systems. TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT REVIEW, 2013, WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, Ed. Ulrich Hoffman, UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2012/3 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION  ISSN 1810-5432

Leu A 2021, GROWING LIFE, REGENERATING FARMING AND RANCHING, Acres USA, Greeley Colorado, USA, December 2021

Machmuller MB, Kramer MG, Cyle TK, Hill N, Hancock D & Thompson A, 2015. Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter, Nature Communications 6, Article number: 6995 doi:10.1038/ncomms7995, Received 21 June 2014 Accepted 20 March 2015 Published 30 April 2015

Mulvaney, R.L., S.A., Khan, and T.R. Ellsworth. 2009. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers deplete soil nitrogen: A global dilemma for sustainable cereal production. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:2295-2314.

Man, M., B. Deen, K.E. Dunfield, C.Wagner-Riddle, and M.J. Simpson. 2021.Altered soil organic matter composition and degradation after a decade of nitrogen fertilization in a temperate agroecosystem. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 310:107305.

Ogle SM, Swan A and Paustian K. 2012,  No-till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration, Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment,

Volume 149, 1 March 2012, Pages 37-49 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.010

Olson K R 2013, Soil organic carbon sequestration, storage, retention and loss in U.S. croplands: Issues paper for protocol development. Geoderma, 2013; 195-196: 201 DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.12.004

Prescott C E,  Rui Y, Cotrufo M F, and Grayston SAJ 2021, Managing plant surplus carbon to generate soil organic matter in regenerative agriculture, Journal of Soil and Water  Conservation, Nov/Dec 2021, Vol.76, No 6.

Schmidt, G. A., R. A. Ruedy, R. L. Miller, and A. A. Lacis, “Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect,” Journal of Geophysical Research 115 (October 2010): D20106, doi: 10.1029/2010JD014287

Skrable K, Chabot G, and French C, World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018), Health Physics 122,no. 2 (February 2022): 291–305,

Soil Kee 2019, World first at the Soilkee farm, with first carbon credits issued to a soil carbon project under the Emissions Reduction Fund and the Paris Agreement, https://soilkee.com.au/gallery/20190314-soilkee%20media%20release%20.pdf Accessed Sept 4, 2022

Teague, W.R., S.L. Dowhower, S.A. Baker, N. Haile, P.B. DeLaune, and D.M. Conover. 2011. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 141:310-22.

Teague W R, Apfelbaum S, Lal R, Kreuter U P, Rowntree J, Davies C A, Conser R, Rasmussen M, Hatfield J, Wang T, Wang F  and Byck P, 2016,The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America,  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation March 2016, 71 (2) 156-164; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.2.156

Teague, W.R., F. Provenza, U.P. Kreuter, T. Steffens, and M. Barnes. 2013. Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: Why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience? Journal of Environmental Management 128:699-717.

Teasdale JR, Coffman CB and Mangum RW (2007). Potential long-term benefits of no-tillage and organic cropping systems for grain production and soil improvement. Agronomy Journal, Sept–Oct, 99 (5): 1297-1305.

Tong W, Teague W R, Park C S and Bevers S, 2015, GHG Mitigation Potential of Different Grazing Strategies in the United States Southern Great Plains, Sustainability 2015, 7, 13500-13521; doi:10.3390/su71013500, ISSN 2071-1050, www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America

Van Groenigen JW, van Kessel C, Hungate BA, Oenema O, Powlson DS and van Groenigen KJ 2017, Sequestering Soil Organic Carbon: A Nitrogen Dilemma, Environmental Science and Technology. 2017

Verma S and Verma A 2021, Plant Root Exudate Analysis,  in PHYTOMICROBIOME INTERACTIONS AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, Editor(s):Verma A, Saini JK, Hesham A and Singh HB, John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2021, Print ISBN:9781119644620, Online ISBN:9781119644798

Winona 2022, What is Pasture Cropping, https://winona.net.au/pasture-cropping/, Accessed September 4, 2022

White RE 2022, The Role of Soil Carbon Sequestration as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy: An Australian Case Study. Soil Systems. 2022, 6,46.

Soil Organic Matter – the Most Critical Cause and Solution to Climate Change

/in /by

by 

The current mainstream narrative is that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels and methane emissions from farm animals. The solution is to reduce fossil use, scale up renewable energy, and eat less, preferably no, meat. I have shown why these ‘solutions’ will not stop climate change in previous articles.

-The Failure of Industrial Climate Solutions

-Response to Criticisms of Regenerative Grazing

-Regenerating Nature-based Systems – The Solution to Cooling the Climate

Skeptics claim there is no evidence that CO2 can cause climate change. Scientists have researched how CO2 drives atmospheric energy increases. NASA launched the IRIS satellite in 1970 to measure infrared radiation. Infrared is part of the spectrum of solar radiation that makes heat. The Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite in 1996, which recorded similar observations. The data found decreased radiation returning to space at the infrared wavelength bands where CO2 absorbs energy. This radiation was being reflected and absorbed across the atmosphere. The measurements were direct evidence that proved the increase in heat and energy absorbed and radiated by CO2. 1

Subsequent research using more recent satellite data has confirmed these results. Since 1750, the start of the Industrial Revolution, this has added an extra 4.1 W/m² (watts per square meter) of energy to the atmosphere. Two thousand ninety-one trillion watts of energy have been added to the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans since 1750. This is the equivalent of the energy of millions of atomic bombs affecting our weather. This extra energy is violently fueling and disrupting our weather systems. It is causing weather events to be far more intense. Winter storms can become colder and be pushed further south and north than usual due to this energy, bringing damaging snowstorms and intense floods. Summer storms, especially hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical lows, etc., are far more intense, with increases in deluging destructive rainfall and floods. Droughts and heat waves are more common, resulting in more crop failures. They are also fueling damaging forest and grass fires that are burning out whole communities and changing regional ecologies due to not allowing time for recovery before subsequent fires.

Scientists assume that most of the increase in CO2 from 278 ppm in 1750 to over 427 ppm in 2024 comes from burning fossil fuels and cement production, with a small proportion from deforestation and nothing from the loss of soil organic matter. Research shows that this approach is highly problematic.

A study published by Skrable, Chabot, and French analyzed the change in the proportions of carbon-14 (C-14) in the atmosphere and disproved that the increase in CO2 is mainly the result of burning fossil fuels. All living organisms absorb C-14. It decays over time and disappears after 45,000 years. Its decay rate is used to date artifacts in archeology, paleontology, and many other sciences. Fossil fuels are so old that they do not have C-14. Consequently, the authors of this study could use it to determine the percentage of fossil fuel-based CO2 in the air from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 2

“Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0 percent in 1750 to 12 percent in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming,”.

The research shows that a large percentage of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750, from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm, comes from living carbon sources, not fossil fuels. These sources are obviously from clearing forests and soil organic matter (SOM) loss. 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres) of forest have been cleared since 1750, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That’s an area 1.5 times the size of the United States. This loss of forests has made, and continues to make, a massive contribution to the current CO2 levels. These forests played an essential role in removing CO2 through photosynthesis. Not only has this removal capacity been lost, but all the biomass was oxidized into CO2 and released into the atmosphere. Clearing these ecosystems also results in huge losses of SOM that are oxidized into CO2.

Soil organic matter (SOM) is the largest carbon pool after the oceans. Soil holds almost three times as much carbon as the atmosphere and forests combined. Degenerative land use is oxidizing this SOM into CO2. Despite being the second largest planetary carbon pool, SOM’s contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gases has not been included in current models used to calculate emissions. Oxidation of SOM is caused by excessive tillage, bare soil, and erosion. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers stimulate the microbes that consume SOM and turn it into CO2. Research shows that they make considerable contributions to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is impossible to determine the amount of CO2 that has come from the extensive loss of SOM that started with the rapid expansion of broad-acre agriculture to supply the commodities for the Industrial Revolution due to a lack of records of the original levels of SOM. Ronnie Cummins and I give a conservative estimate in The Regenerative Agriculture Solution from the USA and Australia. Both countries had large areas of uncultivated land at the start of the Industrial Revolution, which became some of the first large industrial farms. There were records of the original SOM levels. Based on the current average SOM levels, we conservatively estimated that the United States and Australia alone are responsible for 660 billion tons (Gt) of atmospheric CO2 from the loss of SOM. This shows that thousands of Gt of CO2 have been lost from the soil and ended up in the atmosphere worldwide. 1

Researchers analyzed the results of a 50-year agricultural trial. They found that applying synthetic nitrogen fertilizer had resulted in all the carbon residues from the crop disappearing and an average loss of around 10,000 kg of soil organic carbon per hectare (10,000 Lbs per acre). It equates to emissions of 36,700 kg of CO2 per hectare (36,700 Lbs per acre) over and above the many thousands of pounds of crop residue that oxidizes into CO2 yearly. Multiple researchers have found that the higher the application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, the greater the amount of SOM lost as CO2. 3,4,5

A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation (see Appendix) extrapolating this on 90% of croplands shows that conservatively, 51 Gt of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere yearly by the oxidation of SOM. This is the largest source of CO2, more than fossil fuels, and is not accounted for in the models or climate change negotiations.

The Global Carbon Budget is the primary document scientists, governments, and the UN use to quantify significant components of carbon emissions and sinks and their uncertainties. It describes and synthesizes data sets and methodologies from various climate scientists, research institutions, and governments. It uses statistics, production data, numerous models, assumptions, and estimations. 6

In 2022, they estimated that total anthropogenic CO2 emissions were 40.7 Gt. Emissions from clearing forests and associated land use were 4.7 Gt. Fossil fuel and cement emissions were 36 Gt or 88%.

The Global Carbon Budget gives estimates of the ocean and land sinks that remove CO2. The ocean sink removed 10.6 Gt, 26 % of total CO2 emissions. The land CO2 sink removed 12.1 Gt, 31 % of total CO2 emissions. All the other sinks were considered so negligible that they were not worth including. They calculated that the sinks removed 57% of emissions, and the rest, 17.5 Gt, went into the atmosphere. The average measurements of the atmospheric levels of CO2 showed it had increased by 19 GT in 2022, 1.5 Gt more than the 17.5 GT estimation.

The Global Carbon Budget does not balance. The authors saw this one-and-a-half billion-ton discrepancy as a minor issue. They gave the following reasons for this imbalance: ‘Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows the following: (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade.’

The methodologies, models, and assumptions used to inform them must be seriously questioned. Critically, living sources of emissions and sinks are seriously underrepresented in the models. A 2023 study published in Nature compared 11 marine biogeochemical models used to determine the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans by phytoplankton. The researchers found the level of uncertainty was over three times larger, calling into question the accuracy of 10.6 Gt used by the Global Carbon Budget. 7

Detailed research analyzing forests at a spatial resolution of 30 meters globally, published in Nature Climate Change in 2021, shows that forests remove 15.6 Gt of CO2 yearly compared to the Global Carbon Budget estimate of 12.1 Gt. Clearing forests and other disturbances emitted 8.1 Gt compared to the Global Carbon Budget estimate of 4.7 Gt. 8

The Global Carbon Budget models state that  88% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels and cement production, sources that do not have C-14 levels. The Skrable, Chabot, and  French study shows that 88% of the increase in CO2 since 1750 comes from sources with C-14. These are living sources, mostly from clearing ecosystems and the oxidation of soil organic matter.

Ignoring soil organic matter, the planet’s second-largest pool of carbon, as a significant source and sink for CO2 is a glaring oversight. The figures for the CO2 absorbed by forests do not account for the carbon they secrete into the soil.

Depending on the species, root exudates can distribute 10% to 40%, with an average of 30% of the CO2 captured by photosynthesis into the soil while the plants grow. The carbon compounds from root exudates penetrate deeper into the soils due to the depths of the roots than above-ground or tilled biomass. Deeper root exudates build SOM that is more durable and stable. 9, 10

Forest root exudates could amount to an extra 5 GT of CO2 removed annually, for a total of more than 20 Gt removed by forests.

Clearing 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres) of forest since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and converting them into industrial agriculture has resulted in a massive decline in

SOM and considerable increases in atmospheric CO2. Agriculture, forest, and biodiversity management must change.

However, the most significant contributor to the current record levels of CO2 is the loss of soil organic matter through industrial agriculture. Historically, it has contributed thousands of gigatons, and currently, a conservative estimate of 51 Gt annually shows that it is a much higher source than fossil fuel emissions.

We must stop clearing ecosystems and start regenerating forests and pastures, end the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, and adopt regenerative agriculture systems. This will stop the largest sources of CO2 and remove enough emissions to reverse climate change.

The following article in this series will explain how we can easily do this for a fraction of the trillions of dollars wasted on ineffective climate change mismanagement. 1, 10

Appendix for Calculations

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) has estimated that the land use:

  • Arable cropland: 1,396,374,300 hectares (3,490,935,750 acres)
  • Permanent crops: 153,733,800 hectares (384,334,500 acres)

Total 1,550,108,100 hectares
90% of this uses synthetic nitrogen fertilizers = 1,395,097,290 x 36,700 kg of CO2 per hectare = 51,200,070,543 kg

This means a conservative estimate of 51 billion tons (Gt) of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere yearly by industrial agriculture’s oxidation of soil organic matter. This is the largest source of CO2 and is not accounted for in the models or climate change negotiations.

References

  1. Ronnie Cummins and André Leu, The Regenerative Agriculture Solution: A Revolutionary Approach to Building Soil, Creating Climate Resilience and Supporting Human and Planetary Health, Chelsea Green, September 2024
  2. Kenneth Skrable, George Chabot, and Clayton French, World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018), Health Physics 122,no. 2 (February 2022): 291–305,
  3. Khan, S.A., R.L. Mulvaney, T.R. Ellsworth, and C.W. Boast. 2007. The myth of nitrogen fertilization for soil carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1821-1832.
  4. Mulvaney, R.L., S.A., Khan, and T.R. Ellsworth. 2009. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers deplete soil nitrogen: A global dilemma for sustainable cereal production. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:2295-2314.
  5. Man, M., B. Deen, K.E. Dunfield, C.Wagner-Riddle, and M.J. Simpson. 2021.Altered soil organic matter composition and degradation after a decade of nitrogen fertilization in a temperate agroecosystem. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 310:107305.
  6. Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Decharme, B., Bopp, L., Brasika, I. B. M., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chau, T.-T.-T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Dou, X., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Ford, D. J., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Joos, F., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Lan, X., Lefèvre, N., Li, H., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Ma, L., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., McKinley, G. A., Meyer, G., Morgan, E. J., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O’Brien, K. M., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Paulsen, M., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Powis, C. M., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., van Ooijen, E., Wanninkhof, R., Watanabe, M., Wimart-Rousseau, C., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2023, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369
  7. Rohr, T., Richardson, A.J., Lenton, A. et al. Zooplankton grazing is the largest source of uncertainty for marine carbon cycling in CMIP6 models. Nature, Communications Earth and Environment, 4, 212 (2023).
  8. Harris, N.L., Gibbs, D.A., Baccini, A. et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 234–240 (2021).
  9. Verma S and Verma A, Plant Root Exudate Analysis, in PHYTOMICROBIOME INTERACTIONS AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, Editor(s): Verma A, Saini JK, Hesham A and Singh HB, John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2021, Print ISBN:9781119644620, Online ISBN:9781119644798
  10. Leu André, GROWING LIFE, REGENERATING FARMING AND RANCHING, Acres USA, Greeley Colorado, USA, December 2021