Does this article not prove the importance of no-till...?

On this page...

http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/agnet/2006/1-2006/agnet_jan-8.htm


In the article titled...

Trading places: Carbon markets expanding in U.S.


January 6, 2006
AgAnswers


It's been said that money makes the world go 'round, and now it can also make it more environmentally friendly.

Farmers who practice no-till or any other tillage-limiting production technique can earn a few extra dollars by carbon trading -- the latest push for a greener environment that rewards growers who sequester, or keep carbon in the soil.

Carbon trading efforts have been expanding across the United States and involve energy industries paying no-till farmers through bilateral agreements, or agricultural groups working in the open market on farmers' behalf.

The Chicago Climate Exchange -- http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com
-- is a voluntary rules-based greenhouse gas emission and trading system, and the place to go to trade carbon credits in the open market. Currently, carbon is trading at $1.70 per ton of carbon dioxide, which roughly translates into a dollar-per-acre for the farmer. On average, Ohio soils can sequester about one half ton of carbon per hectare, or roughly 2.5 acres, which is equivalent to 500 pounds per acre.

"Currently, the financial returns aren't that great, but at that rate a farmer with 1,000 acres of no-till could earn $1,000 annually for merely continuing his established practices," said Mark Wilson, president of Land Stewards LLC in Columbus, Ohio.

Wilson spoke about carbon trading to no-till farmers during the recent Ohio State University Extension Ohio No-Till Conference in Plain City, Ohio. "No-till in and of itself is a carbon credit," Wilson said. "If someone is willing to pay you to do what you've been doing, then why not get involved? You are just leaving money on the land if you don't."

Examples of carbon trading efforts throughout the United States and elsewhere include:
Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association, which works with Entergy, an electric company based in Louisiana, to "lease" carbon credits to Washington state farmers.

Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium, a Canadian company whose efforts to trade carbon with farmers has expanded into the western United States.

World Bank in Washington, D.C., which has mobilized the BioCarbon Fund to alleviate poverty and promote biodiversity conservation by aiding farmers in developing countries to practice no-till.

For more information, log onto http://carbonfinance.org/
and then click on "Carbon Funds."

Ohio has yet to jump on the carbon trading bandwagon. But windows of opportunities are opening for interested farmers. For example, the Iowa Farm Bureau has launched a carbon credit aggregation pilot project to encourage Iowa growers to practice no-till and to trade carbon credits. Through 2004, more than 80,000 acres of cropland have been enrolled and the Iowa Farm Bureau is looking to expand the project outside of the state as far east as western Ohio.

For more information, log onto http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/special/carbon/default.aspx
.
Rattan Lal, a soil scientist with Ohio State University's School of
Environment and Natural Resources and director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC), has been leading education and research efforts to ignite working relationships between Ohio farmers and the state's energy industries.

So far, it's been slow going, but he contends that carbon sequestration is an important aspect of environmental stewardship. Carbon sequestration, also known as carbon farming, refers to the storing of atmospheric carbon in plants and soil so that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reduce or slow. "Carbon trading and the benefits of carbon sequestration are generally tied to climate change," Lal said. "The Chicago Climate Exchange was founded on this.

Yet, discussions continue as to whether or not loss of carbon to the atmosphere has an impact on global warming. But whether you believe this to be the case or not, putting carbon back into the soil is a good thing to do. It increases soil biodiversity, cleans pollution, helps with erosion control, improves water quality, reduces input from chemicals, sustains natural resources and offsets carbon dioxide emissions."

Lal and his colleagues face the challenges of encouraging no-till farmers to seek out carbon trading opportunities and convincing tillage farmers to adopt conservation tillage practices.
"Farmers who don't practice no-till are not going to manage their fields that way with just a dollar savings," Lal said. "They need incentives, and one of those is increased carbon trading prices. Farmers have told me they'd change production practices for $10 an acre. We still have a long way to go."

Though carbon trading varies at the Chicago Climate Exchange, credits can reach more than $2 a ton. Some industries have rewarded farmers with as much a $5 a ton for sequestered carbon, Wilson said. However, carbon trading in the U.S. holds no candle to the revenue European farmers generate -- in some instances as high as $58 per ton. It's conservatively estimated that the European Union will trade as much as $1 billion worth of carbon emissions annually by 2010.

The Kyoto Protocol is driving the higher prices in Europe, Lal said. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement to mandate industry reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is not part of the agreement. "Because industry in Europe is by and large required to decrease emissions, trading is much more profitable for farmers in Europe," Lal said.

"Emission reductions are voluntary in the U.S., but industries are rewarded tax breaks for providing evidence of being a green industry." If carbon trading does develop in Ohio, Lal wants to make sure growers are well prepared for the benefits. He and his colleagues have created a county-by-county database of the rate of carbon sequestration based on soil type.

Other carbon-related research projects include:

Setting up demonstration sites in seven states -- Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland -- to compare the rate of carbon loss between no-till fields and tilled fields. The work is supported by a four-year, $1.2 million Department of Energy grant. One of the purposes of the project is to demonstrate carbon sequestration through field days.

Identifying how much carbon is required to restore mined soils. Supported by the Ohio Coal Development Office, the research covers six counties in southeast Ohio.

Carbon trading is not only an important marketing practice for local growers, but also has implications for solving some of the world's most pressing food security problems, Lal said.
According to Ohio State soil Science research focusing on soil quality in such countries as the United States, Africa, India, South America and Latin America, if soil carbon content was increased by one ton per hectare roughly 2,000 pounds per 2.5 acres -- grain yield would increase 220 pounds to 440 pounds per 2.5 acres, wheat yield from 44 pounds to 110 pounds per 2.5 acres and soybean yield from 44 pounds to 88 pounds per 2.5 acres.

"What that means for countries like Asia and sub-Sahara Africa, whose food deficit will be 22 million tons by 2010, is that if farmers can adopt carbon-storing practices, food production could increase by 32 million tons every year, basically eliminating that food deficit," Lal said.

Farmers in developing countries seeking to adopt conservation practices are limited in their ability to do so because of the need for special equipment, resources or other technology to accomplish such tasks. But that's where carbon trading could come into play, Lal said. And many organizations throughout the world are helping to make that happen.

For more information on carbon sequestration and carbon trading, visit the following Web sites:

American Farm Bureau -- http://www.fb.org/news/fbn/html/agriculture_s.html

. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service -- http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tb1909/
.
Pew Center -- http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/policy_maker_s_guide/state_activities...
.


..............................

No one would pay for no-till unless it was effectively improving the environment.

Still, we need to see proof of the improved productivity, AND the nutritional quality of food grown.

One obstacle to such proof is the insistance of major corporations that certain marketable crops be grown, and not the traditional variety of crops that have sustained the local population for thousands of years.

In other words, 'Grow crops for profit (particularly corporate profit), not sustenance'...'Buy your food from us, no matter that it is not the food you hoped for'.

Sounds to me reminiscent of the dirty 30's where farm workers HAD TO buy their food from the limited variety of the on-the-farm store...at inflated prices.


Tweet