Category: Regenerative Agriculture

Categories
Carbon Regenerative Agriculture

Prime Future 129: Feature, not a bug.

I hate voicemails. To keep that savagery out of my life, I keep my voicemail box full. Since 2013 a full voicemail inbox has been a feature of my personal system, not a bug.

Now for a slightly unseemly example…Howard Schultz grew his caffeine juggernaut on the then-novel idea of a coffee shop as the third place: home, work, and Starbucks. This required predictability of the customer experience from Starbucks to Starbucks, which obviously required a high degree of standardized SOPs to create that consistency. Doesn’t it seem notable that a company whose stores around the world function so consistently, yet globally its restrooms are so consistently disgusting?

My theory is that Starbucks wants you to walk in the doors for the third-place effect but they don’t want you to linger too long. They need a subtle way to convince customers not to stay too long. IMO, they solve this by not cleaning the restrooms often enough, in a way that is built into company SOPs.

Ergo, disgusting restrooms at Starbucks are a feature of the business model, not a bug.

So, uhh, obviously (😂) our topic today is, WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THE ROLE OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS IN CARBON SEQUESTRATION?

Anyone who grows things for a living, or took even a smidge of soil science coursework, knows that soil is one of those topics that seems simple on the surface but is more complex even than the Alameda/FTX relationship.

Here’s my beef with the carbon sequestration conversation happening across boardrooms and ag conferences everywhere:

It is costly to measure soil carbon. Without a low-cost high-reliability carbon measurement tool, most carbon programs are based on a model, a forecast. To be clear, a model/forecast is just a spreadsheet with calculations built off assumptions…many, many assumptions.

My concern is that these models tend to reduce complex ecological systems' capacity to sequester carbon to the same type of model you might use to forecast widget production in a widget factory.

Say it with me: complexity is a feature of nature, not a bug.

There are likely many factors that affect how much carbon can be sequestered on any given acre of land, including uncontrollables like rainfall.

But a glaring gap in this evolving discussion is the impact of soil type on carbon sequestration. Doesn’t soil type just HAVE to have a huge impact on the amount of carbon sequestered? Yet I don’t hear it discussed as a variable in the carbon convo.

The problem is if carbon models effectively ask something like “are cover crops or <insert management practice> being used on a field?” when the more indicative question is something like “are cover crops or <insert management practice> being used on a field with clay soil and xyz soil properties?”

All soil is not created equal, so there’s zero chance all soil will sequester carbon equally.

If these types of questions aren’t answered in ways that pass both the scientific and common sense smell tests, my concern is that it will be producers who suffer the eventual fallout. (Others in the value chain would suffer that fallout as well but my primary concern is about the impact on producers and consumer perception.)

I asked on Twitter who is working on the connection between soil type and carbon sequestration. The good news is there are definitely folks working on this question, the bad news is that work doesn’t seem to have yet made it into the real world. (Here’s the link to the replies, especially the few scientific papers folks suggested…in case that’s your jam.)

I was originally thinking about soil type as the basic categories of soil texture (sand/clay/loam) but smart folks pointed out that “soil type” is too broad; there are multiple soil characteristics that could impact sequestration.

“@ecology_awesome
@JanetteJoyB @R_C_OConnor @hnw2 @dphuber @brookebosborne Things that come to mind to link soil type and C sequestration are 1) moving beyond texture to explore physical attributes that dictate/predict soil C storage, 2) thinking about C chemistry/type in addition to total amount (including inorganic C) and 3) ensuring we go deep enough”

Not only are those characteristics likely to individually impact carbon sequestration potential, but it seems reasonable to hypothesize that the combinations of individual characteristics would also impact carbon sequestration potential.

“🚜Paul McGill ☘🐑🌳🐂🌾🏏🌽🌲🏉🏇🏽🥐🥩🍻🧶🎾♥️🌏 @PaulBMcGill
@JanetteJoyB Look at it from all the more valuable parts of soil & farming – water holding capacity. Soil structure, drainage, biology, nutrient storage, micro-organism feed source etc etc. ‘Carbon Sequestration’ is just part of all the different processes of soil organic matter”

My biggest takeaway from the replies was that because there's still much we don't understand about individual soil characteristics, there's MUCH we don't understand about the interaction between soil characteristics and production practices that could sequester carbon.

*CDR = carbon dioxide removal

But this might be the punchline:

Chris Tolles @chrismtolles “@JanetteJoyB @LWR_Inc “How do we account for _____?!” is the central Q of almost everything in soil CDR. 😛 TLDR we need to 100x govt investment in fundamental science maybe kinda like this: carbon180.medium.com/why-we-need-a-… cc @carbon_180 @cristelzbq

carbon180.medium.comWhy we need a Soil Carbon MoonshotOur proposal for an ambitious, interagency soil carbon research program

I haven’t read the entire proposal about the Soil Carbon Moonshot but I *loved* the framing of the Executive Summary:

Experts estimate that globally, soils could store up to 5 billion metric tons of CO2 per year, an amount equal to 13% of total annual greenhouse gas emissions. For producers, storing carbon in soil is a pathway to increased revenue, better yields, and strengthened climate resilience.

Despite the potential, there is virtually zero dedicated funding for soil carbon research today and related efforts across the federal government are fragmented. While soil carbon is gaining momentum with policymakers, private companies, and farmers alike, many knowledge gaps remain, and reaching scale will require strategic investments in research.

What remains most acutely unknown is the measurement and verification of carbon stored in our soils from acre to acre. For one, few rigorous soil carbon protocols exist, making it difficult to reliably ensure that carbon stays sequestered over long periods of time.

Existing protocols, to fill in a complete picture of an operation’s soil storage potential, often rely on models informed by insufficient source data to predict soil carbon.

Measurement aside, soil carbon research to date has neglected to explore the economics and real-world implementation challenges that farmers face and has stopped short of developing best practices for the diversity of regions and operation types that makeup US agriculture, including specialty crop, dryland, livestock, and small-scale operations.

If we can advance our understanding of soil carbon — with practices embraced by farmers, tools that accurately measure climate benefits, and incentives grounded in science — the US will be positioned to develop and deploy the next generation of climate solutions for the agriculture sector.

To meet this challenge and scale soil carbon in a science-driven way, we need an ambitious, interdisciplinary, coordinated interagency research program: a Soil Carbon Moonshot (SCM). Only a moonshot program can marshall the necessary resources from across the federal government to pursue ground-breaking research and speed up innovation where solutions may not yet be profitable or scalable.

We’ll return to this soon because the whole ag research economy is something I’ve been exploring, both the history and potential future scenarios.

One last thought. The question of soil complexities & carbon potential is relevant to our recent discussion about the Dust Bowl:

There is a lesson in the Dust Bowl: no matter how much we think we know, we need a heaping dose of humility when it comes to nature and our collective understanding of nature’s systems and complexities.

There’s all that We Know We Don’t Know. Think of how limited our understanding is in many areas of science from the human brain to soil health to human & animal microbiomes. Then there’s all that We Don’t Know We Don’t Know.

But perhaps most humbling, are all the things We Think We Know That Are Yet To Be Proven Wrong.

Like folks in the 1920’s plowing up ground with the confidence of “the rain follows the plow” and the confidence that wheat prices would continue up and to the right. In hindsight and with modern meteorology and agronomy, we know that idea couldn’t have been more wrong.

It’s easy to think how much smarter we are as a society today but I have to assume there are things that we accept as true today that in 100 years, society will laugh at how silly we were for believing some things.

When we're dealing with nature, it's risky to assume away complexity or the interdependencies of ecosystems.

Ecosystem complexity: brilliant feature, not a bug.

(If you can fill in some gaps on the interaction between soil characteristics and carbon sequestration potential, hit reply and shoot me an email with your comments – would love to learn more.)

Categories
Meat Regenerative Agriculture Supply Chain

Prime Future 120: Game over, polyester.

I don’t know if I’m just noticing it more, or if there has actually been a serious increase in buzz around the topic of sustainability and the fashion industry in recent months. Either way, sustainability at the intersection of textiles, agriculture, and oil & gas industries seems to be a *super* complex topic.

I’m no expert in any of this, but all roads lead to livestock so here we are…learning out loud.

Spoiler alert: there are reasons to believe livestock could be a big part of the solution.

Let’s start with a summary of the fashion industry’s sustainability problem, according to Bloomberg:

“The fashion industry might not be the first that comes to mind as a superuser of fossil fuels. But modern textiles rely heavily on petrochemical products that come from many of the same oil and gas companies driving greenhouse gas emissions. Today, in fact, fashion accounts for up to 10% of global carbon dioxide output — more than international flights and shipping combined.

Eighty-seven percent of the total fiber input used for clothing is ultimately incinerated or sent to a landfill. Textiles are the second-largest product group made from petrochemical plastics behind packaging, making up 15% of all petrochemical products.

When it comes to the environmental impacts of the industry, fast fashion is often blamed. But high-end brands originate trends and generate demand for new styles, which are then mass produced by fast fashion companies for a fraction of the cost.

Polyester has overtaken cotton as the main textile fiber of the 21st century, ending hundreds of years of cotton’s dominance. The global market for polyester yarn is expected to grow from $106 billion in 2022 to $174.7 billion by 2032.

Polyester requires a large amount of energy to produce. In 2015, polyester production for clothing emitted 282 billion tons of carbon dioxide, triple that of cotton."

Or as this article framed it:

“Producing clothing and footwear leads to 8 percent of GHGs (greenhouse gases).

The first-mover innovators are guiding the industry out of its linear ‘make-sell-dispose’ approach towards business models that are more circular and eco-friendly. Business model innovations cover reduction, reuse, repair, recycling, and sharing. It transforms the way business is undertaken and value is generated by attempting to drastically limit the resources and material inputs required in the industry’s value chain and minimising the ecological impact of its activities. The new model adheres to the principles of sufficiency and a circular economy.”

Much of the fashion & sustainability “innovation” has centered around re-shaping buying habits, e.g. buying second-hand clothes or buying higher-quality pieces that last longer, with plenty of startups focused on changing how consumers shop for clothes more sustainably. And that drive to escape the fast fashion model makes sense.

But my original question when I started down this rabbit hole was, why is there not more focus on the actual materials used in manufacturing clothes? More specifically, why are natural fibers like wool not playing a central part in the fashion sustainability conversation?

Initial research led me to Woolmark, “the global authority on Merino wool and owns the Woolmark logo, a quality assurance symbol applied to more than 5 billion products.” According to their website, in 1955 ~95% of major textile fibers were natural (wool, cotton, cellulose) and 5% were oil based synthetics.

Today, it’s more like 30% natural fibers and 70% oil based synthetics. 😵‍💫

(Oh, and 10/10 recommend this 1-minute video from their brilliant campaign, “Wear wool, not fossil fuels.” The video is kinda weird but so well done.)

But where I geeked out is watching this 12-minute video about ALL of the potential fiber applications for wool, not just in fashion. Spoiler alert: there are a lot.

First of all, wool prices have been low for decades since they boomed with the Korean War (a lot of soldiers fighting in a cold region meant astronomical demand for wool uniforms to keep soldiers warm) and then bottomed with the post-Korean war erosion of demand for lamb meat AND the explosion of synthetic materials for clothing manufacturing, beginning with polyester.

In the video, the question is asked of what’s the advantage of wool and what are the advantages of plastics. The advantages of wool, among others, are that it’s biodegradable, fire retardant, and odor resistant. Meanwhile, plastics are….cheap.

Where the video gets really interesting is in the description of new technology to create pellets made of wool, Shear Edge, that can be made into thousands of products – basically any product that would otherwise be made from fiberglass. Shear Edge shows examples from kayaks to ice chests to pigments, which go into everything from cosmetics to industrial applications. Pretty wild stuff.

In a world obsessed with natural and renewable, how is a reversion to wool not an obvious mega trend in textiles manufacturing?

This will be interesting to see how it plays out. In 10 years, will natural fibers be at 40% of total textile fibers? 50%? Or are consumer purchase decisions not going to match what they say on surveys about sustainability as a driver of purchase decisions, and polyester maintains its dominance?

In the very real battle between what people say they want and what they are willing to pay for, which will win? TBD.

The most interesting question is, what innovations will drive wool costs closer to those of synthetic fibers to reduce or eliminate the price tradeoff?

Clothing mostly uses fine wool that is softer. Strong or course wool is what’s used for things like carpet, or used to be used for these more rugged or even industrial applications until plastic-based materials took off. And although higher quality meat characteristics tend to be correlated with stronger/coarser wool, that seems like the kind of problem that genetics companies must be tackling, right? Somebody(s) must be working on the beef x dairy equivalent for the sheep industry with meat x wool genetics?

The beauty of broadening applications for wool by applying new technology and processes is that it’s a classic example of using the whole buffalo, so to speak, with what seems like real potential to satisfy customer and consumer demand AND drive market value for farmers.

Or as the Woolmark guy put it “We are taking the waste of low-value wool, and deriving value for farmers with it.”

JR Simplot would be so proud.

And once again, what’s old is new? What a time to be alive 😉

This is obviously the tip of the iceberg so if you are working on any of these topics, please reach out – I’d love to learn more about what’s happening in this space and how and why. For all I know, I’m just a sucker buying the party line from an industry association because I want to believe livestock is the future of everything….

Categories
Regenerative Agriculture

Prime Future 119: “the rain follows the plow”

The Dust Bowl was one of the most economically and ecologically devastating times in American history. Millions of people abandoned homes, farms, and family to escape the terrifying dust storms and their wreckage.

It was the deadly combination of drought, economic depression, and extreme dust storms that destroyed the finances, health, and morale of an entire region. Imagine wearing a mask 24/7 during severe dust storms that lasted several days, including in your home, to reduce the risk of dust pneumonia. Imagine going out to check cattle and finding a few more each time that had suffocated…from dirt.

It wasn’t just farmers that were wiped out, entire communities were decimated.

I’ve read a decent amount about how gut-wrenching life was for people who lived through the Dust Bowl but only recently watched the Ken Burns documentary which highlights the economic context around the Dust Bowl.

The Dust Bowl followed a time of never-before-seen economic prosperity, during and after World War 1: the roaring 20’s.

Meanwhile, the innovation of all innovations was rapidly changing the agricultural economy: the tractor. The tractor enabled American farmers to cultivate more acres, primarily wheat.

With the global economy soaring, wheat exports were soaring and with it, wheat prices.

Keep in mind the 1920’s were less than 40 years since buffalo had been cleared from the Plains, and less than 20 years since the last cattle drives through the midsection of the country. The Plains were still largely a grassland & grazing ecosystem…until the tractor came along.

And wheat was less than 15 years old as a primary commodity across the heartland of the US. Commercial-scale farming across the plains was still a relatively new experiment; wheat as a cash crop was still a relatively new experiment.

As the price of wheat went up, so did the number of acres plowed to supply what seemed like insatiable global demand. This happened rapidly as 11 million additional acres were plowed within 5 years.

Because the law of supply and demand is immutable, wheat prices dropped as wheat production exploded.

As the price of wheat dropped, farmers plowed more acres to make up for lost revenue.

Meanwhile, the broader economy was feeling the weight of the Great Depression. Wheat prices dropped further.

And somewhere in the midst of that decrease in demand and increase in supply, a severe drought hit the center of the country and settled in.

But that wasn’t supposed to happen.

The prevailing mantra of the era was, “the rain follows the plow”.

In 1933, the same year there were 38 multi-day dust storms that ravaged Oklahoma and surrounding areas, along with crop-stopping drought.

Of course, we know that “the rain follows the plow” was a laughably incorrect notion, it was wishful thinking at best.

So, why is a newsletter written for forward-looking innovators digging up 100-year-old history?

Because I believe, like much of history, there is a lesson in the Dust Bowl.

The lesson is this: no matter how much we think we know, we need a heaping dose of humility when it comes to nature and our collective understanding of nature’s systems and complexities.

There’s all that We Know We Don't Know. Think of how limited our understanding is in many areas of science from the human brain to soil health to human & animal microbiomes.

Then there’s all that We Don't Know We Don't Know.

But perhaps most humbling, are all the things We Think We Know That Are Yet To Be Proven Wrong.

Like folks in the 1920’s plowing up ground with the confidence of “the rain follows the plow” and the confidence that wheat prices would continue up and to the right. In hindsight and with modern meteorology and agronomy, we know that idea couldn’t have been more wrong.

It’s easy to think how much smarter we are as a society today but I have to assume there are things that we accept as true today that in 100 years, society will laugh at how silly we were for believing some things.

We have to be curious in the face of nature’s complexity, as curious as we are convicted about the things we think we know.

This becomes really practical really quickly when it comes to topics like climate change and regenerative agriculture…and relevant for all sides of these debates where conviction tends to run really high.

And yet, what’s old is new…

I recently found this photo of my grandmother from 1946. She grew up in southwest Oklahoma, on a crop and livestock farm. (My great-grandfather was known as a lunatic farmer for all the innovative things he did while farming. Yes, his name was Prime and yes, the name of this newsletter is a hat tip to him💙.)

One of the lunatic things he did was early adoption of cover crops to promote soil health, including vetch. The newspaper clipping went on with ideas that are now very familiar:

Shane Thomas of Upstream Ag Insights recently wrote a fantastic piece, Regenerative agriculture doesn’t have to be contentious:

What is a better approach in my mind is to break down “regenerative ag” into its component parts and seek to better understand each of them and where a farmer can implement small changes by field or farm vs. wholesale telling farmers to “be regenerative” when what regenerative is a bundled system of practices.

It’s worth remembering, a broke farmer is unlikely to be a regenerative farmer. Some practices, like say fall seeded cover crops need to be assessed in the context of the most limiting factor to produce a profitable crop too: if rain is a significant constraint, that might not be the place to start!

This is the benefit of breaking things down into their components: it changes the discussion from an “all or nothing” conversation to a “here’s a starting point and basic roadmap” which is much more palatable for everyone involved.

The problem is that these topics can easily turn from hypotheses with nuanced complexity, to oversimplified & unexamined dogma.

To say regenerative is the answer without a clear definition of what regenerative agriculture is or how it’s measured, is as misguided as saying regenerative is not the answer even though most farmers utilize at least some regenerative practices.

To Shane’s point, even in 1946, cover crops were one example of many practices identified as good for the soil AND good for the bottom line, in certain contexts.

So, here's to curiosity. Here's to learning. But just as importantly, here’s to being able to un-learn when that’s what the moment calls for.

Because the rain definitely does not follow the plow.

What’s 1 thing we assume to be fact in today’s ag industry that you believe time and science will prove wrong?