This Is How We End Climate Change

Who Is Allan Yeomans?

formatfactoryimg_0838Allan is the originator of the concept of soil carbon sequestration. His concept was first described in his 1989 paper "The Agricultural Solution To The Greenhouse Effect".


Link To Video/Photo Gallery




For you, on the farm, on the property, on the ranch there is one thing that you can do much better than nature can. And you can do it in an instant. How? By gentle subsoil cultivation you can create the ideal soil environment for soil life to produce stable humus. And the all the carbon in that humus comes from atmospheric carbon dioxide.


Born After 1985 “The world is your oyster” “not bloody likely?”


Stopping Global Warming Tactics

Here we will summarise the actions you can do to make things happen. And why they are important. Each of us will have some unique ability to help twig the way we work and live, so that climate change stops. That’s the start of stabilizing and normalising our Earth’s weather and oceanic systems.  


Funding to stop Climate Change

Ending global warming and terminating climate change can be, near enough to a cost-free exercise.. We stop subsidizing the “bad guys” – fossil fuels and agrochemicals and start subsidizing the “good guys” – that’s organic type farming and biofuels. The money us, the world tax payers, fork out in subsidizing the sales of fossil fuels and agrochemicals is insane.  It just  guarantees that climates will get progressively worse for centuries, and we're paying for it .  


Carbon Still – Testing for Humus

YEOMANS CARBON STILL          using Loss On Ignition (LOI)  *Big 2,000 grams sample size *Dries sample in 30 minutes to 100°C *LOI Temperatures - 350°C to 550°C *Complete LOI in 60 to 90 minutes *Integral weighing in-situ at 100°C  *Accuracy  1/1000  *No laboratory needed. Farm shed OK With accurate infield sampling kit. Powered 4 inch auger. Powered mixer, Sampling sieves. 


Yeomans Methodology

The Yeomans Methodology is designed to encourage farmers to "have a go" at removing the carbon dioxide overload while keeping the people, or governments or organizations issuing the carbon credits totally confident that the CO2 is being removed as claimed by the farmer claims.  Any other requirements in a protocol inevitably becomes a restriction on invention and discovery.


Energy Systems and Nuclear

It’s easy, practical and economical to switch to biofuels for transport and it’s easy, practical and economical to switch to nuclear energy for industrial power. We must remind ourselves that so called “sustainable” energy or “renewable” energy are only sustainable and renewable because they’re nuclear based.  


How bad can it Get?


Fossil Fuels & Agrochemicals use fake News

Fossil fuels and agrochemicals are the prime causes of Global Warming. It’s logical to appreciate that Global warming cannot end if those organisations continue to exist. Those organisations know that. So, they use fake news, political lobbying and perception management to confuse the issue.


Volunteers – How you can make a difference and be involved.



Home Page – This is how we end Global Warming. Navigating around this site.

 First: You put the Cursor on one of the 13 numbered buttons. Second: The button turns yellow and the big square on the left side lights up with a summary of what you will find when you open the page. Third: Leave the Cursor arrow there and Left Click and you have opened the whole page. The lower part of the screen then comes up with all the information. Forth:Then scroll up or down to find what you want. Fifth: Click the WHITE HOUSE if you want to go back up to the top of the page.

3. LINK TO YEOMANS PLOW WEB SITE 4. Born After 1985 “The world is your oyster” “not bloody likely?” 5. Stopping Global Warming Tactics 6. Funding to stop Climate Change 7. Carbon Still – Testing for Humus 8. Yeomans Methodology 9. Energy Systems and Nuclear
2. Link To Video/Photo Gallery 1. Who Is Allan Yeomans? 13. Home Page – This is how we end Global Warming. Navigating around this site.

"The urgent problem is getting rid of the excess carbon dioxide that's already there. Soil can do that.

Emissions reductions must become zero, but that can be phased in over the next two to three decades."
Allan Yeomans. January 1998

Yeomans LOI Soil "Carbon Still"© test takes two hours. Accepts huge 2,000 gram test sample. 550°C

Plus - Yeomans Soil Test Protocol
(for info click Button 1)

10. How bad can it Get? 11. Fossil Fuels & Agrochemicals use fake News 12. Volunteers – How you can make a difference and be involved.

 (current at 3 October 2019) 

Carbon Credits Australia.                                 

Carbon Farming Initiative Act 2011
(with regulations and amendments)

Yeomans Methodology for Developing and Monitoring Methods for Rapid Soil Carbon Sequestration


Allan Yeomans Surfers Paradise

First print 26/6/2017
Update: 6/11/2018    Update 8/08/2019
Update 1 /10/2019                                     For Contact Address see Back Page



Seesaw Sieve (photo to be added )




We must recognize and appreciate that removing the one trillion tonnes of excess carbon dioxide we have added to the world’s atmosphere is humanity’s fundamental and overriding problem. Emissions reduction efforts are merely endeavours to slow the rate we increase that problem.


      Curtailing emissions of greenhouse gasses  must happen.
             But Removing the current excess is urgent and critical.


Soil Carbon Sequestration is the natural process whereby broken down and weathered geological material, when combined with rain stored in the ground, and to which is added carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through plant leaves, and that mix is supplied with energy from sunlight, produces living plants.

Then when the plants die, or shed leaves, or sheds roots, they are eaten by tiny soil life, and bacteria, and the earthworms and they turn it all into stable humus. And humus is the rich black material that is the difference between poor soil, and the dark, and fertile and rich and productive material, the farmer knows as “good soil”.

And so – carbon in the air becomes carbon in the soil.

Turning carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into stable black humus in the soil material is the only known way we can

remove that accumulated excess thousand billion tonnes of carbon dioxide we have put in the air. There is no other way and certainly no other economical way of reversing Global Warming and re­stabilizing world weather systems*.

Also with soil carbon sequestration, (unlike planting trees) we don’t lose our useful food producing agricultural land. Our soils simply become more productive.

If we increase the organic mater content of the soils we humans farm and live on by adding a further 2% more humus and stable organic matter to them – we will have returned the world’s atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and the world’s weather systems to the only ones homo sapiens have ever known.

As at August 2019 it appears that Australia is still the only nation on Earth where legislation exists that is, at least claimed, designed to encourage soil carbon sequestration to combat Climate Change. That Legislation is embodied in Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 with Amendments. It therefore seemed prudent that in assembling this Yeomans Methodology it should follow the formatting and definitions adopted by the Australia Department of the Environment in methodologies they have assembled and approved for growing trees and collecting methane from piggery’s and encouraging well managed productive agricultural land revert to unproductive and fire-prone scrublands.

Australian laws, already in existence say, “pay the farmers” for soil carbon sequestration . However, the rules, the regulations, and requirements and red tape, very effectively make it not happen. And it hasn’t. Those requirements are unfortunately all structured in a manner that makes it incredibly complicated, impossible to understand and hopelessly impractical to attempt.

Australia has the largest area of agricultural land immediately available for soil carbon sequestration of any nation on Earth. In total agricultural land area, we are second only to China and slightly ahead of the United States. Therefore, Australians must accept, even embrace, the responsibility for demonstrating to the world that agricultural soils can have a huge and possibly deciding, impact on averting catastrophic Climate Change.

Australia also has the largest area of organic agricultural land on Earth. It’s greater even than the next nine countries combined. (See Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FIBL), Frick, Switzerland)

What to do?   All that is now needed is to have our farmers know that it is easy and rewarding to develop the fertility of their soils. And if they succeed, and only if they succeed in their soil carbon sequestration endeavours, will they get their Australian Carbon Credits. And to make it work, when they do succeed those carbon credits must be issued promptly, and with as little “red tape” as possible, and in full.

Global Warming is probably the greatest danger our civilization has ever faced. Yet to have rules and regulations, as we do now, that demand that we be “conservative” in the way we attempt to combat that danger, and monitor that danger is dangerously counterproductive. That “conservative” requirement has resulted in no meaningful CFI (Carbon Farming Initiative) initiated soil carbon sequestration on any Australian agricultural land anywhere, ever. That is worse than dangerously counterproductive.

We need this Methodology accepted by Government now.

*Allan Yeomans’ 1989 US paper entitled: “An Agricultural Solution to the Greenhouse Effect”. It is now considered to be the origin of the whole concept of soil carbon sequestration.


 Methodology Title

 Part 1      Definitions and Terms Used In this Methodology
and Departmental   Publication     

 Part 2      Yeomans Methodology Design  Principals

 Part 3      Preliminary

 Part 4      Climate Change is Both My Problem and  Your Problem

 Part 5      A Plethora of Superfluous  Requirements
& Their Effects on Nett
Abatement Amount

 Part 6      Nett Abatement Amount

Part 7      No Departmental Interference in  On-farm Management Actions

Part 8      Use of Organic Fertilizers and Inorganic Fertilizers

Part 9      Trees and Wasteland and Woody  Vegetation

Part 10      Start Date of a Project

Part 11      Project Size No Maximum nor Minimum  Sizing to Apply

Part 12      Required Information Records

Part 13      The 100 Year Concept = Deal Breaker

 Part 14      Appropriate Caveats Must Apply

 Part 15      Carbon Credits Issued For Measured  Increases in SOM Only

 Part 16      $12 Minimum for the Issue of  Australian Carbon Credits

Part 17      Minimum Claim Size

Part 18      Methodology Requirements Australian and International

Part 19      General Principles of Project Design  and Farm Layout

Part 20      Laying Out The Farm

Part 21      Composites

Part 22      Design of Strata 

Part 23      Selecting Field Test Holes Locations  Within An Individual Strata

Part 24      Soil Carbon Measurements for Baseline  Rounds

Part 25      The Timing of Sampling

Part 26      Trial of One CEA at Start of Project

Part 27      In Field Sample Collection

Part 28      Ship Samples to Testing Laboratory

Part 29      Preparation for Loss On Ignition Testing

Part 30      Loss On Ignition Testing

Part 31      The Calculations

Note: The general format and terminology used in this methodology, where possible, is the same as used in methodologies designed by the Australian Department of the Environment.



       Methodology Title

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011

      “Yeomans Methodology for Developing and Monitoring Methods for Rapid Soil Carbon Sequestration”

 This Methodology applies to sequestration offset projects that aim to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in soil in the form of organic carbon and using whatever methods designed or selected by the Project Proponent to do so.



Part 1      Definitions and Terms Used In
this Methodology and
Departmental Publication     


Act    means the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011.


activity start date means the date from which project management

actions may be applied on a carbon estimation area, and which is the later of either:

(a)     the first day after the last day of a carbon estimation area baseline sampling round; or

(b)    the first day after the Regulator makes a decision under subsection 27(2) of the Act to declare a project to which this Determination applies to be an eligible offsets project.


ASPAC   means the Australasian Soil and Plant Analysis Council


area sampling round means a sampling round conducted to develop an estimate of soil organic carbon stock in all carbon estimation areas in the project area.


air­dried soil in this Methodology to mean dried with air at a maximum temperature of 400 C for Baseline samples and above 400 C for Credits sampling.


bare fallow means land that is not seeded and has less than 40%

groundcover for 3 months or longer. (Not relevant in this Protocol)


Baseline round means a series of tests, described as a Baseline Sampling Round required to obtain a measure used to nominate the level of carbon in a CEA by LOI testing and referring to the levels existing before the commencement of the Project.


baseline emissions period  not applicable in this Methodology

bulk density   means soil mass per unit volume. (Not relevant in this



carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2­-e) means the carbon dioxide equivalent mass of a greenhouse gas.


carbon estimation area baseline sampling round means the first soil sampling round undertaken in a carbon estimation area to determine the initial soil organic carbon stock value.


carbon estimation area sampling round means a sampling round conducted to develop an estimate of soil organic carbon stock in a carbon estimation area.


CEA carbon estimation area  means an area of land upon which the activity is being undertaken and which excludes areas of land on which the project activity is not being undertaken.


CFI soil sampling and analysis method means the soil sampling and analysis method that is included in the CFI Soil Sampling and Analysis Method and Guidelines or as here in referred.


CFI Soil Sampling and Analysis Method and Guidelines means the guidelines of that name, as published and made available on the Department’s website and includes any amendments to the guidelines uploaded by the Department to its website from time to time.


CO2­ e means a unit of measurement defined as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence (within the meaning of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007).

CEA1 means carbon estimation area number one. (similar meaning for   other numbers)


CEAco2  means the organic matter content of a CEA x 2.126


CEAsom means the soil organic matter in a CEA.


composite     means a sample created by bulking and mixing a selection of individual soil cores collected from a different nominated group of sampling locations.


continuous cropping   means a system according to which land is cropped at least once every year, either with crops of the same type or rotations of different crops, and does not include pasture rotations. (Not applicable in this Methodology.)


critical soil organic carbon change means change in soil organic carbon stock over time with a defined probability of exceedance. (Not relevant in this Methodology)

Credit(s)       Round means a series of tests to determine changes in soil carbon following the Baseline test series


Department means the department that administers the Australian Act.


Determination/Methodology  In this Methodology are interchangeable terms.


equivalent soil mass (Not applicable in this Methodology).


exclusion area means an area within the Project where soil carbon will not be monitored.


the farmer means the Project Proponent.


fertiliser is a general term and means any organic or synthetic substance that supplies chemical elements to plants and soils to enhance plant growth and/or the fertility of soils.


58% (or as agreed) means the accepted percentage of carbon in soil organic matter in his Methodology.


grazing system means a system of managing grazing by livestock on pasture. (Not applicable in this Methodology.)


historic management actions means all management practices undertaken in a carbon estimation area between the beginning of the baseline emissions period and the activity start date. (Not applicable in this Methodology.)


LOI in this methodology means the weight loss on ignition of a soil test sample in a forced air heating oven such as a Yeomans Carbon Still.


LOIcop means total Loss On Ignition for a composite area.


LOIha means loss on ignition per hectare i.e. LOIcop x 10,000 / Composite area in square metres.


MGA means Map Grid of Australia the official coordinate projection for use with the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94).


median day means the middle date of a sampling round, or the next calendar date if the sampling round consisted of an even number of days.


National Inventory means the report of that name, as published and made available on the Department’s website, and as updated from time to time.


new management action means a project management action that is    a) undertaken in a carbon estimation area, on or after the activity start date; and     b)differs from historic management actions.

(Both not applicable in this Methodology.)


NATA means the National Association of Testing Authorities.


NGER Measurement Determination means the applicable determination made under subsection 10(3) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.


NGER Regulations means the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Regulations 2008.


nominated sampling depth means a soil sampling depth that is chosen by a Project Proponent for each carbon estimation area.


organic fertiliser means any solid or liquid organic product that:

(a)   is created using waste products of other industries and processes; (b)       may be applied to the surface of, or incorporated into, agricultural

soils; and —

(c)   does not include polymers and non­biodegradable substances such as plastics, rubber or coatings.


oven dried soil in this Methodology to mean forced hot air flow­dried between 1000 C and 1400 C and to be described as “oven dried Baseline” with sample air exit temperatures to be held at the nominated temperatures for a nominated time


production livestock means livestock managed for production purposes and from which commercial products or services are derived. (Not relevant in this Methodology)


project proponent (“The Farmer”) means the relevant owner of the land


project area baseline sampling round  see Baseline round project


project duration means the time in years between the baseline sampling round and the most recent sampling round for a carbon estimation area. (Effectively the current age of the Project.)


project management actions  means all management actions undertaken within a carbon estimation area in the period between the activity start date and the end of the final crediting period for the project and includes one or more new management actions.


project mechanism has the meaning given by Section 2.2 of the guide. (Not relevant in this Methodology.)


project start date means the date when the first reporting period for an eligible offsets project starts under subsection 76(1) of the Act.


Note The project start date is the first day of both the project crediting period and the first reporting period of the project.


percentiles and equivalent mass are not relevant in this methodology


QT means that adjacent copy, (if inserted) is copy derived from one or more relevant Australian Government publications.


qualified technician  means a technician with qualifications from a nationally accredited course, or formal recognition of trade or prior learning (from a nationally accredited institution), in the competencies prescribed in the CFI Soil Sampling and Analysis Method and Guidelines as modified unless (otherwise noted in this Methodology in relation to specific functions.)


Regulations means in Australia, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011.


renovation event means the rejuvenation of existing degraded pasture by sowing additional pasture seed. (Not relevant in this Methodology)


sample means a representative portion of soil from a discrete depth or layer of soil. In this methodology means the total content of a Tiger Tooth Sizing Auger soil pipe.


sampling design means instructions regarding:


(a)   the spatial layout of sampling locations;


(b)   the number of samples;


(c)   the timing of sampling; and


(d)   if relevant, the compositing or bulking of soil samples.


sampling interval means the time between consecutive sampling



sampling location means the location, specified by a latitude and a longitude, at which a sample has been, or is to be, taken and will where possible be delineated by the relevant MGA coordinates.


sampling plan means:


(a) the position of the carbon estimation areas and the strata; (b) the number of composites; and

(c) the sample location assigned to each composite; within the project area.

sampling round  means soil sampling conducted during a finite period to develop an estimate of soil organic carbon stocks as a time defined within this Methodology. See Credits Round.


soil core means the portion of soil that has been extracted with using a 100 mm nominal diameter coring device with an enclosing sleeve. It does not need to include rocks or stones.


soil organic carbon means the form of carbon contained within soil organic matter and does not include mineralised carbon. Not used in this Methodology as LOI tests used here do include mineralised but this is accepted as not changing over millennia.


soil organic carbon changes  means the change in mass in a LOI test and does include mineralised carbon if any are released during a LOI test. It is accepted in this Methodology that mineralized carbon releases will not vary over less than geological time frames.


Standard Parameters and Emissions Factors means the document

titled Standard Parameters and Emissions Factors for Sequestering Carbon in Soils in Grazing Systems that is published and made available on the Department’s website, and includes any amendments to those parameters and emissions factors based on updated information available to the Department, changes in the National Inventory, or changes in the carbon dioxide equivalence of the gases incorporated into those parameters and emissions factors and uploaded by the Department to its website from time to time.


stratum (strata singular) means a small subdivisional area in a CEA. (The term, as used in Departmental soil carbon literature does not seem to mean vertical layers. It is therefore used here as noted as a surface area.)


sub­sample in relation to a soil sample, means a representative portion of an original soil sample upon which laboratory analyses are conducted.


synthetic fertilizer  means any synthetic substance that supplies key chemical elements, particularly nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, to plants and soils to enhance plant growth and the fertility of soils. (Not relevant in this Methodology)


SOM means soil organic matter as determined by the LOI testing procedures used in this Methodology.


SOC in this Yeomans Methodology means the soil organic carbon content, determined by using a LOI soil test and multiplying that figure by 58%. (58% being a generally accepted and convenient average)


SPa means Soil Pipe effective area i.e. outer diameter of soil pipe squared x 3.14159 and divided by 4


Tillage means any form of mechanical preparation of the soil.


Tiger Tooth Soil Pipe  means the collecting sleeve assembly enclosing the soil sample that is being collected in the field


region of disturbance means the area around a previous test hole locations enclosed within a 1 metre radius.


target MDC approximately 2 tonnes change in the levels of SOC per hectare indicated by the change in loss of weight in a composite.



Note Other words and expressions used in this Methodology have the meaning given by the Act. These include:



crediting period

eligible offsets project emission

greenhouse gas

maximum potential relinquishment period offsets report


project area

project proponent Regulator reporting period


Part 2         Yeomans Methodology

                          Design Principles


There are three significant basic principles and concepts on which the Yeomans Methodology is structured that are not in general use.


The first: In this methodology calculations on changes in soil carbon levels are based on land surface areas, and not on soil weights and densities. (To illustrate. For some pre­chosen depth, the weight of organic matter in a given soil sample, where the surface area of that sample is 100 square centimetres, that weight when multiplied by 1,000,000, will give the weight of organic matter in one hectare of land.)


The second: Biases are incorporated in this methodology for both field sample collection system and Loss On Ignition testing procedures. These biases are structured and designed to favour organic matter quantity determinations in Base Line procedures against organic matter quantity determinations in Credit Round procedures.


The third: It is accepted and appreciated within this Methodology that Loss On Ignition testing accuracy is often severely compromised by the variety of mineral combinations due to the particular geological structure from which each farm soil is formed. Therefore, cross-checking procedures are in place, within the testing system, that efficiently eliminate these types of errors. Additionally these procedures can allow for the easy and accurate determination of the total organic matter content of the farm area should it be of interest.








Part 3         Preliminary


Yeomans Methodology is in general designed to be in compliance with both publications: “CFI Soil Sampling and Design Methods and Guidelines” and with “CFI Soil Sampling and Analysis Methods and Guidelines”.


The following are this Soil Sampling and Design Protocol’s major exceptions, and also Yeomans Methodology requirements. Where this Methodology differs from the Guidelines, the Methodology is to apply.


1)     There are no limits placed on how the carbon estimation area is farmed or managed, nor on what inputs are applied to the land.


2)     In this Methodology, calculations are based on land surface area and variations in the soil carbon content under those nominated surface areas. Using a Yeomans Soil Pipe with a known diameter then a known mathematical relationship always exists between the surface area of cored samples and the surface area of the relevant CEA (Carbon Estimation Area).


3)     Baseline samples are taken to a nominated depth. All future sampling cores, as in Credit Rounds are taken to a nominated maximum depth which must always be a minimum of 100 mm less than the nominated Baseline depths selected. These Baseline samples are to be weighed and the weight recorded so that in the unlikely event that future compaction of soil occur, or be suspected to have occurred, then Test Sample weights must not exceed the weights of the original individual Baseline weights in any individual strata.


4)   In this Methodology only the minimum depths of the cores for Base Line determinations and the maximum depths of the cores for all subsequent tests are relevant. This follows as ground surface area is the determining factor in this Methodology, not soil weights or densities.


5)     Each CEA (Carbon Estimation Area) is to be subdivided

into strata with areas as close as practical to equal. Minor variations in strata areas have effectively minuscule and meaningless relevance in the issue of Carbon Credits in this Methodology.


6)     In CFI Soil Sampling and Design Methods and Guidelines

Section 1, 4 ref to the 6 Steps. Step 5 refers to “calculating the organic carbon content of soil samples.” The tests and equipment used in Yeomans Methodology determine loss in weight of organic carbon from Loss On Ignition procedures. True organic carbon levels generally require the removal of carbon held because of the geological nature of the soil. This can involve chemical treatment of soil samples which procedures in this Methodology are designed to circumvent. The objective here is to determine changes in soil carbon levels using Loss On Ignition procedures. It is to be presumed that Changes can only meaningfully occur in organic carbon levels but not in the basic geological composition of the soil.


7)       In CFI Soil Sampling Design Method and Guidelines Section 2.2 notes that “the same management practices are going to be applied across the project area”. This is not to be a requirement in this Methodology. It is argued that this limitation of using “same management practices” is both unnecessary, and more importantly will prevent valuable experimentation by participants along with the inevitable consequential development of innovative concepts from that experimentation.


Also within any individual CEA management practices must be allowed to vary at the Farmer’s discretion. This is to actively encourage research and development in techniques that can increase soil carbon sequestration in the CEA. R&D in the whole Project Area is likewise to be actively encouraged.


8)     CFI Soil Sampling Design Method and Guidelines Section

Referring to Section 4.1 Sampling is to be conducted at the same time each year subject to weather.


9)     CFI Soil Sampling Design Method and Guidelines Section

Reference Part A.1 Sampling Plan Ref 2 Sub reference 1

In the Yeomans Methodology where “strata” are located by MGA (map Grid of Australia) coordinates the accuracy of the strata sizing is simply validated arithmetically.


10)     CFI Soil Sampling Design Method and Guidelines Section

Reference Part C Defining CEAS


Reference C.2 (1) (a) and (b) In this Methodology there is to be no “defined activity” for any CEA.


A “definitive activity” is unnecessary when the only requirement is to be able to monitor changes in SOC for valid rewards. A definitive activity could possibly be of academic interest but that benefit is surely negligible compared to the total restriction necessarily placed on the development of better means for rapid agricultural soil carbon sequestration.


11)   CFI Soil Sampling Design Method and Guidelines Section

Requirements of Strata. D.2 (1) (b) Change to 10% not 5%.


Note:     It is argued here that 5% is unnecessarily burdensome, without meaningful benefit or security to the Authority granting the benefit or the Carbon Credits. However, if the requirement of 10% will delay acceptance of this Methodology then 5% will have to be accepted due to the critical urgency in the need to develop and inaugurate large-scale soil carbon sequestration here in Australia and elsewhere.


Part 4     We’re Constantly Experiencing                World Weather Destabilization                                     NOW!


At best, emissions reductions slightly decreases the rate at which things, just get worse.


*   Without removing the excess carbon dioxide now existing in the atmosphere, avoiding catastrophic climate destabilization is now considered almost certainly unavoidable.


*   The problem is to remove a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and only soil carbon sequestration has such a potential, so without the involvement of our World’s farmers, Climate Change is Unstoppable. Soil is really our only chance.


*   It’s our job to get farmers involved. So we must pay them and we must ensure that they must never have to worry about long term risks in getting into the business of building soil fertility. It has to be something that looks like it could be very profitable. It has to be something they want to be involved in.


And we have to understand their problems. It can be presumed that, in general, it would be a major change in farm management practices to convert to systems designed primarily to enhance soil carbon levels.


Such a management change could reasonably be expected to require years of work and planning, which cannot be expected to be undertaken lightly. A farmer would understandingly consider that his livelihood, his assets, often his sole source of income, could be at great potential risk.


It is therefore all too easy for a farmer to, not participate at all, in such projects. And that’s not what the world needs.


The Project Proponent, (the Farmer) must therefore know, and understand, and believe that the money is there, and a minimum value of carbon credits is assured for the life of the project.

Without that, no reasonable person could be expected to make such farm management changes and expose themselves to possibly “great potential risks”.


It follows that without Project Proponents receiving firm and binding assurances, soil carbon sequestration, of any worthwhile significance, just won’t happen here in Australia.


But it can, and possibly has to start in Australia, or probably the system with the greatest potential for removing carbon dioxide from our overloaded atmosphere won’t happen to any significance, in any country, anywhere on our planet.


I argue to Australians that it has to start here. Australia is the country with the greatest area of available agricultural land of any nation on Earth.


And “Australia is the country where the concept of soil carbon sequestration was invented”.                                                               Allan Yeomans




Part 5     A Plethora of Superfluous
           Requirements & Their Effects
on Nett Abatement Amount


The pointless monitoring of “emissions from all sources”, as demanded in “Sequestering Carbon in Soils in Grazing Systems Methodology Determination 2014″ must be (and seems to have been) an all to effective disincentive to any farmer to even consider becoming a “project proponent” and by so doing contribute to efforts to combat the overheating of the Earth’s biosphere. Soil carbon sequestration, was thus structured to become a bureaucratic quagmire.


The complex and detailed regular estimation of emissions from such things as tractors, motor vehicles and live stock in a CEA is seen, and been proven, as being unnecessary, wasteful and counterproductive to a sickening extreme.


Many research organizations and institutes report on the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions that occur when farming practices are changed to reduce chemical inputs, such techniques as are employed in organic and biodynamic agricultural systems.


Notably are reports from IFOAM, (International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements) and most notably papers reporting on the decades long experiments conducted by the prestigious US Rodale Institute. From these reports and papers, it is clear that there is a general and positive decline in the emission of greenhouse gases from test areas where such practices are employed. Additionally, those same practices most notably increase the levels of soil organic carbon and rainwater retention.


This Methodology recognizes that there is an established world market for food and that those levels are established by cost of production, supply and demand.


It follows that if a Project Proponent does not increase the world supply of food then there is logically no nett increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The actuality is that the change to a more “organic” type of farming will, in itself, reduce greenhouse gas emission. Additionally, the use of most agricultural chemicals break down the structure and stability of soil humus and release the carbon in the, otherwise stable, humic acid molecules, out into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.


For these reasons, in the Yeomans Methodology changes in emissions due to changes in farm practices are considered negligible in the extreme and therefore can logically, safely and sensibly, be taken as zero.


Common sense dictates that “emissions from all sources” must rightfully be considered as a “business as usual” phenomena. It is therefore definitely and safely ignored in sequestration calculations in the Yeomans Methodology.


Additionally, in this Methodology (and currently only in this methodology) all soil testing procedures have “built in” biases that are structured to inflate Baseline test readings against those of future Credit Round readings.


One of the objectives of this Methodology is to encourage the development of systems for rapidly enhancing levels of soil organic carbon and thus the basic fertility of our Australian soils.


Private, and usually enthusiastic, and usually voluntary, and usually unsponsored research, dies when burdened with pointless and unnecessary regulatory demands.




Greenhouse gas emissions from a CEA are not required to be monitored by the Project Proponent in this Methodology. However the Australian Department of the Environment may declare as invalid, an activity taking place on a nominated individual project, that produces indicated rises in soil organic carbon.   By way of illustration ­ a CEA could be used as a dumpsite for plastic.) The Project Proponent is to also understand that Carbon Credits deriving from such activity could be declared invalid, and relevant payments deemed refundable.


It is also to be understood that the Department itself, is not to act in a frivolous way in monitoring the possibilities of such activities.


It is also to be understood by the Project Proponent that such activities might be considered as “fraudulent conduct” which is covered under the Act, wherein it notes:


“If a person is convicted of an offence relating to fraudulent conduct, and the issue of Australian carbon credit units is attributable to the commission of the offence, a court may order the person to relinquish a specified number of Australian carbon credit units.”


In respect of Civil penalties the Act also notes:


“Pecuniary penalties are payable for contravention of civil penalty provisions.”


Above all, the overriding principles and considerations to apply in all these matters is to positively achieve a significant reduction in the world’s atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.


For all of these reasons: In this Methodology, the cumbersome, time consuming and unnecessary monitoring of ” net change in greenhouse gas emissions from all sources” in the Project Area is to be ignored.


Note: In this methodology soil organic matter is understood to be humic acid, fulvic acid, humins and similar materials and also the materials that can, over time, be expected to form those more permanent substances.



Part 6       Nett Abatement Amount


The nett abatement amount for an eligible offsets project, to which this Methodology applies, and in relation to a reporting period for the project, is the change in soil carbon stocks, determined by measuring soil carbon levels for the total number of CEAs within the Project Area when compared to the Baseline soil carbon levels.

The amount is to be nominated as the CO2­ e of the “weight change in total organic matter in the Project Area determined by LOI soil testing”.



Part 7   No Departmental  Involvement
  in On-farm Management Actions


In the Yeomans Methodology The Department acknowledges there is to be no restrictions on management actions, when the final objective of those actions is to increase the organic carbon content of the soil in the CEA. This equally applies in the development of techniques for doing so.



Part 8   Use of Organic Fertilizers and
     Inorganic Fertilizers


In the Yeomans Methodology, if an organic fertilizer includes crop residue, e.g. hay or straw, applying that fertilizer to the soil in a carbon estimation area is an approved project management action and it is of no consequence where that organic matter came from, provided only that the application of the fertilizer must precede a Sampling Round by greater than 12 weeks, or greater than 4 weeks if the material was actually formed within the Project Area.


In this Methodology the use of any fertiliser, additional to organic fertilizer is permitted. The reason being that such fertilisers can sometimes be used in the initial development of soils with very low organic matter content. Their careful and minimal use in the initial development of soils can “artificially” stimulate the growth of vegetation no matter how poor its nutritional value might be. The ultimate decomposition of that material supplies, what was a poor soil, with sufficient organic matter to trigger the conversion to highly fertile soil along with healthy soil biological activity. It is also probable and desirable that chemicals will be developed, designed to stimulate the development of rich biologically active and productive soils.


The concept being that such chemicals are to assist the development of fertile soil and not be designed to merely stimulate the weight of a saleable crop, as is now too often the case.


Part 9      Trees and Wasteland

                     & Woody Vegetation


International Climate Change agreements include provisions, or requirements that world food production is not to be decreased by efforts to lower atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

The Yeomans Methodology therefore does not support the destruction of agricultural land by encouraging such land to revert to unproductive wasteland.

Clearing woody vegetation from within the Project Area may be undertaken at any time at the discretion of the Project Proponent.

It is thus a stipulation in this Yeomans Methodology that Carbon Credits are not to be issued to any Project Proponent for allowing productive agricultural land to revert to scrubland.

It is a stipulation in the Yeomans Methodology that Carbon Credits are not to be issued to a project proponent based on the planting of trees on agricultural land.

Note:  Such clearing may be dependent on obtaining regulatory approvals, including approvals, licences or permits under State or Territory law.

Part 10        Start Date of a Project

This methodology comes into force when it is made (approved) (Ref Section 122 of the Act).

The Department recognizes, or is to recognize that experimentation on soil carbon sequestration has to be actively encouraged, and the Project Proponent recognizes that such experimentation will be at no cost to the Department, unless specifically agreed, with respect to some particular line of research.



Part 11         Project Size : No Maximum

                      Nor Minimum Sizing Applies.


In this Methodology there is to be no maximum nor minimum farm size or farm area limitations. This provided only that other nominated minimum are not exceeded.



Part 12            Required Information



The Project Proponent must keep a time log of the significant management practices used and significant changes in those management practices in all CEAs in the Project Area. This information is to be available to officers of the Department of the Environment (or the relevant authority applicable at the time) if requested and may in turn be distributed to other Project Proponents if requested by them. The keeping of this log must not be overly burdensome on the Project Proponent.


The objective of the log is to help and encourage other farmers to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It must not discourage them. If it is a discouragement, its requirements should be immediately modified, or alternatively, totally abandoned.




Part 13     The 100 Year Concept
=    A Deal Breaker


A requirement that the Project Proponent ­ the Farmer, and his descendants for at least, possibly three generations must ensure that soil carbon levels do not fall below those achieved and recognized, for a period of one century is generally considered by the vast majority of Australia’s 150,000 Australian farmers to be a massive disincentive (for anything but voluntary participation) in combating Global Warming. And their almost total lack of interest has definitely proved it to be so.


In January 2019 a new Departmental methodology came into being in which 25 years could be nominated but if nominated then massive and utterly discouraging penalties would be imposed by the Department.


A penalty would be imposed of 25% of all Australian Credits earned by a farmers for their successful efforts to help remove the dangerous carbon dioxide overload from the atmosphere.


By these means a possibly meaningful threat to chemical based agriculture in Australia was obviously therefore considered by the agrochemical manufactures to be effectively averted. This should be seen and appreciated by others as a significant victory for the public relations consultants employed by the agrochemical industries.


However, if this Yeomans Methodology is approved, especially if it is believed and understood by the farmer that a known minimum, and promptly and fully paid minimum payment for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will happen; then we will soon know if soil carbon sequestration systems are crucial to ending climate change. We will then know absolutely that the turning of atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbon rich and hugely productive soil humus, really has the potential of stopping global warming. We will then, and only then, have the time to build an efficient, fossil carbon free, energy supply system.


This Methodology considers that no research organization on Earth could match 150,000 Australian farmers trying to figure out the best and cheapest way to pull carbon dioxide out of the air by creating massive quantities of rich, healthy, fertile, carbon rich and hugely productive soil.


Part 14  Appropriate Caveats Must Apply


It is reasonable and logical that any land area for which payments have been made for increases in soil carbon, must be subject to a caveat, to ensure that soil carbon levels do not establish any decrease in the relevant future. Soil tests must be carried out on the subject land periodically to ensure that the increased organic carbon content is maintained.


If soil carbon levels are not maintained then they should be re­ established. The Yeomans Methodology recommends that if they are not re-established within a period of 3 years then an appropriate caveat should be attached to the land title acknowledging it has a debt to the payment authority for Carbon credits issued.


After the initial 25 year period, or after the cessation of the issue of credits, soil carbon tests are to be undertaken on the subject land once every 5 years for a further maximum period of 25 years. (Other alternate forms of caveats, that do not impose any more onerous demands on a land owner, are completely acceptable within this Protocol.)


In this Yeomans Protocol payments are only ever to be paid for measured increases in soil carbon. They are never to be paid for theoretical or hypothetical increases in on-farm carbon levels, such as payments based on compliance with some nominated, and regulated, and recommended, farm management practice.



Part 15   Carbon Credits Issued For
Measured Increases in SOM

Payments, Rewards, or the issue of Carbon Credits in the Yeomans Methodology are to be based on increases in soil carbon determined by actual in­field soil tests coupled with Loss On Ignition test procedures.




Part 16     $12 Minimum for the Issue of
   Australian Carbon Credits

Project Proponents undertaking soil carbon sequestration by enhancing the fertility and productivity of their soils are to be paid or credited at a minimum rate of $12 cpi adjusted (Consumer Price Index, Australia) a tonne carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2­ e). (The $12 allows for commissions paid to brokers or agents for processing the Departmental procedural requirements in soil carbon sequestration applications.)


There should never be any doubt what-so-ever in the Project Proponent’s mind that they will receive these credits fairly and promptly and in full.


As at May 2019 nothing like this has happened anywhere, and most notably, in Australia. The only apparent beneficiary to this systematic lack of world action being the agro-chemical industrial complex.


The agro-chemical industrial complex are also “accidently” supported another way. A cause for lack of farmer participation in the development of soil carbon sequestration is the Australian Federal Governments strange requirement for an ongoing auction system to set, almost daily prices for Australian Carbon Credits.


This appears to clearly guarantee, in the minds of farmers (who could otherwise, hopefully be future Prospect Proponents) an understanding that at some stage the auction price could easily slump to some ridiculously low and unworkable price – 10 cents a ton carbon dioxide equivalent is therefore possible. Nobody really knows.


This procedural demand must clearly be seen by farmers as a powerful disincentive to commence any form of soil carbon sequestration, at least pending appropriate changes in the system.


Of course it may well be, in the fine print that a minimum price for Carbon Credits is somehow, maybe, irrevocably assured, But how could the Australian Government reasonably expect a farmer to change the entire management structure operating on their farm based on what would justifiably be seen as some very nebulous guarantees.


A firm and absolute minimum price that a farmer could confidently expect, and trust is clearly essential if soil carbon sequestration in Australia, or anywhere in the world, is to be given a sensible opportunity to exist and develop.


Currently (August 2019) the way Australian Governments attempt to issue Carbon Credits for soil carbon sequestration, deliberately or accidently does not work, and has no chance of working in any significant way.


The Yeomans Methodology nominates that the first issue of Carbon Credits is not to occur until after two consecutive Credits Rounds, each of one year duration, with the first Credit Round taken in any year within six years following the commencement of the project.


They should both show the following:


1)       A minimum total increase in soil carbon of 250 tonnes of CO2­ e in at least one CEA in the Project.


2)       A minimum total increase of 12 tonnes CO2­ e per hectare in that CEA.


It is to be understood that these the two consecutive Credit Rounds do not need to occur at the commencement of the Project. The testing in these Credit Rounds are to otherwise comply with the requirements of Part 25 of the Yeomans Methodology.


The obligations of the Project Proponent to maintain soil carbon levels shall continue for 25 years after the last Carbon Credit has been allotted to any individual project.


  Or ­­


Termination of the Project Proponent’s obligations shall occur, if requested by the Project Proponent if, and additionally when, it is acknowledged by the Department that the prevention of continued atmospheric heating is beyond any known or seemingly possible means available to humanity. (It would not be just to impose an ongoing penalty on those farmers that actually made meaningful attempts to prevent Global Warming and Climate Change).


This Methodology includes the acknowledgement that the relevant Australian Federal Government authority will issue Carbon Credits redeemable at a minimum value of $12 per tonne of CO2­e sequestered into soil for a minimum period of 25 years after commencement of a Project under this Methodology.


The issue of Carbon Credits shall then continue indefinitely at a value of Carbon Credits to be mutually agreed, and will cease only after the Project Proponent (“the Farmer” ) has been given 12 years notice of the termination of the issuing of Carbon Credits by the relevant Federal Authority.


Termination of the Project Proponent’s obligations shall occur if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fall below 299 ppm, or some higher level, if nominated by the Minister.



Part 17         Minimum Claim Size


To prevent excessive administrative costs and overloads, all subsequent application for Credit should only be lodged where expected payments would be a minimum figure of $2,500 (or less if mutually decided) for any individual Project.


This Methodology accepts that increases in organic matter of less than 4 tonnes per hectare, even worldwide are too small to be significant in preventing continued heating of the Earth’s biosphere.




Part 18      Methodology Requirements
Australian and International

In the Yeomans Methodology the preparation of samples for LOI testing includes, air­drying (when required), bulking, mixing, sieving, sub­ sampling, and handling, must – in Australia- must always be under the control of the NATA or ASPAC organization confirming the test results, or other people or organizations approved by the Department from time to time. It is desirable if these approvals are not withheld unreasonably.


It must be noted that, in Australia, laws have been passed and have been in operation for several years now, and those laws effectively allow the Federal Government to issue Carbon Credits for the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide into soil humus.


Unfortunately the myriad of rules and regulations created by the administering Federal Departments are so numerous, so onerous, and so unworkable that the Australian farming community has been manoeuvred, deliberately or accidentally away from any remotely significant interest and effort in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the fertility of their farm soils.


That has to change. This Methodology has been created to ensure that huge and effective soil carbon sequestration happens in Australia, and quickly.


With, at most minor variations, this Methodology could, additionally be used by other countries and also concerned industries. And a powerful and effective brake could then be put on our accelerating global warming.




Part 19     General Principals of
                   Project Design and Layout.


1)     In compliance with this Methodology the Project Proponent decides the CEAs and the exclusion areas and the number of composites to be used with a minimum of three.


2)     The areas and also the Strata are then delineated by a qualified surveying technician experienced in the use of Differential GPS or RTK procedures. MGA coordinates are then recorded. It is recommended that the surveying technician liaise with any local agronomists, who will advise the surveying technician about the layout of the Strata boundaries.


3)     A licensed surveyor is required to determine and locate coordinates if differential GPS is not available in the area


4)     Samples cores are collected and stored for as minimal time as possible then shipped to the testing laboratory.


5)     The Project Proponent then develops the fertility of the soils in the CEAs as best as seems wise.


6)     Next year Credit Rounds are done and the results determined.


7)     And hopefully Carbon Credits are earned.




Part 20     Laying out The Farm


The Project Area is to be totally delineated using instructions described in “Carbon Farming Initiative Soil Sampling and Design Methods and Guidelines”. Part 2.1.Defining and Mapping


Or — Using this Yeomans Methodology

In general the layout of the Project Area, the size and shapes of CEAs and Exclusion Areas must not vary throughout the project duration without specific approval which is not to be withheld unreasonably.


Exceptions being that at any time in the future, new CEAs can be created from Exclusions Areas within the Project Area. Also an existing CEA can be removed from a Project Area, provided either that a caveat covering the Carbon Credits credited to the CEA is attached to the title of the land in question, or the applicable Carbon Credits are refunded at a minimum of $12 a tonne CO2­ e. (see also Part 14 of this Methodology)


A map of the whole project area is to be obtained from a Government Agency or from a licensed surveyor or from anybody approved by the Department or the testing laboratory.


On that map, the Project Area, which in general will be the boundaries of the entire property or farm, is to be marked. That map must contain the location of all points sufficient to locate the complete Project Area. The points must be located using MGA coordinates to an accuracy of 5 decimal places.


The Project Proponent (the Farmer) is then to draw in the CEAs and Exclusion Areas as he wishes. A surveyor skilled in the art is then to accurately define the CEAs and Exclusion Areas with MGA coordinates to an accuracy of 5 decimal places.


It is possible that management actions could require modifications to the shapes of CEAs and Exclusion Areas to enhance soil carbon generation processes and concepts and to suit associated management changes. For this to be permitted the Project Proponent should submit an application, endorsed by the testing laboratory and, the local agronomist and a licensed surveyor, to the Department. New Baselines may be required. However the Project is to retain its original start date.

It is the responsibility of the Farmer to ensure all layout designs have been undertaken correctly and coordinates located correctly.


Fraudulent conduct is covered under the Act wherein it notes:


“If a person is convicted of an offence relating to fraudulent conduct, and the issue of Australian carbon credit units is attributable to the commission of the offence, a court may order the person to relinquish a specified number of Australian carbon credit units.”


In respect of Civil penalties the Act notes:


“Pecuniary penalties are payable for contravention of civil penalty provisions.”



Part 21     Composites — A single
sampling round in a CEA
is a called a “Composite”.


1)       A Composite is a single sampling round in a CEA where   one sample is taken from each Strata.


20)     Every single Composite is to be considered as a totally

independent sampling round in a CEA.


3)       Sampling depths and test hole locations for each sample in each Strata is as defined in this Methodology.


4)       A minimum of 3 composites must be taken in each CEA in each Project where Carbon Credits allocations are being considered.


5)       In a Baseline sampling round there will be total SOM

determinations for each composite.


6)       For subsequent Carbon Credit Rounds the Composite may be combined for final screening, drying and LOI testing.


7)       However it is recommended that a complete testing is done on each composite in the CEA. This will then give the Farmer a constant indication of the testing accuracy and the efficiency of the sequestration process being undertaken .


8)       The number of Composites may vary from the previous round, but is never to be less than 3.


9)       The number of composite rounds may vary between CEAs in a test round in a Project area, provided only that LOI testing is conducted independently for each CEA.


10)       The test hole locations are to be determined as described in Part 23 Selecting Field Test Hole Locations Within An Individual Strata. The test hole locations are then to be moved laterally to be within 100mm of the centre line of the bed or furrow, but to otherwise comply with the requirements of Part 23.


11)      Where raised beds are set up, or are to be set up in a CEA and those bed are to exist for longer than 2 years, then a 6 Composite system is to be employed. Some samples are to be taken from the centre of the hilled up area, and some from the adjacent furrow. The number of tests from the 6 Composites to be taken from beds or furrows is to be decided by a local agronomist and to be approved by the relevant testing laboratory.




Part 22


                 Design of Strata


The shape and size and location of Strata may be determined by the CFI Soil Sampling and Design – Methods and Guidelines.


or– The shape size and location may be determined by

using this Methodology and as herein described.


( Note Strata is not used here to refer to a vertical layer, as would be presumed, but to refer to a small specific land surface area.)


The Farmer divides each CEA into a minimum of 9 Strata and to approximately locate the relevant boundary points of those Strata as the Farmer so wished. The Strata are to be of equal area, plus or minus 10%.


Strata are to be configured so that each is bounded by a maximum of six straight sides.

The total length of the boundaries of any single Strata must not exceed 4.5 multiplied by the square root of the average Strata area within the CEA.


The corner points of each strata are then to be adjusted slightly for accuracy and convenience and then are to be located by MGA coordinates to accuracies of 5 decimal points.


(As noted throughout: If approval of this methodology is to be delayed by the requirement of a 10% allowable error then a 5% error will be accepted.)




Part 23         Selecting Field Test Holes
Locations Within An
Individual Strata


The Australian Government Department of the Environment publication Carbon Farming Initiative – Soil Sampling Design – Method and Guidelines, can be used in its entirety for the location of holes within a Strata for soil test sampling.


This Yeomans Methodology is used wherein: The corner points of a Strata are determined and located by MGA coordinates and are to be accurate within one metre. The Strata area can therefore be considered as consisting of a grid of accurate latitude and longitude meridians at one metre spacing.


The intersection of any of these one metre spaced lines becomes a potential soil carbon test hole location point, and these location points can then be used as such. Alternatively the formed squares themselves could be the “nominated” location and holes could be drilled anywhere in that square.


For convenience location points can be given a reference number.


(If the Soil Sampling Design – Method and Guidelines process is selected then these location points can be used in that system)


When a test sample round is to be undertaken the location of any test hole within a Strata can be determined by a random selection process. That process is to be suitable to either the Department, approved personal or the testing laboratory.


The location, or reference number, of a selected and “used” test hole location point is to be permanently recorded.


Where a randomly selected location nominates an already used location point, then another randomly selected location point is to be selected.


When in the field a nominated point is unsuitable, for practical reasons, such as being too close to a fence, or tree, or over a rock outcrop a new point is then to be selected. That point is to be 2 metres north of the unsuitable point. If that is unsatisfactory then a point 2 metres east is to be selected. If again unsatisfactory then 2 metres south is tried, then 2 metres west.


If all are unsatisfactory then the process is repeated starting at 3 metres north, then 4 metres, etc.



Part 24    Soil Carbon Measurements
for Baseline Rounds


For the purposes of determining the soil carbon Baseline, the soil organic carbon stock must be measured at the Baseline sampling round before the commencement of project management actions in a carbon estimation area. The Baseline round shall include all Composites.


(Consideration of “soil layers” is not relevant in this methodology)


Determining Baseline Values and in field soil tests.


There is to be a minimum of three composites in this Methodology. All samples from each composite are thoroughly mixed and the combined mix is then subdivided uniformly until an individual sample weighing a little less than 2 kilograms is obtained. This is to be done with each composite.


For establishing Baselines each composite should have a LOI test. For subsequent Carbon Credit Rounds the composites may be combined for a single LOI test.


If – for example for some geological reason – the nominated Baseline depth for sampling is not achievable in an individual Strata, a shallower depth may be selected for that particular Strata and a corresponding shallower Credit Round sampling depth is to apply.


Part 25     The Timing of Sampling


The Baseline Sampling Round for each CEA (Carbon Estimation Area) in the project area must not commence until after the project start date.


Project management actions must not commence in a carbon estimation area before the activity start date.


In the Yeomans Methodology, sampling rounds for any CEA is to be always undertaken at the same time of year and within a maximum time frame of 60 days. This can only be varied if weather conditions make sampling impractical.


For a project area containing more than one CEA, Credits Rounds for all CEAs must always be started and completed within a 3 month envelope.


It is recommended that each CEA should maintain their own one year period even if all the different CEAs vary over the 3 month period.


If weather, floods or fire prevents sampling in the specified time periods, they may be conducted outside those time periods provided a Statuary Declaration signed by the Project Proponent stating the time variation and the reasons for it, is made available to the relevant authorities.


Sampling round records


The median day, month and year of the carbon estimation area baseline sampling round must be recorded to the nearest day for each carbon estimation area in the project area.


All sampling carried out in a carbon estimation area after the carbon estimation area baseline sampling round must occur no more than 30 days before, and no more than 30 days after, the median day and month of the date of the carbon estimation area baseline sampling round.


The following details regarding the timing of each CEA sampling round after the carbon estimation area Baseline sampling round must be recorded and to include:


1)   The day (or days)


2)     The month (or months);


3)    The year (or years) and


4)     The median day


5)     Consecutive sampling rounds must not occur less than 1 year apart (for Carbon Credit calculation) and more than 5 years apart in general.


Note: Under section 76 of the Act, a reporting period must not be longer than 5 years. The first reporting period will need to include at least 2 sampling rounds—the Baseline Sampling Round and a subsequent sampling round—in order to calculate net abatement for the project. The Baseline Sampling Round should be undertaken as soon as is practicable after the project start date to enable at least one sampling rounds to be undertaken within the first reporting period.


Sampling rounds ­­ extension of time by Regulator


A Project Proponent may apply to the Regulator to seek an extension of time to carry out the carbon estimation area sampling round.


If the Regulator extends the time for the carbon estimation area sampling round the sampling must be carried within the timeframe specified by the Regulator.


Note: Exceptional circumstances may include poor weather conditions that inhibit site access or where the soil moisture content is unsuitable for sampling at the planned time, or due to fire related access problems.


Part 26      Trial of One CEA at Start
of Project


If the Project area contains more than one CEA then for the first claim for Carbon Credits on the Project it may be claimed for a single CEA. If this option is taken then a Credits Round for all CEAs must be taken, following that first claim by a maximum time duration of 2 years.




Part 27     In Field Sample Collection


This Methodology is a surface based system so during all sample collection and handling procedures, plant material and rocks are to be brushed to remove and collect any attached soil material, and then can be discarded. Test hole locations are to be located as in Part 23.


The nominated Credits Round depth must always be at least 100 mm less than the maximum Baseline depths, or must be a minimum of 15% less than the Baseline depth, whichever is the greater. Additionally, the weight of a sample in a Credits Round is to be always less than 90% of the average weight of samples in the Baseline round for that CEA.


The nominated Baseline depth should be as deep as practical and must never be less than 400 mm. Because most 100 mm (4inch) farm post hole diggers are made to a common cutting depth the generally selected (and generally satisfactory) depth for the Baseline is 600 mm.

Setting a Baseline depth nearer to one metre or more is often better, if reasonably possible.


In the Yeomans Methodology soil cores are to be approximately 100 mm in diameter. In this Methodology the minimum size should be no less than approximately 75 mm.


The diameter of the auger flighting should not be significantly less than 10% of the inside diameter of the Tiger Tooth Sizing Auger soil pipe. (A one to two millimetre clearance between the auger and the soil pipe is perfectly acceptable.)


In the digging operation a sleeve must surround the revolving auger. The sleeve (or Tiger Tooth Soil Pipe, using Yeomans tooling) must follow the auger’s cutting faces down into the soil. During operation care should be taken to ensure that the main horizontal cutting face of the auger does not penetrate past the notched section of the lower soil pipe and on into the soil more than approximately three quarters of the outer diameter of the soil pipe. This is to minimize the possibility of a softer soil enter the sample from a larger diameter position, mixing and effecting the consistency of the sampled material.


With loose and excessively free flowing material i.e. sand or mud, it could be argued that this material could flow in and mix with the sampled material and excessively compromise the accuracy of the sample. If this is ever of concern the auger should be decoupled from the soil pipe allowing the soil pipe to sit in a relatively lower position than the digging auger. The Parachute system incorporated in the Yeomans System collects all the extracted soil which can then be released into a container – a garden bucket is sufficient.


When not using the Parachute sample collection system, it is advisable that a collection blanket with a central hole, sufficient in diameter to just clear the Tiger Tooth Sizing Auger Soil Pipe, is to be laid on the ground, or alternatively, a suitable container be suspended just under the upper parts of the Soil Pipe, prior to auger use, to ensure the collection of all material exiting the Soil Pipe. In this way all material from the sample hole can then be easily collected to ensure precision and accuracy in sample collection.


During operation of the auger and Tiger Tooth Soil Pipe, if a rock or any other similar object is encountered, a 100 mm diameter sleeve gives convenient hand access to the bottom of the hole and the nature of the obstruction can easily be determined. This usually will allow for the obstacles to be removed by hand without otherwise abandoning that particular location whilst still maintaining sample size accuracy. Such access is not possible with 75 mm holes.


The lower face of the Soil Pipe, the Tiger Teeth, is itself a cutting surface. Thus the outer diameter of the Soil Pipe can be reliably used, and is to be used, in calculations involving the soil core’s surface area and its relationship to the size of the CEA.




In summary: Sample Collection
and Delivery Preparation


1)       Soil hole sample locations are to be determined in

accordance with Part 23.


2)       The nominated sampling depth for Baseline sampling          must be at least 400 mm (with an absolute minimum          of 350 mm)


Note 1 (27)   The nominated sampling depth may be much

         greater than 400 mm. For a Baseline determination the            maximum depth possible is strongly recommended as            SOM can develop well into the subsoil.


3)       The sampling depth must not be less than the            nominated Baseline  sampling depth at all sample          locations in the Baseline Round.


4)       The sampling depth in Credit Rounds must always            be a least 100 mm less than those nominated for          Baseline tests.


5)       Credits Round sampling depths need not be the same          in any Credit Round but must always be less (by this

Methodology’s nominated margins) than the selected

original Baseline depth.


6)       Each soil sample must be promptly placed in a            substantially sealed and light and air proof bag.


7)       If sampled cannot be transported within 3 weeks          of collection then samples must be stored in light proof          sealed containers at temperatures above freezing but

not above 80 C.



Part 28      Sample Shipping

 Without undue delay collected samples are to be shipped to an entity acceptable to the Department for preparation for the LOI tests to be undertaken. Or shipped direct to the testing laboratory. Or delivered to an approved officer of the Testing Laboratory.


Part 29      Preparation of Samples for
   Loss On Ignition Testing


Preparing Samples for Loss On Ignition Testing at the Laboratory Using a Rotary Mixer and Yeomans Seesaw Sieves for Sample Cleaning, Screening and Preparation


At the testing laboratory the samples should be stored for as short a time as practical ­ preferably no more than three weeks. Also they should, at all times be protected from light, especially sunlight, and for periods in excess of 3 weeks should be stored at temperatures a little above freezing, but not above 80C.

In this Methodology, which is based on land surface area and not on soil densities and soil weights, removing stones and rocks from a sample has no effect on determining changes in the levels of organic carbon in a Carbon Investigation Area. It is therefore of no value or use to grind such materials to allow them to pass through the final 2 mm sieves.


For ease of screening, excessively wet or moist samples can be spread on a flat surface and air dried with a small fan. The fan air must not be heated unduly as possible LOI effects might occur and compromise the weighing results.


Seesaw Sieves can be used for drying as an alternative to floor drying. The 2 mm size Seesaw Sieve is mounted above the Seesaw Sieve Collecting Chute and the combination, effectively becomes a “drying oven”.


The samples are placed in the 2 mm Seesaw Sieve and dried with a heated air fan set up to blow warm air into the Collection Chute and pass up through the 2 mm sieve encouraging the drying of the soil sample. The warmed air must be kept below approximately 400 C for any Baseline soil tests and not significantly above 650 C for Credit Round tests. (Although temperatures up to 800 C for drying have shown no effects on final soil carbon values.)


The mechanical mixing of samples, when required, is easily achieved with a small electric powered cement type mixer. Mixers with a capacity of up to around 40 kilograms are satisfactory.


Sometimes, if the soil is wet or damp it can clump together into balls. If this happens the combined field samples are best dried using the above described method and mixing resumed. They are best air dried to the point where the material can be obviously and comfortably worked through the See-saw Sieves.


Direct sunlight should always be avoided in all soil handling processes and avoidance is absolutely essential for soils used in Baseline determinations. The material should then be thoroughly mixed to form a homogeneous composite. The composite is then worked through the Seesaw Sieves.


A sample for testing must finally be screened or sieved through a 2 mm sieve prior to Loss On Ignition heating. Soil clods of all sizes must be broken down during or prior to the screening. Any remaining plant materials are best removed by hand during the screening process. Stones screened off during screening are to be brushed to remove attached soil before being discarded.


The 2 mm nomination is for two reasons. The first being that “soil”, by convention, is generally defined as that material capable of passing through a 2 mm sieve. The second is that the carbonaceous materials being monitored need to be in reasonably close proximity to the forced flow of oxidizing gasses. With larger particles oxygen penetration can be excessively inhibited.


The top sieve in a Yeomans Seesaw Sieve set has openings around 10 mm. The next sieve down has openings of approximately 5mm. The lower sieve is and must be a standard 2 mm opening sieve. Sliding a heavy metal block, or even a house brick, back and forth over the material gives quick and efficient clod break up and fast screening.


After the material has been worked through the top sieve this sieve is then tilted up to discharge any stones and rocks. (In other systems, where soil density is involved in calculations, these stones and rocks have to be retained and ground down to fit through the final 2 mm sieve.)


The top sieve is then removed to gain access to the next sieve down. As always, any fibrous material such as plant roots and plant leaves must be hand selected and discarded in the screening process. Organic carbon material from all the field samples is thus, ultimately located in the lower collection tray.


The final well mixed material must be split, generally several times, until a sample, weighing around a maximum of 2 kg is obtained.


The numerical subdividing of the combined bulk sample can be done by mechanical separation, or by “splitting”, or simply by equal weight. (Although it must be understood that any weighing procedure are for convenience and actual weights are not relevant in this Methodology.) The subdividing process is continued until a sample size, suitable to “cook” in the Yeomans Carbon Still, (or whatever LOI equipment is being used for the testing) is obtained.


There is to be a minimum of three composites in this Methodology. All samples from each composite are thoroughly mixed and the combined mix is then subdivided by any accepted mining mineral sampling “splitting procedure” uniformly until an individual sample weighing a little less than 2 kilograms is obtained from each Composite.


For establishing Baselines each composite should have a LOI test. For Credit Rounds composites may be combined for a single LOI test where the subsoil and the geological nature of the area is consistent.


Some soils may exist that contain significant quantities of low density, pumice type materials, and LOI tests on that soil could possibly produce errors. In which case the following applies.


The weight of a mineral constituent in a soil sample, whose density is less than the average density of the organic matter in the sample, and where that mineral will release gas at the temperatures nominated for the Credit Round tests, that weight must not exceed 0.1% of the total weight of the sample being tested, unless approved by the testing authority. With sample weights in the Carbon Still at least several hundred times larger than is the current practices, the 0.1% stipulation may well prove irrelevant in many cases. Its relevance is to be decided by the testing laboratory.



Part 30

         Loss On Ignition Testing


The analysis of the soil samples and the actions to determination of LOI measurements must be undertaken by a NASA or ASPAC approved organization or in Australia entities approved by the Minister (e.g. Universities).


The Yeomans Carbon Still can test individual samples weighing up to 2,000 grams. Most LOI test units test samples weighing less than 5 grams, and more generally around 0.5 grams. However if the testing laboratory is satisfied with the careful sample preparation necessary with small samples; these tests are acceptable in this Methodology.


The “Yeomans Carbon Still” Loss On Ignition test unit, because of its accuracy and simplicity and versatility , is the preferred equipment for this Methodology.


In the Yeomans Carbon Still larger test samples can be separated into three, approximately equal parts and each placed in the three separate and sequential trays. Temperatures are constantly being displayed for both input and output air to each tray.


When smaller samples are being used, they can be placed entirely in the top tray if is less than approximately 700 grams. If two trays then the top two trays should be used.


In the Carbon Still the air input flow rate is also displayed and is adjustable. The soil heating chamber (or oven) itself is also capable of being heated externally to assist in maintaining controlled temperature in the soil heating chamber.


The soil organic matter content of samples varies considerably between farms and the heat release from the combustion of this soil organic matter can often affect test temperatures, also considerably.


The monitoring of the setting controls for both air and electrical energy inputs is used in the Carbon Still to compensate for such variations and to help produce consistent, accurate and reproducible results. This is not feasible when testing many small samples in a conventional muffle furnace.


Determining weight changes in samples in a Yeomans Carbon Still is conducted by disconnecting power and air lines to the central oven then adjusting weights (as for any laboratory balancing system) to achieve a balance. Fine balance is achieved by adjusting and monitoring the water content of a suitable container on the balancing arm. Weight changes are then simply the variation in millilitres needed to achieve balance. A one millilitre variation is comfortably observable. (1 ml water being sufficiently equal to 1 gram).




Specified LOI test requirements nominated in this Methodology for generating LOI determinations are–

1)       Samples must be delivered promptly to the testing laboratory


2)       Prior to delivery to the laboratory some pre-drying of samples containing large quantities maybe convenient. In which case, for baseline samples pre-drying air temperatures should, ideally be kept below 400C. For Credit Round samples pre-drying air temperatures should not significantly exceed 650 C. Exposing samples to direct sunlight should always be avoided where possible.


3)       For laboratory testing for a CEA soil organic matter content, field samples have to be combined and divided to produce a suitable and accurate representative sample weighing under 2,000 grams and preferable more than 1,200 grams when three trays are being used.


Always; samples must bear a known mathematical relationship to the surface area of the CEA.


4)       If it is of interest to know the water content of samples, they can be weighed before any heating in the Carbon Still takes place and weighed after the drying process.


5)       If field samples contain excessive quantities of water they may be partially dried in air at temperatures up to approximately 500 C. This is often necessary with soil samples using any testing system to allow the material to more readily be broken up to be sieved through the standard 2 mm screen.


6)     After loading the trays, warm air is passed through the Carbon Still. This air is preheated to be always above 1000 C and generally below 1400 C to totally evaporate all free water. Heating elements are operated until all air exiting the trays is above 1000 C but below 1400 C.
For both Baseline Sampling Round and Credit Sampling Rounds these temperature are then to be maintained for 30 minutes .

For all weighing the air and power lines must be disconnected . The weight of the oven containing the sample is then balanced in compliance with the Carbon Still operating instructions.


7)     For determining LOI, air and power lines are reconnected. Air temperatures are then progressively increased to approximately 3750C. at which temperature initial ignition of organic matter is assured. If it is considered that the sample may have an organic matter content above approximately 3% it is advisable to then reduce the power to the air heater to zero as the combustion of the organic matter can produce considerable heat as it oxidizes. Also lowering the volume of air to the heater to under one cubic metre per hour is also advisable to also reduce oxidation rates and thus keep sample temperatures in the selected range.


8)       Air flow and heating read outs are then constantly monitored and adjusted until oxidation of the sample is completed. Excess heated air being forced through the sample ensures total combustion of all organic matter.

Total combustion will occur and can be expected to be totally completed provided temperatures are at 4000 C plus or minus 150 C and ample air is available.


For final and complete combustion this methodology therefore nominates a progressive rise to a minimum air feed temperature of 4000 C and an air flow rate greater than approximately 3 cubic metres per hour. An air flow temperature between 3850 C and 4150 C gives accurate and consistent results when oxidizing soil organic matter.

  (Note :1 cubic metre per hour equals approximately 16.66 litres per minute, or 0.589 cfm)


9)      When all combustion is completed, the temperature of the air exiting the trays will inevitably decrease despite the oversupply of air as no heat energy is being generated in the sample. When all tray exit temperatures show 4000 C plus or minus 150 C the heat input and the air supply can be boosted while maintaining the temperature range for the specified 30 minutes.


10)       For all weighing, air at room temperature is feed in at maximum flow to cool the sample. Air flow and air temperatures are adjusted until all tray exit temperatures are again positively above 1000 C but below approximately 1400 C. The sample, along with its housing, is then rebalanced. The Loss On Ignition reduction in weight for the sample is then the decrease in weight in the rebalanced system.
Note 1 (30) :   To confirm the suitability of the times and temperatures selected, after this weighing a sample can again be reheated but this time for a longer time and and/or at a temperature higher than 4150 C to confirm the suitability of the times and temperatures selected. Thus testing accuracies can always be positively confirmed when using a Yeomans Carbon Still.


The calibrated*{Note 2 (30) See below} weight difference between the initial Baseline values and the ultimate Credits Round values allows us to calculate the CO2– e sequestered and thus the number of Carbon Credits to be allocated to the “Farmer “or “Project Proponent”.



Note:2 (30) Calibrating LOI Test Results. How to Produce an Accurate Calibration Graph for a Farm The Carbon Still System although a Loss On Ignition system does not need the removal of carbonates, and other minerals in the geological base structure that react to the temperatures in the testing process. This is achieved by a simple process of calibration to eliminate virtually all errors possible in the testing procedure. (As at September 2019 the process is part of a comprehensive patent application.) A graph is produced plotting a predetermined and exact level and already known level of organic matter against Carbon Still test results. One soil sample allowing generally about six soil carbon tests in the Carbon Still are enough to plot an accurate calibration curve. Assembling a calibration graph:: The field sampling Tiger Tooth Sizing Auger is used to collects a large sample of deep subsoil. From this several test samples are weighed out.

To get our sample material, the Tiger Tooth Sizing Auger is worked down, to (typically) 600 mm. All this collected material is discarded. The hole is continued down, say to one metre. This deeper material can be considered as “subsoil”. From this a few samples are weighed off. Let’s say we make our samples 1000 grams.

A 1000 gram sample of this subsoil is tested in the Carbon Still. This will invariably produce a result that can be used as a “zero” percentage for the graph.

Then for all area’s on the farm, with the same geological sub-structure. that “zero” will be applicable.

Now to calibrate: we simply take one of our untested 1000 gram samples and add to it a known weight of organic material. That material wants to be as chemically similar to soil organic matter as possible. We recommend good quality soft peat. Peat is chemically very similar to soil organic matter. The only difference in its formation is that oxygen is more available in the formation of soil organic matter than it is in peat. Peat is generally formed under water. Peat, just like soil organic matter has a high humic acid content so it’s an excellent and accurate “pretend” soil organic matter or humus.

We add 50 grams of peat to our 1000 grams of subsoil and test it in the Carbon Still. For illustration purposes let’s ignore that the maths are 50/1050 % or 4.762% and call it 5%.

A LOI test will most certainly show that 5% loss, plus whatever other materials and reactions was in the subsoil that gave us the initial reading.

The test might show 7% so effectively if a farmer adds 5% humus to the soil from his changed farming practices and the soil is then tested, it will also indicate 7%.

The same test can then be conducted with varying contents of peat and the readings can be plotted on a graph where “Added Organic Matter” is plotted against test “Indicated Organic Matter”.

The dots are connected. They almost invariably form a slightly curved line and also, almost invariably, every point is almost exactly on that line. The accuracy of the curve and the point locations are almost exactly and pleasantly “according to Hoyle”. It always works.

We therefore effectively come to know, with surprising accuracy exactly how much organic matter a farmer has added to his soil. The curve will also be applicable on any nearby farm with the same geological sub-structure.

Using tiny soil samples, as in most other systems this calibration test procedure is very difficult to do even – in a well equipped laboratory. But is easy with 1000 gram sample in a Yeomans Carbon Still.

Some soils may have very high in humus content at lower depths than that nearer the surface. This is sometimes seen in river valleys, especially where the top soil has been effectively “flogged” for decades with pesticides or herbicides or strong chemical “fertilizers”. In that case a graph can be plotted using a soil mix from all the material from several “base line” test holes. A known “above zero” value is then used. Accurate changes in humus levels can be determined, but not absolute value of humus content.

But changes are the only factor of importance in reversing climate change.

These procedures mean we can be confident in knowing exactly what we should pay each farmer for “saving the Planet”.


Part 31     The Yeomans Carbon Still For
Checking Other Equipment

         And a Method of Confirming
Procedural accuracies


   A sample, say around one and a half  kilograms, that has already been subject to heating to remove all organic carbon or by whatever means available, can thus be weighed and used as an “inert base”.

Then to that base can be added some carefully weighed sample of (usually unavoidably moist) organic matter- such as peat. It could be added to the inert material after the inert material has been removed from the oven.


This now combines sample can be returned to the oven and dried. It is then balance weighed. The sample then becomes a soil sample containing a “totally known” weight of dried inert soil material, containing a now “pre-known” quantity, (and therefore percentage,) of dry organic matter.

Such material can then be used to check the accuracy of the Carbon Still (or any machine used for soil carbon testing). The “assembled sample ” is then heated to test for LOI.


But now, we do know beforehand, what the answer to any future test on that combination, has to be. If the test shows a greater LOI loss than predicted, then a chemical reaction must have happed between (probably) the carbon in the organic matter and the already “cooked”, and therefore, supposedly, inert sample material. This could, for example, show the presence of a haematite to magnetite reaction.

This same principal can also be used in the creation of a graph, drawn from the results of LOI tests in a Carbon Still and by testing a range of weights of organic material mixed with deep and local and inert, or almost inert subsoil. The weight loss for each test is then plotted against the actual weight of dry organic matter added for each test. This procedure totally, or at least almost totally avoids the possible problem of an “organic matter chemical combination with the soil material” problem.


With most soil types, the quantity of organic matter thus determined can be used to accurately estimate the actual total weight of organic carbon in any nominated area of land. However it is to be appreciated that this information in this Methodology is only of academic interest. This Methodology and allied equipment is designed with the primary concern being to assist in ending global warming. It is the measuring of specific increases in soil carbon and then being able to reward farmers for those increases, that is the prime concern.



Part 32            Calculations

      Calculating values for soil organic matter in a CEA using “surface area principals” and a Yeomans Tiger Tooth Soil Pipe sample collection system, followed by screening through a 2 mm Seesaw Sieve and then testing carbon level changes using a Yeomans Carbon Still for LOI testing .

      In the Yeomans Methodology/Protocol test samples, using a Tiger Tooth Sizing Auger give samples with a known surface area, and therefore a known ratio to the area of the land being tested. In this Methodology the procedures for determining soil densities are not relevant and are not needed. They therefore can be totally ignored when sample surface areas are the determining factor, as in this methodology.


This underlining principal to be appreciated.: This LOI test is not to determine the ratio of the LOI weight to the soil weight, for in this protocol that is irrelevant. It is ultimately to determine the LOI weight changes in tonnes for a nominated area of land over a nominated time period.


The first objective is to know the Loss On Ignition weight of the sample and the number of samples. From this, a weight, representative of the organic matter content of the test land area, can readily be calculated.


The accuracy and consistency of tests using a Yeomans Carbon Still is found to be within approximately 0.075%. It follows that a 0.1% accuracy can safely be presumed in calculations. That 0.1% equates to a rise of roundly 4 tonnes of organic matter per hectare. About 1.5 tons per acre.


Where soil test procedures as in Part 31 have been used to determine a ratio factor of organic matter to Loss On Ignition test results, this factor is then applied to the LOI determination calculation. That weight in tonnes thus determined, when multiplied by 0.58 gives the “accepted” weight of carbon. This, multiplied by a carbon to carbon dioxide ratio of 3.6666 gives us the accepted measure of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (the CO2-e) sequestered into the soil in the Project Area.


Note: Of interest, the answers in round figures are: 0.58 x 3.6666 = 2.1266. and for “back of the envelope” calculations we can call that 2.


So, Ball Park: the number of Carbon Credits to be issued is twice the calculated Loss On Ignition weight for the paddock.


1)         A Yeomans Tiger Tooth Sizing Auger System is used for sample collection. The unit has an outside diameter of 114.3 mm (4.5 inches).  It is known in the trade as either 4 inch or 100 mm, nominal bore, light wall, water pipe. The outside diameter of 4 inch pipe is always 4.5 inches. Only the inside diameter varies between grades of “4 inch pipe”. But the sample size is determined by the outside diameter. This is because the soil pipe itself has a soil cutting edge.


2)       Using this constant outside diameter, te ground surface area to be considered will therefore be 102.608 square centimetres or 0.010268 square metres.    (from pie R2)


3)       The volume of soil in a sample will therefore be 1.02608 litres per 100 mm of sampling depth. (Alternatively it can be considered that every 97.46 of Soil Pipe depth has removed 1 litre of soil.)

Ball Park –every 4 inches (100 mm) of Soil Pipe depth contains one litre of our original soil & that’s about 1.4 kg or about 3 lbs of soil.


4)       The organic matter found under that surface area multiplied by about one million (974,580) will give the SOM per hectare and this multiplied by the area of the CEA gives us the measure of the Soil Organic Matter in the Carbon Estimation Area.


The adjusted change in total weight of organic matter from the previous LOI soil determination, when multiplied by about 2 (2.126)  gives us the number of Australian Carbon Credits to be awarded to the Farmer.






Allan Yeomans

Yeomans Plow Co Pty. Ltd

30 Demand Av. Arundel

Gold Coast

Queensland 4214



Phone 61 7 5571 6544

(To view) YEOMANS CARBON STILL soil test equipment go to HTTP://YEOMANSCONCEPTS.COM/  Then go to internal link, Box 1)