Mining Carbon Down on the Farm

By Dan Morgan

Wheatland, Wyo. – This region of the country was built from

selling coal, gold, lead and other minerals buried in the ground.
Now some farmers and ranchers are betting there is treasure in yet
another element below the surface: carbon.
At this point, it is still a long-shot gamble.
In the last two years more than 9,000 cattlemen and crop
growers nationwide--including hundreds in this part of the western
Great Plains—signed contracts to farm in ways that supposedly
will capture and store nearly 5 million tons of carbon a year.
Industries that spew the climate-threatening greenhouse gas into
the atmosphere were offering as much as $7 a ton for these
“offsets” last year, to counteract the impact of their emissions.
But since then, in a boom and bust move that might shock
even an 1890s gold speculator, prices have plummeted to as low as
10 cents a ton.

The sudden collapse, which officials at the Chicago Climate

Exchange blame on the economic downturn and uncertainty over
the future of climate legislation, has left many farmers with
commitments to sell carbon and few buyers. It has also raised
questions about the economic soundness of the mandatory system
of carbon trading at the heart of climate change legislation before
Congress.
Even so, there are strong indications that carbon is here to
stay as a factor in the business calculations of farmers and ranchers
across the American farm belt. The reason is that relatively new
and sophisticated agricultural practices that offer a better economic
return may also store more carbon in the soil.

Banking Car bon?

Against conventional wisdom, for example, soil scientists

have found that intensive grazing can improve the health of native
grasses in the West, and increase carbon by as much as a quarter of
a ton a year per acre.
“You don’t have to be sold on global warming to do this,” said
Larry D. Cundall, 60, a Wheatland, Wyo., cattleman who qualified
last year to sell about 2000 tons of carbon a year from the ranch
where he raises Angus and Black Baldy beef.

Larry Cundall…..and friends enjoying meal in one of his

carbon friendly pastures…

Another technique, known as “continuous no till,” avoids

plowing and leaves crop residues in the fields. The method
preserves moisture and nutrients and keeps oxygen in the air from
combining with soil carbon so it can escape as carbon dioxide.
Farmers who follow the practice can qualify for nearly half a ton
an acre of carbon savings.
“There are a lot of co-benefits that come with managing for
carbon,” said Justin Derner, a USDA rangeland scientist at the
High Plains Grassland Research Station in Cheyenne, Wyo. These
include saving water, upgrading pastures, preventing erosion and
strengthening resistance to drought.
There could also be long-term benefits for taxpayers.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has told Congress that income
from carbon-- along with new revenue from farm-based wind
power and local ethanol plants using new forms of biomass—
eventually could replace cash subsidies for farmers.

“Old West,” New Ideas

This sparsely populated area of rolling grasslands crisscrossed

by barbed wire fences and spotted with beef animals still looks like
the Old West but is actually a testing ground for new ideas about
how to make rangeland more sustainable—and profitable.
“What carbon sequestration does is show that ranchers are
good stewards of the land,” said Grant Stumbough, the USDA
resource conservation and development official who has
spearheaded the effort in southeast Wyoming.
Many ranchers still let their cattle roam widely over large
expanses of unfenced range. It was long thought that this avoids
overgrazing and unnecessary disturbance of the fragile covering.
But that view has been challenged by research showing that intense
short-term grazing on smaller fenced pastures results in a more
productive grassland.
Even pasture with short grass can store deceptively large
amounts of carbon because 95 percent of the carbon is in soil and
root systems, Derner said.
 L essons Fro m the B uffalo

Ranchers say they are drawing a lesson from the days when
huge herds of buffalo thundered across the plains, mauling the
prairie, yet leaving the grasslands strong and thriving. Confined to
smaller fenced pastures, cattle act almost like gardeners, spreading
seeds and manure with their hooves and breaking the thin crust to
allow scarce water to filter in.
“The closer we mimic Mother Nature the better” said Rocky
Foy, 54, whose 7000-acre ranch 25 miles from Cundall’s won the
Wyoming Stock Growers Association environmental stewardship
award this year.
Cundall’s decision to follow the new grazing scheme on parts
of his 20,000 acre ranch long preceded the current interest in
carbon. By holding cattle in smaller pastures and moving them
frequently, cattle have time for only one bite at the grass, rather
than many, which gives it a chance to replenish the nutrients in
leaves and roots. Pastures are also grazed at different times of year,
to shift pressure from plants that mature in different seasons. The
result is healthier plants that can withstand drought better. A bonus
is that they absorb more carbon.
He concedes that it is harder work than just letting cattle
roam widely for months. When the grass is growing fast in spring,
he rides out on horseback at least once a week to move cattle to
new pasture. Developing a water source in each restricted pasture
also requires time and money, and the grazing must be monitored
closely to make sure enough grass is left so cattle are not going
back for a second bite.

The New Ra nching

But Cundall, as much scientist as cattleman, has gotten

religion about grass. Touring the ranch with visitors he proudly
points out a diverse mix of species: Western wheat grass, gramma
grass, Little Blue Stem, and June Grass, all desirable.
 Foy has had similar success. More than a decade ago, Foy
instituted the rotational grazing . More recently, he brought in
goats and hired a Peruvian herder to protect them from coyotes.
The goats ate encroaching sagebrush that was keeping sunlight
from reaching grass seedlings and was degrading pasture.
To track progress, he checked the status of his grass at every
foot along a 100-foot test strip. At the start there was often three
inches of bare ground between grass plants. Now the sagebrush has
been cut back and the grass is thick and includes better varieties.
The bonus from these and other steps has been increased
carbon in the soil—and a chance to make money selling 100-ton
“carbon financial instruments” (CFIs) at the Chicago Climate
Exchange.

Vital Mar ke tplace – Or F uture Ca sino?

The exchange was established in 2003 as an early, privately-

run effort to cut down on six greenhouse gases. With no climate
legislation yet enacted, there are no federal limits on emissions.
But those joining the exchange—including companies such as
Ford, Bank of America and Safeway--agreed voluntarily to achieve
a 6 percent reduction in emissions by 2010. They do that by cutting
their own greenhouse gases and buying offsets from farmers,
ranchers and others who can prove they are making savings.
But figuring credits for offsets has been complex, since soil
quality, types of crops raised, rainfall patterns, temperature ranges
and even the depths at which soil is tested can all affect greenhouse
gas levels.
Nonetheless, a committee of soil experts from federal and
state governments and universities established protocols for
converting croplands back to grass, growing trees on agricultural
land, practicing no till farming, and engaging in improved
rangeland management. In connection with pending climate
legislation, farm groups and lawmakers want to consider making
other practices eligible for offsets in the future as well.
 In Wyoming, only 11 counties qualified for rangeland
management offsets because counties with less than 14 inches of
rainfall annually are deemed too dry for grasslands to store
significant amounts of carbon, according to the data soil science
data available.

Ahead o f the Ga me

Last year, Cundall contracted with the National Farmers

Union to sell carbon offsets from 7,500 of his managed rangeland.
The protocol required him to have a formal grazing plan showing
how each pasture was utilized. His grazing patterns had to continue
for five years or he would forfeit a portion of payments previously
made to him. And he was required to builds in enough reserve
pasture to weather a drought, since maintaining his herd was key to
achieving carbon storage targets.
His ranch and his records are both subject to inspection for
compliance by an exchange-approved “verifier.”
Cundall’s contract was bundled with a pool assembled by
National Farmers Union, the nation’s second largest farmers group.
NFU, which supports climate change legislation, is attempting to
sell the offsets through the Climate Exchange. But it isn’t certain
what the return, if any, will be.
The deep recession meant that big polluters such as Ford cut
emissions and needed fewer offsets. That has combined with
uncertainty over the status of Climate Exchange offsets in pending
climate legislation in Congress.

Doubts About Ag O ffsets

Some environmental groups are dubious that agricultural

offsets will result in actual carbon savings and fear the availability
of such credits will provide an inexpensive way for polluters to
postpone cutting emissions: buying offsets will be cheaper than
curbing toxic gases.
 Although the offset protocols of the Chicago Climate
Exchange credit no-till farmers with half a ton of carbon savings a
year, just-released studies by USDA’s Agricultural Research
Service have challenged earlier scientific data showing significant
greenhouse gas savings from that farming practice.
In Minnesota, ARS scientists compared test plots using
aggressive tillage and fertilizer to grow corn and soybeans with
ones using minimum tillage on a four-year rotation of corn, wheat,
soybeans and alfalfa. They found that over one year “carbon
dioxide emissions were no different.”
That could give pause to those developing agricultural
offsets for a climate bill in Congress.
“All these questions have spooked the market at this point,”
said Dale Enerson, the North Dakota Farmers Union official who
manages the program for that organization.
Dave Wagers, 63, who grows corn, wheat, millet and
sunflowers outside Brush, Colo., exemplifies the “continuous no
till” farming that also qualifies for offsets. But he stresses, “We’re
doing it for our economic interests, not for the government.”

Dave Wagers standing in the remains of

this year’s wheat crop….his harvester snipped off
just the tips and left the stems standing.. He’ll
plant his corn crop right into what’s left of the wheat next
spring.. classic no till farming….
 Years ago his dad used a standard moldboard plow, turning the
ground after the annual wheat crop to get rid of debris, then
fallowing the field for a year. But there has been no plowing on the
Wagers’ farm since the mid-1980s.
After wheat harvest, the stems are left standing in the field.
The following spring corn seeds are planted into what is left of the
wheat straw. After the corn is harvested the stalks are left in the
field to decay through the following summer, until a new fall-
planted wheat crop goes in. Although Wagers applies some
chemical weed killers, he never uses plows, discs or cultivators
that break the ground.
The technique conserves soil moisture and forms a mulch that
blocks sunlight, restricting the growth of weeds. Th standing stalks
of corn and wheat provide a break against wind that can hasten
evaporation, and rotating crop varieties creates barriers to plant
diseases.

Carbon: T he Co ming Co mmo di ty

Although this type of farming has spread, especially in drier

regions, USDA officials believe carbon payments could be an
additional impetus. Only 10 to 15 percent of Iowa’s crop acres now
use continuous no till.
But like Cundall’s range management system, continuous no
till requires high-level farming skills and investments in different
types of equipment. “It’s risky and expensive to put in, and you
can’t make any mistakes,” said Wagers.
Still, Wagers said, “I think we’ll see a continuation of this
trend regardless of what Washington does.” Wagers has not
contracted to sell carbon but said, “If it paid enough I’d have to
look at it.”
None of that necessarily bodes well for climate change
legislation in Congress, however. Many farmers and ranchers say
the legislation would raise the cost of fuel and fertilizer far more
than could be earned from offsets. “I’m not a big fan of it,” said
Wagers.
Cundall agrees. “I just see more negatives than
opportunities,” he said.

The Political Battle

Reflecting these concerns, many farm state lawmakers are

opposed to climate change legislation, or are deeply wary of it.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-
Ark.) has called passage in the Senate “a heavy lift.”
Not all farmers will be able to sell offsets. In wetter parts of
the farm belt, plowing is needed to drain soil, so no-till methods
may not be possible. According to a recent study of 98
representative farms nationwide by Texas A&M’s Agriculture and
Food Policy Research Center, most rice and cotton farms in the
South would lose money if House-passed climate legislation
became law. Methods used to grow those crops make it difficult to
store additional carbon.
But with or without action in Washington on climate
legislation, carbon seems certain to emerge as a major agricultural
commodity, alongside wheat, corn and cotton, over coming
decades.

Dan Morgan, a former Washington Post reporter and editor,

is an independent writer specializing in agriculture and energy.
Email: danmorgan1968@gmail.com