& Global Warming facts that are usually hard to find! I am absolutely certain that the final answer is simply this –
– SOIL HUMUS and NUCLEAR BASED ENERGY and BIOFUELS
and NEVER EVER TRUST THE FOSSIL FUEL / AGROCHEMICAL COMPLEX
The Grasslands and Prairies Story is the Most Significant way Fertile Soil is Created. In simple terms, this is how it happens.
1 Cows eat grass.
2 One bite, and the grass plant immediately sheds a few roots.
3 The cows produce waste.
4 Soil microbes and earth worms eat dead grass roots and cow’s waste,
and their waste is humus and humus is 58% carbon.
5 Grasses grow best in humus rich soil. So it’s full circle, back to the cow.
That’s why the most fertile soils in the world are the grasslands of the world, the steppes, the savannahs, and the prairies. And every one of those grasslands had some type of grazing animal living on it; often for a million years or more. And there’s invariable a carnivore, so they always herd close together. No one wants to be on the outer rim and exposed to those carnivores. And that’s what we now call “cell grazing” or “rotational grazing” and a dozen other names.
Thus grassland ecosystems automatically create their own humus rich, hugely fertile top soils. Trees don’t. Trees don’t constantly shed their roots like the grasses. Tree roots just get fatter and when the tree dies, termites eat the dead roots. Termites don’t make soil. They turn the root carbon into methane. So forest soils always slowly self-destruct.
The process of sol formation is: Hard rock, near the surface, weathers down and becomes “subsoil”. Subsoil is biologically inert. But when humus is created in that subsoil, then it becomes “topsoil”. It’s a system that’s been operating for around 55 million years. The dinosaurs died out and the grasses and the grazing mammals then evolved, together. And that’s the world where we evolved.
Subsoil is usually tight and compact so it usually takes centuries to get decent quantities of carbon rich humus to build up in that tough “subsoil”. Then it becomes “top soil”. But good farming can make it all happen fast, some times in just weeks. And that’s what we want. And that’s what we need.
The chemistry is straight forward. Both living plant materials and soil humus are about half carbon. The carbon dioxide in the air is 27% carbon. Using carbon dioxide from the air, water from the ground, and sunlight from space, the chlorophyll in a blade of grass, or any other green leaf, manufactures living plant materials which in turn ultimately becomes humus, sometimes via animal manure. All these materials comprise about 52% to 58% carbon, but remember, carbon dioxide is 27% carbon.
So to simplify and round off the arithmetic – – it takes two kilograms of carbon dioxide to make one kilogram of humus. And humus- organic matter is what turns poor, useless, and hopelessly unproductive soils – into rich, fertile and hugely productive soils.
Herbivores eat grass, carnivores eat herbivores.
Omnivores eat both. (We’re omnivores.)
Strong agricultural chemicals kill the microbes and earth worms that turn dead plant materials into rich humus. Strong agricultural chemicals break down and destroy the humic acid molecule which is the basic particle in stable soil humus.
Most agrochemicals are made from petroleum. Agrochemicals are second only to transport in petroleum use. So who lives in whose pocket?
There are probably thousands of way that farmers and gardeners have to increase the fertility and therefore the humus content of their soils. We just have to let our farmers “have their head” to do it, . Whatever way they devise to increase the carbon content of their soils has to be OK with us.
And we pay them at least $10 or $15 a ton for the CO2 they remove from the atmosphere as they create rich, humus charged, fertile soil and simultaneously purge the air of its deadly CO2 overload. There is no-way remotely as cheap and as practical. And it’s “no humus, no pay”
Let’s give our farmers no fuss, no hindrances, no problems, no interference, no red tape, no bureaucratic complexities – no ridiculous time constraints – no holds barred. Just let them do it. For the world’s farmers give us our only chance to prevent an otherwise inevitable biospheric heat runaway. And that’s an inevitable scenario with frightening and horrible consequences.
######################################################### View the Yeomans Methodology Here (It’s a slightly updated version of the one I sent to the Department) (at 30 June 2017 now October 2019) ########################################################### Below is your problem – if you live in Australia. The Department of the Environment and Energy here in Australia is clearly not prepared to take the concept of removing carbon dioxide from the air seriously. But it is absolutely imperative that we start removing the huge CO2 overload right now. Soil carbon sequestration is now touted to be official Australian policy. But they sit on it. The policy is spelt out in Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011. It says that if a farmer improves the fertility of his soil, in some suitable manner, and measures the resulting increase in soil carbon he will be awarded Australian Carbon Credits. The Act says the farmer must follow an agreed protocol for both measuring soil carbon changes and for managing the soil. A protocol is called a “Determination Methodology”.(usually revered to simply as “Methodologies”) But it’s not happening. Unfortunately Department of Environment employees structured the requirement for managing the farm and the measurement procedures to be compiled with in a manner that systematically prevents Soil Carbon Sequestration ever happening in Australia. Additionally, it is now been decreed that only Departmental personnel can devise and create Methodologies. The Minister for the Environment then approves the proposed methodology. That’s the procedure. (Technically the Minister himself can propose a methodology.) For soil carbon, Departmental officers have created two methodologies. Both have proved to be absolute failures as not one single one of our 135,000 Australian farmers have considered them sane and workable and taken up their offers to sequester carbon out of the air. Read the incredible Departmental requirements in these methodologies and you’ll see why not one Australian farmer has taken them seriously. Here are the links to the complete methodologies. The first one is called — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Sequestering Carbon in Soils in Grazing Systems) Methodology Determination 2014 To see what a farmer has to totally understand and then do, have a look at the methodology. Hold control and click on, or just click — https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014L00987 As there was no takers for this methodology next year they came out with a another. It’s called — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Facilities) Methodology Determination 2015 Again no takers. To see what a farmer has to do on this new “simplified” methodology — control and click on — (Currently you will have to type in this address to get there The “click” thing doesn’t work yet Oct 21 2017) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01163 They now have composed a third “soil methodology” (two more years). It was opened for comment in the period between 4 September 2017 to 2 October 2017. Sadly, having looked at it myself I expect it too will be totally rejected by the Australian farming community. I maintain, justifiable so and on the grounds that it too will be seen as “impractical and unworkable”. It’s called – Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative- Measurement of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Systems) Methodology Determination 2017 to see it, control and click on – Measurement of soil carbon sequestration in agricultural systems draft Determination (PDF – 411.37 KB) It’s impossible to follow. Same as the other ones. For an example – Go to the link then scroll down to pages – 36 and 37. They’re typical of the mathematics a farmer is expected to be able to follow and use. ******************************* Because these Departmental methodologies are so unworkable and because of the now dangerous state of our atmosphere and the resultant destabilization of world weather systems I created one myself. My methodology is designed to significantly encourage farmers to increase the basic fertility of their own soils (which is what we want), while complying with the dictates of the Carbon Farming Initiative Act sufficiently to qualify for Australian Carbon Credits. The fundamentals of the nature of soil; in a nut shell. All broken down rock material – that is sub soil – becomes humus rich top soil quickly, just with thoughtful management and a moderate and regular supply of water. To illustrate the nature of soil: The rich black soils of the Darling Downs becomes a mixture of reddish brown sand and bull dust, when its humus is all cooked off at 5000 C. Good management techniques – some we have yet to discover – can rapidly reverse the process and turn brown desert dirt, into rich and fertile, carbon charged, top soil. Our Australian Department of the Environment people seem to know nothing about the rapid creation of soil fertility. Nor apparently are they interested. Yet they author the “Methodologies” on how it should all be done. I originated the whole concept of soil carbon sequestration to combat global warming back in the late 1980s. I wrote and lectured on my concept both in the US and later back here in Australia. From there the concept took off. Yet they’ve never asked me a thing. Farmers have told me they could use and work within my methodology and make soil carbon sequestration happen on their farm; but absolutely no way with the methodologies dreamed up by the people in our Australian Department of the Environment. Unfortunately, along with all our hopes, dreams and efforts to effectively combat climate change by soil fertility enhancement, we must never forget the elephant in the room is the rich and powerful agrochemical industry. Are strings being pulled? I submitted my methodology to the Department both directly and indirectly through the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee. It was emailed to them on 7 July 2017. I was received an email back from the Department mail on 5 September. I was informed that my submission and the principals behind it are to be ignored by the Department. They list the reasons and conclude by saying — “Accordingly, the Department does not intend to further develop your proposal at this stage”. Below is a copy of my methodology which they propose to ignored. And below that is a complete copy of that final Departmental rejection email to me and wherein which they state their reasoning behind their total rejection of my whole methodology of encouraging the developing large scale soil carbon sequestration to beat climate change. For comparison, make sure you have a look at the methodologies the Department dreamed up which have been totally rejected by every single farmer in Australia then : View the Yeomans Methodology Here And this is the email where they rejected our methodology — … The raising temperature in the Earth’s biosphere is too serious a phenomena to allow such an official and significant Department of Environment letter such as this one, to go uncorrected and uncriticised . So let’s go through it. On the first page it reported on apparent advice from the Soil Technical Working Group relating to a protocol I suggested prior to the construction of the current “Yeomans Methodology“. That surly appears somewhat incompetent. It also asks for “further data” but doesn’t say on what! They then suggest that the one gram sample size used in LECO in their Loss on Ignition test machine is “practical” when testing large areas of agricultural land, and a sample 2,000 times bigger might be impractical . This has to be nonsense. Additionally it says our sample sizes are 4,000 grams, a size not mentioned anywhere in any of our literature. Actually 4,000 grams is also beyond the capacity of our loss on ignition test equipment. “The likelihood of instrument error” suggested might occur is much more likely in a one gram test sample than in a 2 kilogram. The logic escapes me. If our test equipment was used it would of course require Australian Soil and Plant Analyse Council calibration approval. Which we will do when our methodology is accepted. Finally, if they had read the Yeomans Methodology they would see that the standard LECO manufactured test machine is acceptable for soil sampling. They note seven more objections to the Yeomans Methodology in their letter. One would suspect from these objections that the Department dismissed the methodology deliberately without any diligent consideration. In some ways it actually seems that it was not even read. “Permanence obligation” is in fact covered in the Methodology. “Defining what activities are eligible” before farmers have worked out the best way to improve the fertility of their soil is extremely counter productive. The requirement effectively hamstrings and knobbles the development of techniques of rapid soil fertility enhancement on any farm in the nation. Their email (which came with a note saying a hard copy would be posted which after two weeks has not been received) has to says there is insufficient defining of the methodology’s “greenhouse gas assessment boundary”. Departmental literature says “a greenhouse gas assessment boundary is all greenhouse gas emissions and reductions directly affected by the activity”. The scope for obfuscation is thus unlimited. Part 5 of our proposed methodology suggests an approach that is workable and usable in practice. At least, so farmers say. The other “objections” are already covered clearly in the Methodology. So their email / letter is confusing. The email clearly is used to remind us that the Emission Reduction Fund “does not support research and development”. What does that really mean? I would take “support” to mean actual financial support. Surely “does not support” should not be interpreted by the relevant Departmental personal to mean the Department should actively discourag research and development by others. If that is case then the Departmental people should cease interpreting it that way. It’s now political. Nothing will happen unless you start chasing your local Federal Member or Senator to get the Minister for the Environment and Energy, that’s the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP to get his Department people to get our Methodology approved. His contact numbers at his web site are 03 9882 3677. The fax number is 03 9882 3773 and the number in Canberra is 02 6277 7920. It’s not up to me now, nor those in the Department, it’s up to you. The late Margret Meed, highly respected American biologist, statistician and philosopher once said – “If You Ever Think You’re Too Small To Be Effective, You’ve Never Been In Bed With A Mosquito” The Dalai Lama agreed. His words were – “If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito