RESEARCH REVIEW: Climate Change Solution

Cultivation takes fuel, true, but there's also fossil fuel used to make N fertilizer (natural gas) and pesticides...and in hauling them to the farm and applying them. We're working on the no-till roller to give organic farmers no-cultivate weed management options, and conventional no-tillers a way to use cover crops and to eliminate or cut back on herbicides, while adding soil carbon.

Organic farming, using compost, can lock a ton of carbon in the soil each acre each year. Chemical no-till can't do that, and doesn't create soil that holds water in drought or has rich biological life as well as mature organic soils. So when you look at the overall ecological impact, organic has some strong benefits.

Thanks for the comment.

Greg B.

Mr. Lempriere,

Thanks for your note. Please describe the cropping program where your new tool seems to be the most suited. I'm interested in how cover crops are included, whether it is necessary to use burn-down herbicides.

Greg Bowman
greg.bowman@rodaleinst.org

We would very much like to work with you all to advance our efforts to expose our company and goals. Through extensive research and advanced engineering, Vesco Agricultural Technologies Inc. has developed superior no-till farming equipment that produces higher yields, addresses the catastrophic loss of topsoil, and increases carbon sequestration, helping farmers meet growing global food and biofuel demands in an environmentally sustainable manner while producing valuable carbon offset credits.

We hope to hear from you and we look forward to working together to do our part.

WWW.VESCOCANADA.COM

I don't think that organic farming is necessarly better for the enviroment. If you plant corn, you have to cultivate it every so often so the weeds don't take over. And when you have to cultivate it you use more fossil fuel than conventional farmers.

This is picking up on the two messages by Gary Frase. I have just read a fine 18 December blog by Carl Pope of the Sierra Club that seemed to be linking Rodale and Biochar. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/thinking-big-is-getting-b_b_1521...). But digging more deeply, I suspect that Rodale's has not yet done work on Biochar. Just in the last few months, we have seen a major endorsement of biochar by Jim Hansen (NASA) and nice stories in the National Geographic and Time magazines. I hope we can hear soon that experiments are underway at Rodale - so at least that could be part of news stories. Obviously, you should not endorse something you have not tested - but this is too big an opportunity to slip by, when you have come out so strongly on other aspects of combining agriculture and sequestration. Ron

Dear HommeVert

Our Farming Systems Trial has specifically contrasted Organic and Conventional Corn and Soybean farming systems. In terms of soil quality measured in terms of soil accumulation of carbon and nitrogen which otherwise are potent Greenhouse Gases. In this trial organic farming has a welll proven track record which is supported by independent researchers at land grant Universities and Federal laboratories.

We have 28 years of valid data from replicated, randomized and statistically analyzed results which support the true merits of the production systems we have been crucial to developing.

We accept that no till agriculture can have a number advantages particularly in the ability to cut labor and speed production practices. For this reason we have been working to combine organic agriculture with no till to get the best of both worlds.

We do not believe that GM crops are necessary and believe that they defer the needed emphasis on soil quality. Soil quality is at the core of organic farming.

This concentration on soil quality is where the big gains in Greenhouse Gases and environment are available not just by stopping tillage alone.

We have no intention to Green Wash what we do.

With this said we do not align with depending on Genetically Modified crops depending on herbicides, using fungicides, insecticides and synthetic fertilizer are well documented for their untoward effects on life.

In organic agriculture we must stimulate soil life to be productive.

We particularly enjoy feeling safe on our farm without donning the protective suits used for metering out the toxic cocktails that non organic farming depends on.

We would encourage you to think about this for your health, the health of family and for health of natural life we all depend.

We also like the idea of getting substantial premiums on commodity prices to grow organically allowing a better style of life and less need to manage large tracts of land.

Hope this provides some food for thought.

Respectfully Yours,

Paul Reed Hepperly
Director of Research
Rodale Institute

Dear Gary,

Thank you for the interest in our work on Carbon sequestration. The use of biomass as a source of clean hydrogen and carbon rich soil amendment is very encouraging. I think we need to continue to keep this on our monitor and appreciate your interest in producing a new energy future which will also regenerate our climate and environment.

Best Regards,

Paul

I write as a repsonse to the first posting. For some one that whats to promote GMO crops Have you ever had question like why doesn't Monsanto develope a corn variety that can produce it's own nitrogen like lemgumes, or produce a toxin like some weeds species do to increase it's competive edge over weeds.No I guess you haven't thought about that becuase that would less chemicl fertlizer, and herbicides from Monsanto and lost profit.
It brings me back to a time that we were taking a trip to Africa in the early 1990's and visiting foster child at the time. This is where the irony lies you see our foster child's mother was selling her own cotton she grew along with vegtables, and selling eggs getting about $20 profit a year growing organic, now on our farm which about 160 acres was doing conventional farming for years and after paying off fuel chemical fertlizer, pesticides, and herbicides we got 0 Profit nothing not even a penny.
After checking up your blogsite it's pretty clear you don't grow any sort of food for yourself, or have anyone from your family that does any farming, or even give a damn about the environment. So if for what ever reason you decide to get married and have childern you might what to think that 50, 75, or 100 years from now if any Grand childern that might occur won't be having the luxury you have today because it will be gone.
What the people at the Rodale Institute are doing is developing a farming system that uses less petruleum which involves alot of organic farming practices.

Contrary to your claims (as believable as any Exxon-funded study that suggests fossil fuels are good for the climate) the vast majority of the scientific evidence shows that "organic" farming is far worse for the environment on every measure: GHGs, nitrate pollution, acid rain, fossil fuel use, animal welfare, food nutrients.

If you truly want to prevent climate change, start promoting no-till agriculture with GM crops!!

I am always very grateful for the work at the Rodale Institute, especially in pursuit of solutions to climate change. But I have observed little or no activity on the subject of biochar sequestering. There was one mention by Dr. Paul Hepperly in 2005 "Carbon is the Key". I think this is a field in which Rodale ought to be doing research. The possibility of producing a sustainable, renewable source of energy, wood gas, and a rich soil amendment, biochar, from biomass has immense potential for reversing global warming. The earth's terrestrial flora alone is capturing solar energy in carbon bonds at a rate 3-6 times the energy use of the whole world. Anyway I hope this might be a poke in the right direction.