PDA

View Full Version : Soil Organic Matter



Graham
11th August 2009, 10:33 AM
A useful post from the defunct Rural Network forum, by Dr Doug Edmeades.

Soil organic matter – what is it and where does it come from?

The importance of soil organic matter, or to use the colloquial term, humus, has been known for centuries – certainly long before the Organic Movement. Most text books will list the benefits of soil organic matter (relative to soil with little or none of it) as improved soil structure, water holding capacity, storage of nutrients and better heat absorption. Soil organic matter is also the home and food for the myriad of soil micro and macro organisms from earthworms and insects to bacteria, fungi and the tiniest protozoa.

We are blessed in New Zealand because our well developed pastoral soils, taken in the international context, contain large amounts of organic matter. This is a consequence of our temperate climate, and our clover-based, grazed pastoral system.

Soil organic matter (SOM) - humus - comprises the breakdown products of plant and animal (dung) material returned to the soil. The fresh plant material and dung returned to the soil is food (energy) for soil bugs which get to work in a sort of chain gang and break this material into increasingly smaller and more stable units, which are then often joined together (polymerised) into stable, large, complex organic substances. Humus is dark coloured and as a general rule the darker the colour and the deeper it extends into the topsoil the better the soil. It is this colour that enhances heat absorption.

In our grazed, clover-based pasture, carbon (the major component of soil organic matter) comes into the system from the atmosphere (as carbon dioxide) via the plant (photosynthesis), some of which goes into the soil as plant residues (from tops and roots) and some via the dung. The amount of carbon added from these sources is of the order of 1-3 tonnes per hectare per year annually. Losses occur from the animal because it breaths out carbon dioxide (respiration) and belches methane, and from the soil via the oxidation of organic matter.

The key point is this: if the sum of the inputs is greater than the sum of the outputs then carbon and hence organic matter is accumulating in the soil.

So, how should we manage our soils to ensure that this happens or that at least we are not depleting soil organic matter levels and hence jeopardizing soil quality and contributing to green-house gas emissions?

Soil organic matter – how should we manage it?

Several studies in the 1950s and ’60s showed that soil organic matter accumulated (inputs are greater than outputs) following pasture improvement (i.e. clover + fertiliser + animal). This accumulation continues for about 20-50 years and then reaches a steady state (inputs = outputs). The time required to reach this steady state, and the amount of soil organic matter present at steady state depended on the climate and the soil group. Generally, the wetter and warmer the environment the more soil organic matter.

Thus the management recipe was simple: clover (to add nitrogen), fertiliser (especially phosphorus, potassium and sulphur - PKS - to maximise clover growth), and the animal (to do the recycling) plus time equals more soil organic matter.

The situation under cropping is very different. Cropping exploits soil organic matter (outputs are greater than inputs) and this is especially so when the crop residues are removed. So the second management lesson in terms of soil organic matter management is: do not crop if you can help it! Or if you need to crop make sure there is a good rotation from clover-based, grazed pasture to crop and then back again. Green manuring or heaps of compost are also helpful. Civilisations have failed by not following this simple rule.

A number of more recent studies suggest we need to modify slightly our understanding of soil organic matter accumulation.

Tate (1997) compared the soil organic matter contents of 43 topsoils sampled first in the 1960s and again in 1992. He concluded that there was no change over this period. This is consistent with the idea that the soils were at a steady state with respect to soil organic matter accumulation, as discussed above. In contrast, Schipper et al (2007) reported an average decline (about 1% or 1 tonne SOM/ha) in 37 sites over a period of about 20 years.

How do we reconcile these studies – one suggesting no change the other indicating a small decline?

Other researchers have dug deeper into this apparent paradox and have reported results which indicate that soil organic matter can be reduced by:

Land-use intensification – management practices which increase pasture utilisation (e.g. better grazing management, increasing stocking rate, introducing irrigation) and hence reduce the proportion of plant material (litter) being returned to the soil and thus result in the steady state soil organic matter being reduced.

Changes in the quality of the litter returned to the soil – it is suggested that some of our newer management practices (and this includes all those listed above plus the introduction of new pasture cultivars and the introduction of fertiliser N) result in a change in the chemical composition of the litter returning to the soil allowing it to be more readily broken down in the soil and hence less is conserved in the soil organic matter pool.

Two points must be emphasised: First, even if the figures reported by Schipper are true, (i.e. a decrease in SOM at the rate of 1% per annum) there is no need for panic or alarm. As stated earlier, our developed pastoral soils already contain large amounts of soil organic matter.

Pastoral agriculture in New Zealand is not on the verge of collapse. I stress this point because of our propensity in this PC and environmentally sensitive age, to seize on and highlight the negatives, especially on environmental issues. Second, in the scientific sense, the possibility that modern management practices are depleting soil organic matter levels is somewhat speculative. It is an emerging issue and more science is most definitely required.

The above is a summary of a talk I presented to a special meeting of the NZIPIM. It is also the origin of a formal paper presented to the FLRC Conference (see Metherell, Edmeades and Ghani 2008, Massey University, Fertiliser and Lime Research Centre Workshop, February 2008) and an adaptation was published in the Fertiliser Review No 20.

Dr Doug Edmeades is a soil scientist of independent fertiliser consultancy AgKnowledge www.agknowledge.co.nz/

Graham
11th August 2009, 09:59 PM
Doug, I take your point that more research is needed in this area. Is it possible that Tate(1997) saw no change in soil carbon levels yet they might have improved and declined again during that 30 years?

There is a great variation in the depth and quality of topsoils seen around the Waikato. Are all of these soils at their steady (best) state?

It would be very disappointing to give up on the idea of continually improving the soil and profitability on the land you own. And what a great story if we can show that net carbon is being continually sequestered in that very large mass that is NZ topsoils. Most of NZ is covered in grass, and the average energy conversion efficiency to grass sugars in NZ from the sun is just 2%. It’s nearly as low through ruminants, resulting in an average energy conversion from the sun’s total blackbody radiation/Ha to say milksolids energy from each hectare per year, of 0.06%.

Is that the best we can do? On the average pugged or damaged pasture there might only be 50% green showing to the sun, the rest is dirt.

Recent concentration on kgDM/Ha/yr could be a recipe for growing bulk poor quality grass at the expense of the soil, the environment and the bottom line.

Graham
11th August 2009, 10:05 PM
Dr Edmeades replied (excerpts):

I think it is unlikely that soil carbon levels (as in the Tate study) would fluctuate in that manner. They (soil carbon levels) are normally quite stable and do not change either up or down very quickly.

Are all Waikato soils at steady state? I think this is more likely than not but the only way to be certain in a given farm situation is to measure soil carbon levels over time and this would need to be done for long periods of time (decades) to pick up any trend. Also it would need to be measured down the soil profile.

Yes, there has been until recently a focus on DM/ha for the simple and sufficient reason that our past science was saying more DM in more milk or produce out. This has now become more refined and now there is emphasis on the components of DM (fibre, carbohydrates etc). This is not a change in science direction - it is simply science becoming more specific and refinined.

It would be nice to think, as you suggest, that soil carbon would continue to accumulate over time and hence become a never-ending sink for carbon - but sorry -I did not design the system. In any case do we all want to farm peat soils?

Doug Edmeades | May 21, 2008 |

Graham
13th August 2009, 12:44 AM
Let's say we wanted to offset the entire country's greenhouse emissions by storing carbon in pastoral soils.. how practical would that be?

NZ has about 39% of its land in pasture, or 10,538,500 Ha of grassland, most of it higher-producing exotic grasses. Our total emissions (agriculture, transport etc) are 75,500Gg of CO2-e per year, or 75,500,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

So we'd need to store 7.2 tonne of CO2-e per hectare, per year. That's 720grams per square meter. Grasses grow about 20 tonne of drymatter per hectare per year at best in NZ, which is 2000 grams DM per square meter. (The grass raw energy conversion efficiency is quite low at about 2%.)

Since profitable pastoral farming relies on stock eating most of the grass produced, the sequestered amount of carbon needed, looks a bit too high. But ruminants only use up about 10-65% of the organic matter they digest, and excrete the rest.

Of course, the soil organic matter is continually being consumed by soil organisms, and grass is one of the fastest materials to be used up in this way. Wood and bark takes a lot longer. And I'm not sure what mass of soil organic carbon is equivalent to a gram of CO2-e.

However, everyone is in agreement: more soil organic matter (SOM) is a good thing in general. It holds more moisture in the soil, and retains minerals and elements ready for plant use, by encouraging biological life in the soil. SOM also brings with it, many of the nutrients needed by plants. More SOM allows soil to breathe, and generally attain a crumbly texture.

The pastoral system relies mainly on leaf litter and dung/urine to be returned to the soil. Using fertilisers increases grass growth (NPK plus trace elements) and this helps the cycle. Using legumes to fix nitrogen is a preferred option.

Many of the exotic grasses used here in NZ, have shallow roots in normal situations, and growth tends to drop off markedly in drought conditions. As a lot of soil carbon is built up from decomposing and shedded plant roots, it would make sense for these roots to be as bulky as possible for most of the year.

While not a common practice here, yeoman ploughs will cut vertical slots in the soil and trim the lower part of grass roots off horizontally. This aerates the soil and breaks up any hardpan structure, doesn't lose a lot of SOM, and accelerates the production of more SOM from the dead roots. Presumably this work is done when moisture levels are good, and the grasses soon grow back down into the soil. Some startling reports (not peer reviewed) about increases of several inches of topsoil/SOM in just a few years are made.

Since it is known that pasture soils can take many decades to reach equilibrium in terms of SOM, it just takes some new farming practices to perhaps set up a new higher equilibrium, and our farmers could then claim carbon credits for farming in this way. All the while their productivity should be increasing as well.

Graham
14th October 2009, 10:45 PM
Local farm consultancy business, eCogent in Cambridge, has been a champion in using Brix pasture and forage measurements as a farming benchmark. Headed by Peter Floyd, over 200 farms are using their system, which uses several "truths" including Brix measurements. Their approach so far has been to compare two similar forages, and feed the animals the highest Brix on a given day. Rather than quote lab results, their emphasis is on rising farm profits as the ultimate result.

Biological farming techniques are high on their list too. Today, the Waikato Times reported that eCogent customers who "benchmarked soil carbon levels last spring, using protocols designed by Landcare Research scientist Graham Shepherd, had [soil carbon] increases from 5% to 10%, representing up to 10 tonnes of carbon per hectare".
Peter is quoted as saying "The highest figures are extraordinary".

Yes Peter, they are! This is right in the required range I calculated above. Based on this work, it should be perfectly feasible for NZ's pastoral farmers to completely cancel out all of the entire country's emissions! And make a lot more profit in the process. These findings deserve immediate testing and confirmation by the scientific community.

I'm sure Peter would be happy to see them peer-review it to death..we should be so lucky. This basic work should have been done a long time ago, but I think it has been bypassed in favour of chemical fertilisers, treatments, special grass breeds, etc etc. I don't think any pastoral scientists even know how to use a Brix meter. My contention is that a Brix meter gives a very good indication of soil biological activity when used carefully, and on a trending basis. A lot easier than counting worms etc.

Of course, setting soils up with lime and other additives is the important starting point, and this does take 2-3 years or more.

Graham
15th October 2009, 08:03 AM
I think Peter is way ahead of us on this point - he has already linked up with his old university, Massey, and his results are probably a big part of the reason Massey is heading down the biological farming path, recently announced.


What will be your legacy? – Peter Floyd - Rural News 28 September 09

It has been an amazing couple of weeks. Two very special events for me, and in a strange way they are linked.

The birth of our first grandchild, Baxter, was indescribably wonderful, and I would never have believed what a difference such an occasion could make to our lives. Those of you who are grandparents will understand, I am sure, how overwhelmed Gillian and I have really been by the experience. Yes, mother and son are both well and facing the big wide world with plenty of vigour and determination.

The second significant event was the partnering up of eCOGENT Farm Business Systems with Massey University's commercial arm, the Auckland based e-centre. This is an important step which will help us grow the business and make more New Zealand pastoral farms increasingly profitable and more environmentally sustainable.

The partnership comes on the back of just-completed Massey University research showing that the majority of our members are seeing a clear improvement in farm profitability. Commissioned by Investment New Zealand, the independent survey also shows eCOGENT farms have reduced their environmental impact through less intensive stocking and through a reduction of over 60% in their use of nitrogen fertilisers. This was achieved against a backdrop of improvements to soil, pasture and animal health.

By coincidence it is almost exactly 50 years to the week since I completed my studies at what was then Massey College. When I think back to those early learning days at Massey and reflect on the soil and pasture management lectures we were given, I can see how far current farm practice has moved away from those basic principles in the quest for more production.

My memory of farming back then is one of abundant supplies of multi-species pasture, normally a night paddock and two day paddocks and the odd stack of hay. They were days of healthy animals, healthy and happy, low stressed people who had bank balances usually in the black.

I think of all of the fashions that have been introduced since that time under the guise of improved management for more production, and the confusion and frustration they have caused and the incredibly high farming costs that farmers have had to bear as a result.

And what is the legacy of this never-ending quest for greater and greater production? Depleted soils, monoculture pastures, sick stock, high animal health bills, high debt, high blood pressure, dirty streams, contaminated groundwater, loss of microbiology, increased emissions of nitrogen gases, and a reputation for farming as a “cost” to the country because of environmental damage.

The lesson I have learnt over five decades since those Massey College days is that it just doesn’t have to be that way. We now have a structured, sustainable approach to farm business that hauls eCOGENT farmers back from the brink, removes much of the guesswork and risk from management decisions, and allows them to take control of their environmental and financial performance.

A critical tool for doing this is financial software that forecasts the daily profit from the dry matter consumed by each class of livestock. This results in more objective and more profitable stocking and farm management decisions. This approach plus the link with Massey University e-centre gives me new hope that pastoral farmers will be able to achieve sustained environmental improvement, sustainable profits and a valuable asset to pass on to their children’s children.

These goals have always been important to me but the recent new arrival has given them new significance. Both the eCOGENT Process and a better environment are part of the legacy I want to be able to pass on to the precious newest member of my family.

Peter Floyd is the Managing Director of eCOGENT
www.eCOGENT.biz ph 0800 433 276

bpetersen
23rd October 2009, 03:18 PM
Hi Graham,
Just a few notes on humus.
The organic matter reading on a soil test should be divided by 1.7 to get an organic carbon equivalent.
Organic matter, as measured on most soil tests, is actually a combination of three different materials:
1) Raw organic matter
2) Active Humus
3) Stable Humus

Stable humus is the important part!
Benefits of Humus
Drought Resistance - Holds 80% to 90% of its weight in water. Microbes, which live in stable humus, emit a gum-like mucilage, which also helps to retain moisture in the root-zone.
pH Buffering - pH extremes have a profound effect on nutrient availability. Humus can neutralise the negatives associated with these extremes.
Mineral Retention - Humus has a Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of 250 and can complex minerals to prevent them from leaching.
Crumb structure - the sticky exudates secreted by microbes in the process of forming humus, ‘glue’, soil particles together to create a highly desirable crumb structure.
Soil Detoxification - Heavy metals and chemical residues can be isolated and immobilised to reduce damage to both plants and micro-organisms.
Root-Zone Chelation - The humic and Fulvic acid component in humus chelates minerals to enhance mineral uptake.
Plant Growth Stimulation - Humus is a storage system for all of the beneficial microbial exudates, including enzymes, vitamins, hormones and antibiotics.
Solubilization of Mineral Fertilisers - Materials like rock phosphate, lime, gypsum and rock dust are solubilized far more rapidly when humus levels are good.
Sodium Management - Humus buffers the damage to plants and micro-organisms associated with high-salt fertilisers or saline irrigation water.

Brett Petersen

Graham
26th October 2009, 10:51 PM
Thanks Brett. I see what you mean, SOM is a good thing to have. If soils lose it, they tend to compact, don't drain well, poor aeration, plant roots are stunted etc. Sounds familiar.

I've had a bit of a look on google for now, and identified that your figure of 1.7 relates to the carbon content C of SOM being around 1/1.7 by weight, or 58%. In turn, SOM is generally 2% to 5% of the total weight in the top layer of a soil (about 35cm deep). If soil is treated as that deep, then one Ha of topsoil weighs about 4700 tonne, and most scientists give a figure for the Waikato soil of 100 tonne of SOM/Ha, just over 2% by weight. By definition SOM can include living biological matter as well as humus etc.

Now this next bit might be very wrong, as it's sourced from a dubious blog site (unlike this one of course!). If all of that SOM carbon is sourced from CO2 in the air, and carbon is just a part of that CO2 molecule (12/12+16+16) = 27.3% by weight, then one tonne of carbon held as SOM, uses up 3.67 tonne of CO2-e!

My previous post showed that to cancel out all NZ's GHG annual emissions with grassland soils, we'd need to additionally store about 7.2 tonne CO2-e per hectare, per year. This is starting to look achievable, as it is only about 2 tonne of soil carbon, or 3.4 tonne of additional SOM per hectare per year.

OK, that's a 3.4% increase in SOM per year for now, but over time it will be a reduced percentage, the same mass needed. On a per square meter basis, we currently have 10kg of SOM per m2 of soil on average, and we need to sequester another 340g each year. It doesn't seem impossible. :)

Graham
18th March 2010, 07:53 PM
Since I last posted, I spoke on the phone to Assoc. Prof. Louis Schipper at the University of Waikato about measuring carbon in soils. I didn't make good notes at the time, but the gist of the conversation was this:

There was some dismay on his part about the known claims from Peter Floyd at eCogent regarding up to 10tonne/Ha extra carbon being stored on farms under their system.

His explanation of this was clear. It's a very expensive process to pyrolise soil from carefully selected sites, so that the 'before and after' carbon readings can be accurately ascertained. But as you are starting with about 100tonne/Ha anyway, measuring a 10% increase for example, would need to be very accurate. This pyrolising process is an accurate system, where the soil is burnt off and the energy released from the carbon is measured.

If a qualitative measurement by visual assessment (Shepherd, Landcare) is taken, which has an error of just (say)+/-8% at the start, and another of +/-8% a year or two later, the total error is +/- 16%. That's basic NCEA level one maths, or School Certificate level. So a figure of 10% increase in carbon would have to be bracketed by the error in that measurement, in this case about +/- 16 tonne carbon/Ha. The error might well be a lot more.

Peter needs to send at least some of these soil samples away for expensive lab testing, so that the qualitative technique can be benchmarked. These results should then be published somewhere for all to see.

Graham
21st March 2010, 10:56 AM
I have been thinking that many farms might benefit from a tilling system that introduced compost into poorer soils, while breaking up the hardpan. I guess that would be expensive to operate. But this item from Ruralnews shows the result on crops..


Compost builds yield but what cost?
by Andrew Swallow
16/3/2010

Compost’s interaction with conventional fertiliser is being investigated as part of the Lincoln trial, explains Plant and Food’s Craig Tregurtha.Crop yields can be substantially improved by hefty applications of compost, a FAR organised field day near Lincoln was told recently.

However, limited supply, variable response and substantial delivery and application costs means it will need to be carefully targeted to be economic.

Trials in South Canterbury have already shown the yield enhancing potential of the product, 50t/ha applied prior to sowing boosting kale drymatter yield 50%, from 8t/ha to nearly 12t/ha, with a 25% benefit to the following year’s kale, though barley this summer, the third since application, didn’t respond.

“It looks like there’s very little in it in terms of grain yield though we did see height differences in the barley,” says Plant and Food Research’s Craig Tregurtha.

That South Canterbury work is ongoing with oats/moata already sown for winter grazing, to be followed by kale and possibly barley again after that, but a new, more in-depth trial with a more typical cropping soil and rotation has been established at Lincoln.

Following 0, 25t and 50t/ha applications of compost to deep, paparua silt loam on Plant and Food’s farm, forage maize was sown, to be followed by wheat this autumn, oats/moata for winter 2011 and a crop of peas or barley in 2011-12.

Compost has either been applied in one hit, incorporated into the Lincoln soil (it was broadcast pre direct drilling in South Canterbury) or will be split applied across the three phases of the rotation. Overlaying those plots are four nitrogen rates.

“We’ve tried to make it a fairly typical arable rotation but also to make best use of the trial opportunity,” says Tregurtha.

A recent history of intensive cropping and cultivation means the Lincoln soil is low fertility and structure is “shot”, notes Tregurtha’s Plant and Food colleague Shane Maley.

“The soil’s pretty much like flour.”

How compost changes that will be monitored, as will moisture retention and distribution of nutrients through the soil profile to 1.5m deep, something that is impossible on the South Canterbury site due to stony subsoil.

Tregurtha says poor structure as seen at Lincoln is not unusual: “Across the Canterbury Plains there are a lot of paddocks like this that could really benefit from the use of composts.”

However, as various speakers at the field day noted, the challenge is to get compost from processing sites near large towns such as Christchurch and Timaru, which supplied the Lincoln and South Canterbury trials respectively, applied on farm in sufficient volume to make a difference without blowing the budget.

Transpacific Industries, which runs the Timaru District Council composting site and is a 50:50 partner with Living Earth in Christchurch’s composting facility, says it is charging $30/t for its product ex-depot, with about 13t normally fitting in truck.

“We’re still doing work to get a realistic price based on its value, but we’ve got to be prepared to meet the market. The bug bear is it is so bulky,” says Transpacific’s organic processing planner Geoff Hemm.

For $30 buyers get $65-$70-worth of nutrient, but have to a pay a premium for spreading, he acknowledges.

Timaru’s green waste is being turned into about 8000t/year of clean, screened, weed-free compost by Transpacific while Christchurch generates about 70,000t though the potential is 100,000-120,000t says Living Earth’s George Fietje.

The Lincoln trial is funded by MAF Sustainable Farming Fund with composter Transpacific Industries, Canterbury Waste Joint Committee, Environment Canterbury, FAR and Ballance Agri-Nutrients.

Graham
8th June 2010, 09:30 PM
One article on microbes in soils, and the changes that might occur with warming.

http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2279

Graham
27th June 2010, 07:06 PM
I found this more official view on carbon storage in soils relating to dairy farming, and while it's not so positive, it does give some confirmation on the science that needs to be used.

http://www.carbonzero.co.nz/publications/dairyNZ_mar09.pdf


A dairy farm is not greenhouse gas neutral
The query “If cows eat pasture and recycle the carbon, why isn’t a dairy farm carbon neutral?” is
often asked. A corollary question is “Why isn’t the carbon stored in pasture counted as a benefit
to offsetting greenhouse gas emissions by farmers?” David Whitehead, Adrian Walcroft,
Surinder Saggar and Warren Parker at Landcare Research address these issues in this article.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are related to global warming.
The three most important greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (mainly from burning fossil fuels
and deforestation), methane (mainly from ruminant animals and waste management) and
nitrous oxide (mainly from dung, urine and nitrogenous fertilisers). In contrast to most
industrialised nations, 50% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to
methane and nitrous oxide, predominantly from agriculture. While the atmospheric
concentrations of nitrous oxide (320 parts per billion) and methane (1.8 parts per million) are
low compared with carbon dioxide (383 parts per million), on a mass basis their contributions to
global warming, signified as ‘global warming potential’ (GWP) are much higher. Calculations
show that over a 100 year time period, 1 kg of emitted nitrous oxide has the same greenhouse
effect as 310 kg of carbon dioxide, while 1 kg of methane has the same greenhouse effect as
21 kg of carbon dioxide.

It is certainly true that carbon cycles through pastoral systems, and that farming ruminant
animals does not add any ‘new’ carbon to the atmosphere. However, in the process of milk
production some of the carbon in the atmosphere is transformed from a gas with a lower GWP
(carbon dioxide) to a gas with a higher GWP (methane). For methane, the warming effect is
much greater in the short term (over 20 years the GWP for methane is 72) and declines over
time as the methane is converted back to carbon dioxide by natural processes in the
atmosphere (about half the emitted methane is converted to carbon dioxide every 8 to 10
years).

Some dairy farmers believe that by increasing pasture production, this will lead to more carbon
stored in the soil and that they may earn carbon credits or offset methane and nitrous oxide
emissions. Is this possible? To answer this we need to consider how carbon is cycled and stored
in pasture systems, how increased production will affect the carbon cycle, and also account for
emissions of all three greenhouse gases.

The average stocking rate for dairy herds in New Zealand is 2.8 cows per hectare. Carbon dioxide
captured in the pasture biomass undergoes a series of cycles and overall, very little of this
carbon is retained in the system. A hectare of pasture producing about 15,000 kg of dry matter
per year above‐ground will also transfer an equal amount of carbon to root growth. So, in total,
pasture growth will remove about 50,000 kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually
(dry matter is 45% carbon and carbon dioxide is 27% carbon by weight). Almost all the carbon
transferred below ground is gradually returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide as the
roots respire and decompose. About 85% of the above‐ground pasture is consumed by the cows
and the remaining 15% is left at the site as plant litter that rapidly decomposes, releasing the
carbon back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Over half (55%) of the pasture consumed by
cows is breathed back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and about 30% is returned to the
paddock as dung and urine that rapidly decomposes to carbon dioxide. About 12% of the
pasture eaten by the cows leaves the paddock as meat and milk and about 3% of the pasture
ingested is released as methane.

If pasture productivity was increased by 3000 kg dry matter per hectare per year by adding
nitrogen as fertiliser, this would remove an extra 10,000 kg of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere per hectare per year. However, an extra half a cow per hectare would be grazed to
utilize the extra feed. This would increase the rate of carbon cycling in the system (more cow
respiration, more dung deposition, greater product removal and increased methane emissions
per hectare), but have very little effect on carbon stored in the system. Increasing fertility can
reduce root growth as the plants do not need to explore as much soil volume to obtain the
required nutrients. Increased fertility also increases the decomposition of soil organic matter,
returning carbon dioxide from the soil to the atmosphere at a faster rate. Recent data have
shown that increases in dairy farming intensity have reduced soil organic carbon levels at some
sites. By international standards, New Zealand intensive pastoral soils have high soil organic
matter levels because of the relatively recent conversion from native forest to permanent
pasture. Only a small area of land is under continuous cropping which depletes soil carbon.

The potential for significant, permanent increases in soil organic matter in intensive pasture systems
is therefore limited.

Emissions of methane and nitrous oxide must be considered in addition to the cycling of carbon
dioxide. Ruminant digestion by a dairy cow produces about 80 kg methane per year or 220 kg
per hectare. This is a small amount but, when multiplied by the GWP for methane, is equivalent
to 4600 kg carbon dioxide emitted per hectare per year. Furthermore, a cow excretes about
120 kg of nitrogen per year in dung and urine. A very small proportion of this (about 1%) is
converted to nitrous oxide, amounting to about 5 kg per hectare per year, but this emission is
equivalent to 1600 kg of carbon dioxide per hectare per year because nitrous oxide is an
extremely potent greenhouse gas. As an indication in terms of costs, at $25 per tonne for
carbon dioxide these emissions amount to a potential liability of about $160 per hectare per
year. However, this is likely to change by 2013 when liabilities for agricultural emissions start to
take effect in the present Emissions Trading Scheme.

To offset these emissions by an increase in soil organic matter would require the soil to absorb
and permanently store 6200 kg of carbon dioxide per hectare per year.

This is over half of the extra carbon dioxide removed by the
potential increase in pasture productivity following fertiliser application, without considering
that most of the carbon dioxide will be recycled back to the atmosphere anyway. Clearly, it is
not possible to offset methane and nitrous oxide emissions by increasing pasture productivity.
Even if an increase in pasture productivity resulted in a permanent and measurable increase in
carbon storage, under the current set of rules in the Kyoto Protocol that New Zealand adopted,
this would not be eligible for credits. Carbon credits to offset emissions can only be recognised if
a land‐use change after 1990 results in a measurable and verifiable increase in carbon storage,
such as afforestation of land that was previously in pasture. Storage of carbon in soils and
vegetation that does not meet particular criteria cannot be counted for allocation of carbon
credits. These criteria could be changed in future negotiations, but they stand at present.[/B

In summary, carbon moves into and out of the farming system in a continuous cycle with little or
no new carbon added to or removed from the atmosphere by grazed pastures (we have not
considered carbon dioxide emissions from transport, energy use, waste management or other
on‐farm activities in this article). Dairy farms contribute to greenhouse gas emissions because of
nitrous oxide and methane emissions. Further, it is not possible to offset these emissions by
improving pasture productivity because the extra carbon gain will be balanced by increased
carbon loss, resulting in no observable change in net soil carbon storage. Dairy farming provides
many economic benefits but also contributes substantially to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas
liabilities. Modifying farm management practices to minimise gaseous nitrogen losses, e.g., the
use of stand‐off pads or herd homes during wet periods in winter, and storage of carbon in
regenerating shrubland or planted forests are the most promising ways to reduce farm
greenhouse gas emissions at present. [B]Investment in research to develop cost‐effective ways to
reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions is a high priority for the dairy industry.

Contact for further details:
David Whitehead, Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640
Tel: 03 321 9862 Email: whiteheadD@landcareresearch.co.nz
© Landcare Research, 2009. Article prepared for DairyNZ.

There is one common theme in many articles written by scientists: we urgently need more research done (read: more funding please).

There are a few holes in the arguments above, for example most NZ cows are underfed for most of the year relative to their biological capability, and so in a pure grass-based system as discussed, the number of cows per hectare could be held or lowered if more good quality pasture was available.

I still think that in many NZ soils, the water-holding ability is limited by lower than average SOM, and hence production is limited. Rolling and alluvial country would be cases in point. In my maths further up the thread I just looked at pastoral soils bringing our net emissions to zero, so the numbers were less. But I was in the ball-park.

Graham
18th September 2010, 07:25 PM
Now I know that there have been some major research funds going into methane reduction from ruminants in NZ. I wonder if this article is worrying some scientists.


Alexander Hristov, Penn State: Oregano suppresses methane cow belches

September 13, 2010

Cow belches, a major source of greenhouse gases, could be decreased by an unusual feed supplement developed by a Penn State dairy scientist.

In a series of laboratory experiments and a live animal test, an oregano-based supplement not only decreased methane emissions in dairy cows by 40 percent, but also improved milk production, according to Alexander Hristov, an associate professor of dairy nutrition.

The natural methane-reduction supplement could lead to a cleaner environment and more productive dairy operations.

"Cattle are actually a major producer of methane gas and methane is a significant greenhouse gas," Hristov said. "In fact, worldwide, livestock emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane."

Anthropegenic methane is methane produced by human activities, such as agriculture.

Compared to carbon dioxide, methane has 23 times the potential to create global warming, Hristov said. The Environmental Protection Agency bases the global warming potential of methane on the gas's absorption of infrared radiation, the spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths and the length of time methane remains in the atmosphere.

Methane production is a natural part of the digestive process of cows and other ruminants, such as bison, sheep and goats. When the cow digests food, bacteria in the rumen, the largest of the four-chambered stomach, break the material down intro nutrients in a fermentation process. Two of the byproducts of this fermentation are carbon dioxide and methane.

"Any cut in the methane emissions would be beneficial," Hristov said.

Experiments revealed another benefit of the gas-reducing supplement. It increased daily milk production by nearly three pounds of milk for each cow during the trials. The researcher anticipated the higher milk productivity from the herd.

"Since methane production is an energy loss for the animal, this isn’t really a surprise," Hristov said. "If you decrease energy loss, the cows can use that energy for other processes, such as making milk."

Hristov said that finding a natural solution for methane reduction in cattle has taken him approximately six years. Natural methane reduction measures are preferable to current treatments, such as feed antibiotics.

Hristov first screened hundreds of essential oils, plants and various compounds in the laboratory before arriving at oregano as a possible solution. During the experiments, oregano consistently reduced methane without demonstrating any negative effects.

Following the laboratory experiments, Hristov conducted an experiment to study the effects of oregano on lactating cows at Penn State's dairy barns. He is currently conducting follow-up animal trials to verify the early findings and to further isolate specific compounds involved in the suppression of methane.

Hristov said that some compounds that are found in oregano, including carvacrol, geraniol and thymol, seem to play a more significant role in methane suppression. Identifying the active compounds is important because pure compounds are easier to produce commercially and more economical for farmers to use.

"If the follow-up trials are successful, we will keep trying to identify the active compounds in oregano to produce purer products," said Hristov.

Hristov has filed a provisional patent for this work.

40% is a massive decrease. We're not told under what conditions this result occurred, but maybe a start would be to have herbs including oregano interspersed in pasture. Does this sound like biological farming? Yes.

Graham
11th October 2011, 11:13 PM
Here's a page from the FAO on soil organic matter:http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0100e/a0100e02.htm

It mentions soil water retention being improved by more SOM. A lack of rain during periods of the year is the major limitation in grass growth of NZ pastures. Too hot, no moisture left, and the grass virtually dies. Not much of a crop at that stage. It has been shown by scientists that the theoretical maximum tonnage from a ryegrass/clover mix is about 20-25tonne DM/Ha/year. Nearby Ruakura grows about 16tonne, many farms in the North Island obtain about 11-16 tonne (no extra Nitrogen or irrigation). Pioneer state that it's possible to grow a maize crop and follow it with the winter crop, to grow 38tonne DM/Ha/year. Fairly intensive of course, but this is well over twice the output from a well-managed dairy farm.

If you were to obtain 25tonne DM/Ha/year from clover/ryegrass, you'd need 68kgDM production average on each day of the year (6.85grams per square metre). Waikato paddocks can grow over 110kg/Ha on a good day. But not every day.

Getting back to water retention: loamy sand holds about 1/4 of the water that silt loam holds. We can't easily fix temperature extremes outdoors, but over time we should be looking to improve soil moisture retention. Biological farming, anyone?

Graham
28th June 2013, 07:09 AM
A wider mix of species in the paddock will help with SOM, because there will be longer and higher volume root structures, in theory. DairyNZ is working on this area indirectly, across the road from our workshop, on Scott and Lye Farms. One of the interesting results was to do with potential nitrogen leaching reductions.

http://www.dairynz.co.nz/news/pageid/2145881036/Increased_options_with_mixed_pasture

These paddocks included some Lucerne, which in turn helped the ryegrass get through the drought in better condition. The cows ate less in general on the mixed forage, but produced more milksolids. All data was compared with the control of a standard ryegrass/clover mix.

Australia's DairyNews has more insight into the trial. About a one-third reduction in nitrogen in urine from the cows fed mixed pasture was observed. The next set of work will try to figure out which of the pasture species helped in this area the most. Overall farm production on such a system might not be a lot higher, although animal health costs might drop (not mentioned by the researchers) and the mixed pasture is more drought tolerant, even three years after establishment.


Wednesday, 22 May 2013 04:01
Mixed pasture trials boost milk solids

A THREE-YEAR experiment with mixed pastures could have big implications for future management of environmental impacts.

Results showed cows in the trials fed on mixed pasture excrete half the amount of nitrogen (N) in their urine compared to cows on standard pasture, the recent DairyNZ Farmers Forum in Whangarei heard from senior scientist Sharon Woodward.

Milk solids production was also boosted 15-20% in late summer and autumn when cows grazed mixed pastures.

“The big thing for the future is that feeding mixed pastures has had a major impact on reducing urinary N losses from the cows,” Mrs Woodward said. “This has implications for greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate leaching.”

In the experiment both the standard and mixed pastures were sown with perennial ryegrass and white clover. The mixed pastures were also sown with prairie grass, lucerne, chicory and plantain.

All pastures were set up three years ago on the Scott Research Farm in Hamilton, NZ and all received the same treatment for maintenance fertiliser, urea application, grazing and cutting for silage.

Mrs Woodward says over the three years the total cumulative dry matter yields were the same for both pasture types. In the summer/autumn there were advantages in feed availability from the mixed pastures, but these were lost in winter.

Indoor and outdoor trials were used to assess milk production and nitrogen partitioning. “When you feed cows indoors in metabolism stalls you can measure the intake of each cow and also collect all the urine and faeces,” Mrs Woodward says.

“The cows were fed either mixed or standard pasture. The cows on the mixed pasture ate less but they did produce more milk, and of course that meant more milk solids, not only because of the increase in volume but because we didn’t get a change in the milk fat concentration, but we got an increase in the milk protein concentration.

“But the key reason for using the metabolism stalls was to look at nitrogen partitioning within the cow. This was important from an environmental perspective because we get a feeling of what’s happening in terms of greenhouse gas – that’s your nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions and what’s going to happen in terms of nitrate leaching.”

Cows on the mixed pasture partitioned about 23% of their daily nitrogen intake into the milk, about 39% went into the faeces and 29% went into the urine. Cows on standard diets put a lot less nitrogen (15%) into the milk and much more (43%) into their urine. “And it’s that urine that’s a big problem from an environmental perspective.

“The key point here was the cows fed the mixed diet were excreting only half the amount of nitrogen in the urine than the cows on the standard diet.”

In her summing up Mrs Woodward said the biggest finding of the study was that feeding mixed pastures had a major impact on reducing urinary N losses. This was achieved with no loss of milk production and a 15-20% boost in late summer/autumn. She asked farmers to consider what putting a portion of their farm into mixed pasture might mean for their profitability and their ability to reduce nitrogen losses on-farm.

The work was funded by DairyNZ and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Mrs Woodward later said an application had been made for funding for a much bigger programme of work over the next six years investigating use of various forage species to reduce nitrate leaching. If successful, one aspect will be more indoor work controlling the composition of mixed diet to try to pinpoint which species might have the major effects on production and reducing N loss.

They would also look at the on-farm situation – in the trials so far cows were fed a 100% mixed diet but it was unlikely on-farm that all paddocks would be sown in mixed pasture, which also takes a few years to get established.

So mixed pastures were not the “silver bullet” to reduce nitrogen leaching, but increasing pasture species diversity could certainly provide part of the solution, she believes.

Graham
28th June 2013, 03:24 PM
This research (above) was also covered in the Farming pages of the Waikato Times this week.

Graham
30th July 2013, 07:14 PM
A very interesting article from the Element Magazine, inside the NZ Herald this week.

http://www.elementmagazine.co.nz/business/primary-industry/what-lies-beneath-2/

One excerpt:


Mineral balance, inexpensive microbial inoculums and compost are three keys to improving profitability, plant resilience, stock health and our health.
The microbe most missing in most soils around the world is actually the most important creature of them all at this point in time.

Mycorrhizal fungi burrow into the plant roots and then create a massive root extension that effectively provides ten times more root surface area. These symbiotic fungi allow the plant greater access to key minerals like phosphorus, potassium and calcium and they produce immune supporting bio-chemicals for their host. They also produce a sticky substance called glomalin that is now known to be the triggering mechanism for 30% of the humus in the soil.

Extractive agriculture has done more than increase our likelihood of growing substandard, chemically contaminated food, it has also knocked out 90% of the all-important mycorrhizal fungi in our soils. These creatures can be reintroduced for as little as ten dollars per hectare and we need to initiate this repopulation exercise, yesterday.

Graham
20th August 2013, 10:20 PM
Roger Martyn from GrazeTech in Australia sent me this fascinating video today. Cell grazing, holistic grazing, and the basic thought processes behind it, could literally help save the planet. Allan Savory has been working in this area since the 60s.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_ reverse_climate_change.html

Graham
15th October 2013, 08:50 PM
I'm working on preparing a test plot in the paddock beside our workplace. It's only 5m x5m, but is taking a while to dig over by hand. I am not going to use herbicide to kill off the existing grasses and weeds, because I want to encourage worms and fungi etc, and I don't want to increase any local toxicity. This article on glyphosate is interesting.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/artman2/uploads/1/May2011_Huber.pdf

All around the Waikato at the moment, some paddocks are being sprayed off to the tell-tale brown colour, ready for new tilled grass seed. What if Prof Don Huber is right, and the glyphosate sticks around to semi-damage the new grasses in future? And what about the newly discovered pathogen associated with glyphosate-ready crops?

Graham
30th October 2013, 07:35 PM
The plot has been prepared for the fert application, with half of the 5mtr x 5mtr space having the sods and contained worms and topsoil overturned on top of the subsoil layer, with remaining topsoil placed on top. The other half had the topsoil removed to the subsoil layer, two bales of hay and 10x 40litre bags of compost placed on top of the subsoil, then the overturned sods and topsoil as before.

We have picked up some of the fertilizer from farm and garden supply stores, and today the difficult small quantity trace minerals like Borate and Selenium from Ballance in Morrinsville. Many thanks for that - they were very obliging.

As far as the original plot is concerned, this was in generally a poor part of the paddock, and it's low in a few trace elements, the pH is low, there are not many worms per spadeful (about 1 perhaps) and the topsoil is compacted, but still friable when pushed. The topsoil layer appears to differ in depth from about 70mm to 300mm, and the subsoil is pumice ash, very light and free draining in nature.

Graham
22nd November 2013, 07:18 AM
The test plot had the prescribed fertiliser dug in three weeks ago (worms still present in small numbers) and was seeded about two weeks ago, and now some of the seed is germinating. Since we've planted seed in late spring instead of early autumn, we'll give the plot some watering to ensure it establishes.

Meanwhile, a new paper is out on the likely damage to our waterways from more dairy farming in particular. Allowing animals to get too close to waterways is a bad idea, but it's a complex issue. Outflows from dairy sheds are one thing, but there are point sources all over a farm. Every urine patch, for example.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/9423887/Farming-risk-to-water-probed (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/9423887/Farming-risk-to-water-probed)

That's part of what our test plot hopes to achieve: high growth rates, a variety of highly palatable feed on offer, drought resistance from more humus than average, and more biological activity helping to capture nitrogen and phosphorus etc.