Symposium on Carbon Sequestration in Soils
Wilfred M. Post
1998 Annual Meeting of the Soil Science Society of America, Baltimore,
Maryland
Monday, October 19, 1998
A symposium on soil carbon sequestration will be held throughout the
first day of the upcoming annual meeting of the Soil Science Society of
America in Baltimore, Maryland. The symposium is co-sponsored by
society Divisions S-3 (Soil Biology and Biochemistry) and S-7 (Forest
Soils) with financial support for invited international participants
provided by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The goal of this symposium is to foster fundamental discussions about
the state of soil carbon science relative to the processes, mechanisms,
and limiting factors that interact to affect the potential CO2 sink
strength of soils. The symposium will begin with three invited
presentations to set the stage for two poster sessions to follow in the
late morning and early afternoon. Over 50 posters contributed by
society members and by national and international guests will cover
topics from the processes and mechanisms affecting soil carbon cycling
and transformations to the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2,
agricultural management, climate change, and succession on soil carbon
stocks to evaluations of soil carbon storage at the landscape level.
To conclude the symposium, an extended, moderated discussion session is
planned for the purpose of debating the strengths and weaknesses of our
current understanding of the carbon sequestration potential of soils.
For more information, contact:
S-3 Co-Chairs: Julie Jastrow and Chuck Rice
S-7 Co-Chairs: Dale Johnson and Mac Post
Julie Jastrow (jdja...@anl.gov)
Environmental Research Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,
IL 60439
Dale Johnson (d...@dri.edu)
Biological Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV 89506
Mac Post (w...@ornl.gov)
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Chuck Rice (cwr...@ksu.edu)
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Mac Post
--------------
Environmental Sciences Division 423-576-3431
Oak Ridge National Laboratory 423-574-2232 (fax)
P.O. Box 2008, Bldg. 1000 http://www.esd.ornl.gov/~wmp
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6335 w...@ornl.gov
(Replace P.O. Box 2008 with "Bethel Valley Road" for express mail)
Wilfred M. Post
1998 Annual Meeting of the Soil Science Society of America, Baltimore,
Maryland
Monday, October 19, 1998
A symposium on soil carbon sequestration will be held throughout the
first full day of the upcoming Annual Meeting of the Soil Science
Society of America at the Baltimore Convention Center. The symposium
is co-sponsored by Society divisions S-3 (Soil Biology & Biochemistry)
and S-7 (Forest & Range Soils) with financial support for invited
international participants provided by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Information about the Annual Meeting (including registration
information) can be found at the following address on the Societys web
page: http://www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/olr/
The potential of soils to help mitigate rising concentrations of
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a topic that is gaining increased
attention as a result of the negotiations at the Kyoto Conference on
greenhouse gases. Because of the large amounts of carbon stored in
world soils and the potentially long residence times for much of this
carbon, relatively small changes in soil carbon storage per unit area
could have significant impacts on the global carbon balance.
Consequently, there is much interest in quantifying how much, how
rapidly, and for how long, natural processes and management practices
can increase the amount of carbon in soil. The goal of this symposium
is to foster fundamental discussions about the state of soil carbon
science relative to the processes, mechanisms, and limiting factors
that interact to affect the potential CO2 sink strength of soils.
The symposium will begin at 8:05 am with three invited presentations to
set the stage for two poster sessions to follow in the late morning and
early afternoon. Over 60 posters contributed by society members and by
national and international guests will cover topics from the processes
and mechanisms affecting soil carbon transformations and cycling to the
effects of elevated atmospheric CO2, agricultural management, climate
change, and succession on soil carbon stocks to evaluations of soil
carbon storage at the landscape level. To conclude the symposium, an
extended, moderated discussion session (with a cash bar) is planned
from 5:00 to 7:00 pm for the purpose of debating the strengths and
weaknesses of our current understanding of the carbon sequestration
potential of soils.
For more information, contact:
S-3 Co-Chairs: Julie Jastrow and Chuck Rice
S-7 Co-Chairs: Dale Johnson and Mac Post
Julie Jastrow (jdja...@anl.gov)
Environmental Research Division, Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, IL 60439
Dale Johnson (d...@dri.edu)
Biological Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV 89506
Mac Post (w...@ornl.gov)
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN 37831
Chuck Rice (cwr...@ksu.edu)
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
--
Martin Howard
see the Web Site at http://www.co2.org or e-mail ma...@co2.org for
information about the Carbon Storage Trust and Climate Care Warranties.
This is your chance to reduce Global Warming, to actually do something about
it; be part of the answer instead of just one of the causes of the problem.
A little problem for you to solve:-
If you have 100,000 hens, how much CO2 will they put into the air during one
year? How many hectares of trees will be required to bind that carbon into
wood?
How much would it cost to sequestrate that carbon for ever?
Answers next week, but I'd be interested to see your calculations ... or
guesses.
Martin Howard MRTPI aran...@gn.apc.org
Planning Consultant to CIWF.
Oz
<aran...@gn.apc.org> writes
>A little problem for you to solve:-
>If you have 100,000 hens, how much CO2 will they put into the air during one
>year? How many hectares of trees will be required to bind that carbon into
>wood?
>How much would it cost to sequestrate that carbon for ever?
Oh a little backofanenvelope guestimate. What fun.
Don't know a thing about hens. Absolutely zilch.
Where to start? Lessee, say they need 2% of bodyweight for maintenance
and 2% for production and they weigh 2 kilo then 100k hens weighs 200
tons and needs 8T DM per day.
Let's guess 75% of that is respired away so 6T carbohydrate (say) per
day.
Hmm CH2O mol wt is 30 which produces one of CO2 mol wt of 44 so that's
1:1.5 or about 9T CO2 per day or about 3000T per annum -+lots (maybe
within a factor of about 2000 to 6000T?).
Carbohydrate requirement is 8T/day or about 3000T/yr.
Carbohydrate respired is about 2300T worth a year.
Since chickens don't eat trees the second question is plain silly.
2300T with a yield of 7.5T/Ha (I cut it down to allow for some low
yielding protein crops) requires 300Ha just for the grain. However with
a TOTAL harvest index of 50% (usually 50% above ground, and total root
production equals total above ground so really I should use 4:1, but I'm
being generous) one should count the straw so the answer is 150Ha of a
barely acceptable wheat crop.
Since these hens will produce one egg a day, 100k hens will produce
about 35000k or 35M eggs a year so that's pretty impressive.
Doesn't sound right, either. Hmm, 100g of grain per egg? Yeah, not so
far off I expect. It's mostly water and a bit of limestone.
I suppose I ought to have used a calculator.....
How much to sequestrate it for ever?
If we do that, and stop burning fossil fuels then CO2 levels in the
atmosphere will drop. So this question is loaded in trying to get you to
believe that hens are responsible for CO2 emissions. In fact they are
part of the carbon CYCLE. Hens eat grain produce CO2 which is used by
the crops to produce more grain to feed to the hens that produce the CO2
to feed the crops that use the CO2 to make carbohydrates to feed the
hens.
In short the poser of the question doesn't know much about CO2.
Or, worse, deliberately trying to misdirect.
Anyhow, taking up his question. 300Ha of wheat produces enough fixed CO2
to feed the hens and provide an equal amount of straw (ie it fixes twice
the amount of CO2). 300Ha should produce about 2300T of straw. Currently
ex-field cost of straw in the UK is about $30/ac (3T/ac straw remember)
or say $75/Ha so the total ex-fm cost would be about er, um, say $25000.
Now one could use this as insulating board instead of plastic foam and
sell the result at a profit so I guess the cost is negative: you make a
return.
No big deal then.
--
Oz
João José Marques
> Or, worse, deliberately trying to misdirect.
I didn't see his message that way. I guess he's just trying to
illustrate the problem. Had he addressed automobiles, shoes, or any
other industrialized product instead of hens, you would have seen
clearly what his point was.
Joao Jose Marques
Oz
<jmar...@purdue.edu> writes
Not really. The products above typically use fossilised fuels as energy
sources and thus convert fixed carbon into CO2. The biological CO2 cycle
is one of the very few renewable resources in that (excepting
burning/manufacture of fossil fuels, volcanic eruptions and some long
lived ocean processes) it is indeed cyclical. Hens are fed food crops
grown using atmospheric carbon and so their net contribution to
increasing the world's CO2 level is nil.
Had he considered use of fossilised fuel sources it would thus be a
different matter. Use of an inappropriate example merely confuses the
issue for those who poorly understand it. Strangely there seems to be a
lot of people who poorly understand it.
--
Oz
Larry Caldwell
O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk says...
> Since chickens don't eat trees the second question is plain silly.
Actually, the answer for young trees would be very equivalent to the
answer for crop land, with the caveat that mature forests reach a carbon
steady state until they burn down. Young forests are quite efficient at
building biomass, which is where all the carbon goes.
The problem with sequestering carbon in wood is that wood decays or burns
easily, releasing its carbon back into the atmosphere. However, if you
can fabricate wood products with a mean lifetime of centuries, the carbon
will remain sequestered for the life of that artifact.
The fact remains, there is no way that biological processes can keep up
with the huge amount of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere from
fossil fuels. We were exceeding biological sequestration two centuries
ago, and are completely overwhelming it now.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk says...
> Not really. The products above typically use fossilised fuels as energy
> sources and thus convert fixed carbon into CO2. The biological CO2 cycle
> is one of the very few renewable resources in that (excepting
> burning/manufacture of fossil fuels, volcanic eruptions and some long
> lived ocean processes) it is indeed cyclical. Hens are fed food crops
> grown using atmospheric carbon and so their net contribution to
> increasing the world's CO2 level is nil.
Sorta. Modern industrial agriculture has been characterized as a very
efficient means of converting fossil fuels into food. Certainly most of
our fertilizers consume major amounts of natural gas to synthesize.
It's sort of silly to blame the chickens, though. Eliminate 4 billion
people and we could go back to doing our farming with 400 million horses
and oxen. Then we would have plenty of fertilizer.
-- Larry
Oz
Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> writes
>Actually, the answer for young trees would be very equivalent to the
>answer for crop land, with the caveat that mature forests reach a carbon
>steady state until they burn down. Young forests are quite efficient at
>building biomass, which is where all the carbon goes.
I don't know enough about forestry to make a definitive comment but
someone here who did pointed out that considerable increases in
bioproduction were produced by fertiliser applications from time to time
(every several years). Since efficiency improvements due to nitrogen (in
particular) are manyfold in crops one might expect a similar increase in
forestry, particularly when the plants are small.
OTOH he did say that nitrogen recycling in trees is very efficient so
presumably once they have sequestered enough, further amounts required
are very small (ie replacement amounts) at optimal growthrates.
--
Oz
Oz
Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> writes
>Sorta. Modern industrial agriculture has been characterized as a very
>efficient means of converting fossil fuels into food. Certainly most of
>our fertilizers consume major amounts of natural gas to synthesize.
The three major fertilisers (which must account for 98%+ of tonnage,
although sulphur is coming up fast) are:
Potassium: Mined. Fossil fuel consumption required: very low indeed.
Consumption of fossil fuel: negligeable.
Phosphorus: Mined. Processed into triplesuper in a very efficient
process in order to reduce haulage costs.
Fossil fuel required: very low.
Consumption of fossil fuel: very low.
Nitrogen: Fixed from air: Fossil fuel consumption: very high.
Fossil fuel typically used is flare-off gasses.
ADDED fossil fuel consumption medium (some use natural gas).
Consider:
Pessimistically under UK conditions 200kgN produces 5T extra grain, 5T
extra straw and 5T to 10T of extra rootsystem biomass. Providing we can
burn 5T of straw to obtain 200kgN (I believe that if it was done as a
proper industrial process one whould achieve better than 1T straw to
make 200kgN) we are well in positive return. The net result is that
nitrogen use REDUCES the overall fuel 'cost' and results in a net GAIN.
Currently in many places nitrogen fertiliser is made from hydrogen and
methane that used to be flared. So ecologically it's better to use these
waste products to make nitrogen and increase bioproduction than to burn
them wasefully as waste products. Another gain.
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <xx8pxYAO...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>,
> O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk says...
>
> > Not really. The products above typically use fossilised fuels as energy
> > sources and thus convert fixed carbon into CO2. The biological CO2 cycle
> > is one of the very few renewable resources in that (excepting
> > burning/manufacture of fossil fuels, volcanic eruptions and some long
> > lived ocean processes) it is indeed cyclical. Hens are fed food crops
> > grown using atmospheric carbon and so their net contribution to
> > increasing the world's CO2 level is nil.
>
> Sorta. Modern industrial agriculture has been characterized as a very
> efficient means of converting fossil fuels into food. Certainly most of
> our fertilizers consume major amounts of natural gas to synthesize.
>
> It's sort of silly to blame the chickens, though. Eliminate 4 billion
> people and we could go back to doing our farming with 400 million horses
> and oxen. Then we would have plenty of fertilizer.
As I recall the numbers the terrestrial plant C and C in the atmosphere
recycling process involves less than 0.1 % of the total C the balance resides
in the oceans, fossil fuels, ( methane hydrates if you don't include them as
fossil fuels ) and carbonates. In fact most of the C is in methane hydrates if
you can believe USGS figures. ( although I'm not sure they have given
carbonates the scrutiny it deserves ) so IMO the amount of atmospheric C may
not as big a factor as us terrestrial dwellers like to think as far as over
all global warming goes." The tail seldom wags the dog it is usually the
other way around "
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> -- Larry
Larry Caldwell
O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk says...
> I don't know enough about forestry to make a definitive comment but
> someone here who did pointed out that considerable increases in
> bioproduction were produced by fertiliser applications from time to time
> (every several years). Since efficiency improvements due to nitrogen (in
> particular) are manyfold in crops one might expect a similar increase in
> forestry, particularly when the plants are small.
Sort of. Best efficiency of nitrogen in forests comes in young closed
canopy stands. Undergrowth and grasses will outcompete the trees for the
nitrogen else.
> OTOH he did say that nitrogen recycling in trees is very efficient so
> presumably once they have sequestered enough, further amounts required
> are very small (ie replacement amounts) at optimal growthrates.
Yes, one nitrogen application will boost wood production for up to 8
years. More work needs to be done on nitrogen fixing symbiotic
organisms, though. I'm experimenting with various mycorrhizal truffle
species that seem to fix nitrogen in Douglas Fir. Red alder is pretty
good at nitrogen fixing. We're still pretty ignorant about symbiotic
fungi and bacteria in trees.
No matter what you do, trees eventually stop growing. Capillary action
can only hoist water so far, and then the crown dies. For doug fir, the
limit is about 150 feet, or 50 meters. Age at maturity of a well grown
tree is about 90 to 120 years. After that the tree may actually lose
biomass as it sheds limbs and the heart begins to rot. At somewhere
around the century mark, forests simply quit sequestering any more
carbon.
At least that's true of temperate zone forests. I understand that much
of the smoke in Indonesia was caused by combustion of a thick layer of
peat under the trees. Areas that build up depths of organics are
obviously continuing to sequester carbon. You Brits and your peat bogs
are doing the same thing. I've often wondered why we don't get peat bogs
around here. The climate isn't rotten enough, I guess.
-- Larry
Oz
Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> writes
>At least that's true of temperate zone forests. I understand that much
>of the smoke in Indonesia was caused by combustion of a thick layer of
>peat under the trees.
Because they were growing on what was in effect a bog. Eventually
deposition of organic matter raised the level enough for trees to grow
and their shed biomass matched the slow anaerobic decomposition in the
underlying bog.
>Areas that build up depths of organics are
>obviously continuing to sequester carbon. You Brits and your peat bogs
>are doing the same thing.
Nah, all been drained and are thus losing OM at a rapid rate. To the
extent that in some places 30' of organic matter has oxidised down to
the clay beneath.
>I've often wondered why we don't get peat bogs
>around here. The climate isn't rotten enough, I guess.
It simply depends on the rate of oxidation vs the rate of organic
deposition. On really dry thin chalkland you can get peat buildup. On
wpemanently wet bods you can get it also. I believe the generally
**higher** level of OM in US topsoils is because most of the year it's
either too cold or too dry for decomposition to take place. In the UK it
happens pretty much all year so for arable situations 2%OM is pretty
good and 1% is OKish whilst in the US I believe 3-4% is expected in many
parts of the country under permanent arable. Go to the rainforest and
there is virtually no OM in the soil, it degrades so rapidly in the damp
and heat.
--
Oz
João José Marques
That's right! We need more wooden products, not less as some want us to
believe.
> The fact remains, there is no way that biological processes can keep > up with the huge amount of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere from
> fossil fuels.
That's true. I agree with Oz in that modern agriculture is not
responsible for increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere. However,
agriculture may play an important role in alleviating the problem. If
the yearly input of CO2 in the atmosphere were constant, it would be a
matter of increasing the carbon content in crop soils. Obviously,
agricultural practices would have to change and eventually someone would
have to pay for higher food prices.
--
João Marques
João José Marques
No. The low soil organic matter (SOM) content of tropical soils is a
myth. The turn-over is very fast, but the vegetal production is high
enough to keep >3% of SOM. Unfortunately, as we all know, once the
florest is cleared and agriculture is established the SOM decays in a
matter of a few years. Savanna soils have a somewhat lower SOM content,
but even in such ecossystems the soils cann't be considered
organic-matter poor.
Joao Marques
Oz
<jmar...@purdue.edu> writes
Just out of interest what is the standard specification for OM%
sampling? Here we remove all obvious roots, sieve (I don't know the
sieve size) and the sample is to some depth (which I can't remember).
My OM% are based on an 8" (200mm) core because that is the length of my
corer. I know that much grassland in the UK is sampled to 100mm (so
shows very high OM%) but equally I have heard of 250 and even 300mm
cores being used on arable soils. Since OM% changes rapidly with soil
depth in longterm undisturbed soil I can see the possibility for some
confusion here.
I would never consider surface leaf litter to comprise soil OM%, would
you?
In the UK, it is generally considered that farmyard manures break down
by 70-90% during the first year.
--
Oz
João José Marques
> sampling?
Those things are pretty much the same around the world. Unless you have
any specific interest, samples are to be taken from 0 to 20 cm and
sieved through a 2-mm screen.
> I would never consider surface leaf litter to comprise soil OM%, would
> you?
Nope. The litter should carefully be removed during the sampling and the
sample preparation. But you are right about the depth changes. That's
why scientists try to follow standard procedures.
--
João Marques
Oz
<jmar...@purdue.edu> writes
>Those things are pretty much the same around the world. Unless you have
>any specific interest, samples are to be taken from 0 to 20 cm and
>sieved through a 2-mm screen.
Gosh. I am relieved that I am following international standards.
Actually I am not very interested in OM per se (but I'm not objecting).
Much more in the levels of soil nutrients. However I was surprised when
OM% increased as our yields increased and it took me a while to figure
out why.
--
Oz
Jim Wright
Oz wrote:
> It simply depends on the rate of oxidation vs the rate of organic
> deposition. On really dry thin chalkland you can get peat buildup. On
> wpemanently wet bods you can get it also. I believe the generally
> **higher** level of OM in US topsoils is because most of the year it's
> either too cold or too dry for decomposition to take place.
I think it's dangerous to generalise about the US climate, since it
variesfrom tundra to sub-tropical, desert to rainforest. Even where it
applies,
I don't think it's that simple because the same conditions limit plant
growth. So you have to look at the conditions that create a differential
between plant growth and oxidation.
On the Canadian prairies, much of the OM that originally existed
has been lost as the land was cultivated, fertilised etc. Isn't it possible
that the lower values in the UK are from extensive ploughing and
fertilisation, which provides prime conditions for aerobic decomposition?
Certainly the UK fields that stand out in my mind had little OM obvious,
even a few weeks after harvest.
> In the UK it
> happens pretty much all year so for arable situations 2%OM is pretty
> good and 1% is OKish whilst in the US I believe 3-4% is expected in many
> parts of the country under permanent arable.
I wonder if the sampling and testing techniques are similar?
> Go to the rainforest and
> there is virtually no OM in the soil, it degrades so rapidly in the damp
> and heat.
>
> --
> Oz
Oz
writes
> Isn't it possible
>that the lower values in the UK are from extensive ploughing
That certainly is important without doubt. However no-till is
technically difficult in the UK if you cannot burn (and you can't) and
you have significant blackgrass (which you soon get). It is probably
possible to use no-till if the straw is removed but the problem of weed
control is still severe. Remember almost all of the UK grains and canola
is winter grown because spring sowing results in drastically reduced
yields.
>and
>fertilisation,
Not a problem. Indeed the resultant increase in crop biomass was
responsible for the increases in soil OM% thatccurred here.
>which provides prime conditions for aerobic decomposition?
Correct. However there is little realistic alternative (OK disking and
so on, but that amounts to the same thing).
>Certainly the UK fields that stand out in my mind had little OM obvious,
>even a few weeks after harvest.
It's typically 1% to 2% in long arable rotations and 2%-4% in short ones
between long grass breaks. I would agree that soil disturbance is the
major reason for the difference. I exclude fen-type soils here of
course, they can be well over 20% and the ones I have are a pain due to
the severe trace element deficiencies (our pH is around 8).
--
Oz
Martin Howard
> grown using atmospheric carbon and so their net contribution to
> increasing the world's CO2 level is nil.
If those food crops were not used for feeding hens, but for directly feeding
people, would that not reduce the current amount of CO2 emissions?
Martin Howard MRTPI
aran...@gn.apc.org
Ian Staples
>.. Hens are fed food crops
>> grown using atmospheric carbon and so their net contribution to
>> increasing the world's CO2 level is nil.
>
>If those food crops were not used for feeding hens, but for directly feeding
>people, would that not reduce the current amount of CO2 emissions?
If it wasn't for the carbon tied up in chooks there would be more
circulating somewhere else. ;-)
But perhaps there is a small case to be made, looking at the short term,
that we are clearing forests unnecessarily rapidly because we need to
feed chooks as well as people. Consequently, carbon temporarily tied
up (alright, "sequestered" :-) in tree trunks is being released and
used in a quicker turnover cycle involving annual crops and sundry
animals.
I hesitate to ask, in case it spoils a good argument, but has anyone
got any real data on this?
Cheers, Ian S.
Harold Lindaberry
Ian Staples wrote:
You must be kidding ?
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> Cheers, Ian S.
>
> ianst...@THISdpi.qld.gov.au
Oz
>. Hens are fed food crops
>> grown using atmospheric carbon and so their net contribution to
>> increasing the world's CO2 level is nil.
>
>If those food crops were not used for feeding hens, but for directly feeding
>people, would that not reduce the current amount of CO2 emissions?
Nope, hens and humans are all part of the CO2 CYCLE.
^^^^^
--
Oz
Oz
qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <ia...@refer.to.signature.au> writes
>But perhaps there is a small case to be made, looking at the short term,
>that we are clearing forests unnecessarily rapidly because we need to
>feed chooks as well as people.
I'm by no means sure this is true in practice. If the US went vegetarian
how would that stop slash&burn agriculture in the depths of the amazon
basin?
>Consequently, carbon temporarily tied
>up (alright, "sequestered" :-) in tree trunks is being released and
>used in a quicker turnover cycle involving annual crops and sundry
>animals.
True. There will be more biocarbon in a forest than a field.
>I hesitate to ask, in case it spoils a good argument, but has anyone
>got any real data on this?
Data on what?
--
Oz
João José Marques
I don't know. But many Americans seem to think their hambugers came from
cows raised in Amazon pastures.
--
João Marques
Larry Caldwell
> I don't know. But many Americans seem to think their hambugers came from
> cows raised in Amazon pastures.
Sometimes they do, or at least they come from cows raised in the Mato
Grosso. Right now American beef is so cheap the Brazilians aren't much
competition.
-- Larry
Oz
<aran...@gn.apc.org> writes
>A little problem for you to solve:-
>If you have 100,000 hens, how much CO2 will they put into the air during one
>year? How many hectares of trees will be required to bind that carbon into
>wood?
>How much would it cost to sequestrate that carbon for ever?
>
>guesses.
Hey, it's Thursday, where is the answer?
--
Oz
João José Marques
> Grosso. Right now American beef is so cheap the Brazilians aren't >much competition.
Mato Grosso is a Brazilian state mainly covered by savanna. There are
indeed some cattle raising in Para (a rainforest-covered state).
However, as far as I know, most of the meat produced there is sold in
Brazil. Last time I heard, Brazil was having a hard time to sell its
meat to Europe. It seems a number of Brazilian ranchers weren't
vaccinating their cattle against aftose fever (the English name may not
be this), which is a EU requirement.
Since the economical situation in Latin-American seems to have
deteriorated in the last few weeks, you may expect more deforestation to
occur. Brazilians are going to reelect their president next sunday. It's
almost sure he's going to rise taxes and devaluate the Brazilian
currency to make Brazilian products cheaper in international markets.
You may actually end up eating Brazilian hamburgers again in a near
future.
--
João Marques
Larry Caldwell
> However, as far as I know, most of the meat produced there is sold in
> Brazil.
Next time you are at the supermarket, take a look at the canned meat
section. Pick up a can of corned beef, and chances are it will say
Product of Brazil on the can. Once in a while it will say Argentina. I
have never seen one that says Made in USA. Lots of commercial stews and
prepared foods use Brazilian beef too. Shipments of fresh meat are a
problem, but processed meats can go by slow boat.
-- Larry