Technical Working Group on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (T-AGG): Experts Meeting, April 22 & 23, 2010 Chicago, Illinois Soil carbon management in developing country agricultural systems Theodor Friedrich Senior Officer AGP Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
outline Agriculture as driver Global potentials Mitigation strategies Mitigation potential Conclusions
agriculture as a driver Greenhouse gas emissions: Carbon Dioxide is the most important GHG Other GHG (Methane, Nitrous Oxide) more powerful Still 77% of total GHG in CO 2 equivalent is due to CO 2 Agricultural land use contributes 32% of all GHG: The major largest components are: Land use change: 18.3% Nitrogen emissions from soils: 6% Methane from livestock: 5%
global potentials Agriculture mitigating climate change Globally 5 bill ha (5. 10 9 ) under agriculture i.e. managed by mankind (= 40% of total land) of this 1.4 bill ha are cropland Significant impact on climate change
global potentials Agriculture mitigating climate change Global pool of Soil Organic Carbon 1,500 Pg (1 Pg = 1 bill. metric tons = 1 Gt) Agriculture has released 456 Pg C from SOC which builds the potential for soil as C-sink Potential C-capturing from cropland: 0.75 1.0 bill t (Pg)/year Total potential for increasing the terrestrial C pool is about 3 Pg/year = about the annual increase in global CO 2 concentration Additionally emission reductions possible
mitigation strategies Agricultural (crop) mitigation strategies: Sequestration: Maximize soil as carbon sink reduce soil carbon emissions maximise biomass production enhance soil carbon input Emission reduction: Rice methane Fertilizer nitrous oxide Fuel emissions Emissions from input manufacturing Manure handling Bio energy?
mitigation strategies Sequestration: Carbon Offset Consultation, West Lafayette, October 2008: CA base for carbon credit protocols CA for CC mitigation and adaptation CA technologies for Climate Change adaptation and mitigation available
The simultaneous combination of Continuous zero tillage Permanent soil cover Crop rotations has become known as Conservation Agriculture mitigation strategies
mitigation strategies Conservation Agriculture Conventiona al Agriculture low soil organic matter Soil Organic Matter = Drought Resistance Action of Soil Biota Structure/Porosity Biological Tillage High Soil Organic Matter CO 2 Mechanical Tillage
mitigation strategies Cumulative Carbon Dioxide Loss after 24 hours CER (g CO 2 m -2 ) 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 SS MK RM NT L128 y = 0.0792x + 9.7647 R 2 = 0.9698 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Cross Sectional Area (cm 2 ) MP Reicosky
mitigation strategies TILLAGE-INDUCED CO2 "FLUSH" AND CURRENT CROP RESIDUE 19 days after tillage 300 2 TOTAL C LOST IN 19 DAYS (g C/m ) 250 200 150 100 50 0 249 MP 129.5 MP+DH2 185 g C/m 2from residue of previous wheat crop 106.6 DH TILLAGE TYPE CP 99.8 49.9 NT Reicosky
Nature s Interdependent Tri-Cycles: Water, Carbon, Nitrogen, Tillage disrupts the natural cycles! H 2 O C N mitigation strategies Tillage Layer Reicosky
CA and climate change: mitigation strategies No single practice safely qualifies for carbon credits (no-till, compost, organic) No-till a necessary, not sufficient condition for Carbon Sequestration in most climates Protocols for optimized systems to be established Attention to lifecycles and other GHG (compaction, irrigation)
mitigation strategies Emission reductions: Rice (CH 4 ) CA-rice: no-till/no puddling residue retention no permanent flooding evtl. permanent beds SRI agronomy for better root development
Emission reductions: N-Fertilizer Use of legumes in rotation Careful use of N fertilizer Placement of N fertilizer (urea) Irrigation (no flooding) Compaction: CTF mitigation strategies
Emission reductions: Fuel emissions: - 40 to 70% Emissions from input manufacturing: biological processes replacing functions of machinery: - 50% fertilizer: - 30-50% pesticides: - 20% Manure handling: biogas aerobic composting application into cover crops/crop residues knifing into soil (small quantities) No burning avoidance of fire mitigation strategies
mitigation strategies Bio energy: Bio energy = low efficiency solar energy Carbon: either for bio energy or for carbon sequestration Carbon in soils has other beneficial effects beyond carbon sequestration Diversion of carbon towards bio energy reduces the speed of soil carbon build up Biochar: residues are a better C-source for soils
Further options: Integrated Crop-livestock-systems 12 years: soybean & italian ryegrass in succession mitigation strategies Soybean at harvest with Italian ryegrass naturally established Agroforestry: CA with trees (CAWT)
100 History and Adoption of CA mitigation potential Mill. ha US Soil Conservation Service conservation tillage First no-till in Faulkner (US) Fukuoka (Japan) commercial no-till/ /US the US dustbowl Siberia/USSR first no-till demonstration in Brazil Oldrieve/Zimbabwe Argentina, Paraguay; IITA no-till research adoption Brazil plantio direto na palha experiments in China, Indogangetic Plains New boost: Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Finland...; Africa 50 Dustbowl 1930 1950 1970 1980 1990 2000
mitigation potential Conservation Agriculture worldwide 111 Million ha continental, dry large scale Canada 13 temperate, moist USA 27 large scale tropical savannah Brazil 26 Paraguay 2.4 temperate, moist Argentina 20 large scale smallholder Europe 0.5 arid Africa 0.5 large scale Asia 3.3 tropical savannah smallholder subtropical, dry large scale continental, dry irrigated China 1.3 smallholder Australia 17 arid large scale
Sequestration: S o m e soil carb o n sequestratio n rates mitigation potential R eg io n R ate B razil T ro p ical (W e st-c e n tral B R ) M g h a -1 yr -1 R an g e 0.04 0.63 M ean 0.39 S u b tro p ical R an g e 0.04-0.97 (S o u th e rn B R ) M ean 0.58 T em p erate (U S A ) R an g e 0.1-0.5 M ean 0.34 G L O B A L M ean 0.57 T ropical: C orazza et al. (1999), S ilva et al. (2001), Leite et al. (2001) S ubtropical: B a yer et al. (2000a,b), Lovato (2001), A m ado et al. (2001), Freixo e t al. (2002) T em p erate: Lal et al. (1999); W est & M arland (2002) G lobal: W est & P ost (2002) Slide taken from Amado 2008, CACOC/CTIC-FAO
mitigation potential Sequestration: Intensive grassland: 2-7 Mg. ha -1. a -1 New saturation: cropland 30-50 years grassland 15-20 years Actual growth in CA: 6 mill ha/a, increasing outlook: in 20 years global CA adoption rate at 50%?
Conclusions: conclusions Agricultural land management: big player in climate change Agriculture is not an option: need to reduce environmental footprint CA responds to many global problems and is expanding globally Agriculture with CA could become a major element for global environmental policies CA is more profitable payments not required to sustain it, but to accelerate adoption Carbon as new produce from farming BUT: no quick fix; complementary measures needed optimized protocols
Sustainability and Food for all: With CA agriculture can become part of the solution! Thank you for your attention! More information: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca