UK United Kingdom

Storing carbon in soil: potential opportunities outweigh limits

For several years, and particularly since the advent of the Coalition’s Direct Action policy for reducing emissions, the potential of agricultural soils in Australia to soak up carbon has been widely debated…

It’s expensive to apply nitrogen fertiliser, but there are other ways to store carbon in soils. Jiggs Images

For several years, and particularly since the advent of the Coalition’s Direct Action policy for reducing emissions, the potential of agricultural soils in Australia to soak up carbon has been widely debated. Proponents argue that soils can sequester a large amount of carbon and farmers should be encouraged to, and recognised for, managing their soil to increase this possibility. Others argue soils cannot do the job.

A paper published recently by Lam et al in Nature Scientific Reports - and reported widely - suggests a “direct action” soil carbon plan is “unviable”, as Australian soils are unlikely to offer a low-cost carbon sink.

The authors argue that “the potential [of] improved [management] practices to store C is limited to the surface 0–10 cm and diminishes with time”. They also suggest the cost of nitrogen required to stabilise carbon accrual negates any net profit (based on a carbon trading price of A$3.19 Mg−1 CO2-e in the voluntary market), instead resulting in a “loss of AUD 8–18 ha−1 year−1 for the first 10 years of implementation of the practice.”

This report uses a simple assumption that every kilogram of carbon sequestered requires 100g of nitrogen, following the 10:1 C:N ratio of agricultural soils reported in Carlyle et al. This assumption that the build-up of carbon requires organic matter (including nitrogen) is valid.

However, assuming nitrogen has to be artificially applied for carbon sequestration to work is an oversimplification. There are many management strategies - beyond applying nitrogen as fertiliser - that affect soil’s carbon and nitrogen balance. Soil carbon is increased by better management practices which let organic matter build up.

The Lam study is meta-analytic, combining and contrasting the results of various studies to identify patterns, sources of discrepancies and other relationships between the data. In all of the studies considered in the meta-analysis, except the studies on nitrogen fertiliser, no additional nitrogen was required to achieve additional carbon sequestration. Some of the papers included in the meta-analysis actually promote other conservation methods such as the use of nitrogen-fixing legumes in addition to no-till practices to increase carbon sequestration.

The assumed “cost” of nitrogen application is key to the authors assumption that it is not economically viable to use the soil as a carbon sink. “The N cost for C storage is often overlooked”, they argue, when “assessing the benefit of C credit earned from management practices.”

We agree: nitrogen application may aid carbon sequestration. However, it is not necessary. As the data in the paper itself illustrates, carbon stock in the top 10cm of soil was influenced most by pasture use (140 kg C ha−1 year−1), conservation tillage (139 kg C ha−1 year−1), residue retention (62 kg C ha−1 year−1). Applying nitrogen fertiliser alone provided the lowest increase, at 47 kg C ha−1 year−1.

Table 2 of the paper shows how soil carbon changes at different depths under different management practices. Despite being an illuminating table, it does offer a point of confusion. It shows that even when the preferred method is adding nitrogen fertiliser, more nitrogen has to be added to stabilise carbon storage. How can this be?

This sows uncertainty regarding their concluding economic analysis. The financial returns (or losses in this case) are based on the costs of artificial nitrogen inputs. Yet artificial N applications are not necessary for C sequestration. What is lacking, therefore, is an analysis of financial returns from alternative methods such as sowing legumes and no-till, and the three methods stated in the paper (pasture, conservation tillage, residue retention).

To benefit future research and discussion, Australia would benefit from developing a more robust carbon accounting system that directly measures changes in carbon stock from management practices. Quantifying this relationship would help prioritise management practices for increasing soil carbon stock.

While some scientists may argue the measurement and monitoring of changes in soil carbon stocks is too difficult and imbued with technical uncertainty, progress towards a methodology is underway. Researchers from the University of Sydney have patented a methodology for quantifying soil carbon, which focuses on appropriately designed sampling and a statistical approach that can give credible carbon stocks and its confidence.

Carbon sequestration potential may not be as large as some advocates propose, but current data illustrates it is not as dire as some suggest. In any case, soil scientists would agree that increasing soil carbon improves soil function. Australian soils have on average lost about half their carbon under agriculture and therefore we should strive to put it back.

This article was co-authored by Alisa Bryce. She is a soil scientist and writer with key interests in food and soil security. Alisa currently works with landscape architects and developers to design growing spaces in urban environments, and is authoring a series of popular science books on the importance of soil.

Articles also by These Authors

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

9 Comments sorted by

  1. George Michaelson


    I think the evidence from the scale of CCS funding suggests that even when the prospect of being net-positive cashflow is far off, if the desire to make a pig reach escape velocity is high, you find a lot of people are willing to keep putting gunpowder in the barrel under the pig.

    So, given the N part of LNP, which is probably not that different to the N part of NPK, I suspect that the C part of this plan is going to be put into the soil, irrespective of the NO related fixing part, because the N in LNP will be 'fixed' if this kind of money is pumped into the rural economy.

    Thats a lot of C(ash) to put C(arbon) in the S(oil)

  2. Cameron Wheatley


    I guess the issue is not that soil sequestration won't necessarily work...but that the coalition favours a policy that involves a processes that are 'imbued with technical uncertainty'.

    As opposed to just doing what the rest of the world is doing, and doing what we know works, and that is not throwing the stuff into the atmosphere in the first place by investing in renewable energy. But then I guess that would upset their buddies at the Institute of Public Affairs et al...

  3. John Newlands

    tree changer

    The article doesn't appear to mention emissions of nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas) after applying fertilisers such as urea. This was pointed out by Nobel winning chemist Paul Crutzen. Other methods such as ploughing in green manure use a lot of diesel. Carbon farming looks very much like a form of rural welfare akin to the corn ethanol blending quota in the US.

    I expect Farmer X will be held out as an exemplar of good soil management. Six months later that farm will be baked into a brick pavement by a heat wave with precious little soil carbon in evidence. No matter the spin will carry on. The no.1 priority for emissions is to burn or export less coal and gas. That seems to be lost in all the hype over soil carbon.

    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to John Newlands

      Great comment Mr Newlands

      Note the sugar cane mulch bag in the photo. Where and how did that get there - simple, by the application of hundreds of tonnes of steel machinery and trucks and thousands of litres of diesel.

      The article writers just don't understand that the actual work to put the carbon into the soil will require burning of millions of litres of fossil fuel. The net result, more carbon in the atmosphere.

      Madness, sheer madness.

      Gerard Dean

    2. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      You're looking at the hundreds of tonnes of steel machinery and thousands of litres of diesel to get that bag of cane mulch there - that's fair enough.

      By loading all the costs onto the delivery of that one bag, then the other hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cane mulch are distributed cost-free: magic, not madness.

  4. Dale Bloom


    Does nitrogen addition facilitate a better C:N ration for compositing and formation of humus?

    Also the graphs at Table 2 do not show carbon sequestration for native bushland.

    I see a lot of pasture where all native trees and shrubs have been completely cleared, which seems to me that there is minimal opportunity for natural nitrogen fixing.

    As reported here, removal of native bushland can greatly diminish natural nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil.

  5. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    It's simple. Around 1750 sustainable farming peaked - farmers relied on natural fertilisers locally to hand, their own muscle and that of a few draught animals that lived off the farm produce.

    Then along came the steam engine and railways and steam ships and imported fertiliser and petrol tractor drawn ploughs and diesel trucks. Food production soared because of one thing - fossil fuel energy.

    Take the fossil fuel energy away today and there will be mass starvation, societal upheaval and billions of deaths.

    The above article is an exercise in futility.

    Gerard Dean

    1. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Mr Dean, the above article would indeed be an exercise in futility if its audience failed to grasp that they're talking about doing farming in qualitatively different ways.

      As it happens, there are more readers than yourself - some of whom grasp the concepts under discussion.

  6. Mark Graham


    Do the authors see a role for nitrogen fixing plants such as Acacias in reducing the need for applying fertilisers containing nitrogen?