carbon credits

Bill Liebhardt (wcliebhardt@ucdavis.edu)
Fri, 03 Apr 1998 15:51:18 -0800

I find the idea of carbon credits to be a very interesting issue and I think
it could be very useful in a number of ways. If we create policy to
increase the carbon in the soil there could be an increase in practices that
have the potential to move the agenda forward with respect to sustainable
agriculture. No till is certainly one example. Sound crop rotations would
also fit in that scenario and in general anything that results in better
soil organic matter management would be plus.

Another example would be pasture based systems particularly for ruminants
like dairy and beef cattle. In a chapter in the book, THE DAIRY DEBATE, Ed
Rayburn of West Virginia University has a section that deals with that
question and I quote. "Another benefit that pastures provide is that
pastured soils accumulate organic matter and are a sink for carbon dioxide
that would otherwise enter the atmosphere. In New York, pasture soil
samples average 7.2 percent organic matter. Many of our cropped soils will
average only half this, or 3.6 percent organic matter. This 3.6 percent
difference is the equivalent of 20,000 pounds of organic matter or 11,765
pounds of carbon contained in one acre of soil. From this we can calculate
the amount of carbon dioxide that could be tied up in pasture soils. Given
an organic matter carbon ratio of 1.7:1 and carbon dioxide containing 27.3
percent carbon, 43,095 pounds of carbon dioxide could be tied up per acre of
land converted to pasture."

Think of all the dairy animals that are in confinement and that could be on
pasture and the amount of land in grain production that could be converted
to pasture. Think of all the feed lot beef that could be fed on pasture if
our culture could learn to eat that, or to put more of the weight on with
pasture It would also have a remarkable effect on our manure management and
it could help revitalize rural communities and the life style of the people
in dairy and beef production. It would reduce soil erosion, improve water
and air quality and reduce the use of fuel, fertilizers and pesticides. I
know this is dangerous and subversive stuff because it would reverse the
power flow away from the corporations that now control things in our sector
and would bring more of it back to farmers. It would tend to decentralize
decision making to people who manage farms instead of concentrating it in
corporate headquarters.

I am sure we do not want to do that so maybe the whole idea is stupid.

Bill

***********************************************************
* *
* Bill Liebhardt, Director SAREP *
* 1 Shields Avenue *
* University of California, Davis CA 95616 *
* Phone: 530-752-2379 *
* FAX: 530-754-8550 *
* email: wcliebhardt@ucdavis.edu *
* WWW: www.sarep.ucdavis.edu *
* *
***********************************************************

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".