logo_favicon.svg

Carboneg

#### The higher nutritional value of food from regenerative production is often touted as one of the benefits of this farming method. Until now, however, these claims have lacked wider scientific support. This changed with a recent 2022 study led by David R. Montgomery from the University of Washington in Seattle, which compared soil health and nutrient content of crops grown on regenerative and conventional farms across the United States.

The research results have shown that regenerative farming practices improve soil health and the nutritional profile of crops and livestock meat.

## Do we even know what we're eating? The rich nutritional value of food from regenerative agriculture.
Reports concerning the decline in nutrients from agricultural commodities in recent decades are not rare. Most of the time, this decline is attributed to crop breeding for yield and related attributes. However, a growing body of research is demonstrating that fertiliser management and microbial life in the soil fundamentally affect plant nutrient uptake. This research shows that conventional agricultural practices of intensive tillage, mineral nitrogen fertilisation and pesticide application not only lead to a disruption of the symbiosis between crops and soil life, but also to a lower nutritional value of the crops grown.

## What did the researchers look at in the study?
[This study](https://peerj.com/articles/12848/)* included 8 regenerative and 8 neighbouring conventional farms. The farms were located throughout the USA, namely in the states of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kansas, North Dakota and Montana. The selected fields of the neighbouring farms, which grew the same varieties of the selected crops (peas, sorghum, corn or soybeans), were identical in soil type. The selected regenerative farms utilised holistic management, which combined minimum tillage, maximum use of cover crop and diverse crop rotations, and had been farmed in that way for 5 to 10 years at the time of the survey.

From the nutritional point of view, vitamins (B, C, E and K), minerals (Al, Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, P and Zn) and phytochemicals (total phenolics, phytosterols and carotenoids) were monitored and measured. For the soil samples, the authors assessed the soil organic matter content and the so-called soil health score using the Haney test ([Haney et al., 2018)](https://peerj.com/articles/12848/), which determines microbial respiration over 24 hours, water-soluble organic carbon, organic nitrogen, nitrate, ammonia and phosphate. In addition, a special weak organic acid solution, mimicking the action of root exudates, was used to evaluate the amount of dissolved elements Al, Fe, Ca, P and K as well as nitrate, ammonia and phosphate. These results assess soil microorganism activity and the amount of food readily available to them. They also reveal the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium available to plants and provide an indication of the state of the soil in relation to the cycling of other nutrients.

In addition to this main experiment, the authors also examined (also using the Haney test) the soil health value and nutrient content of cabbage grown on a regenerative vegetable farm in California with the same cabbage variety grown on a nearby organic farm. Another side trial monitored the nutrient content of wheat directly sown into a cover crop stand compared to wheat sown into a herbicide-treated stand after a pre-crop. As a final side trial, the authors compared the fatty acid profile of beef and pork raised on a regenerative farm with meat from a regional organic brand and meat from conventionally raised animals.

## The comparison of plant products from regenerative farms yields positive results
Without exception, the soil on the regenerative farms had more soil organic matter and higher soil health scores according to the Haney test**. Specifically, the soil organic matter content of the regenerative fields ranged from 3-12% (mean = 6.3%), while the conventionally farmed fields had soil organic matter of 2-5% with a mean of 3.5%. Haney scores for regenerative farms ranged from 11 to 30 (mean = 20) and for conventional farms from 3 to 14 (mean = 8). Note: Haney test scores are values from 1 to 50, with a higher score meaning a better result.


Individual nutrient values varied considerably between farm pairs, but on average all eight farm pairs had regenerative crops with:
- 34 % more vitamin K
- 15 % more vitamin E
- 14 % more vitamin B1 
- 17 % more vitamin B2


In addition, the crops from the regenerative farms also had:
- 15 % more total carotenoids
- 20 % more total phenolics
- 22 % more total phytosterols
- 11 % more calcium
- 16 % more phosphorus 
- 27 % more copper

Corn, soybeans and sorghum grown in regenerative agriculture had, respectively, on average 17%, 22% and 23% more zinc, while peas and sorghum had more vitamins and soybeans and sorghum had more copper. On average across all crops, regenerative crops had less vitamin B6 and manganese and soybeans had less vitamin C and several B vitamins (B1, B3 and B6). Overall, more significant differences were observed for cabbage, peas and sorghum than for corn and soybeans.
There were positive results from a side trial which compared the nutritional values of a cabbage variety from regenerative and organic farming (recently transitioned from conventional) as well as the soil health indicators according to the Haney test. On the organic farm, the soil organic matter content was 2.9% and the Haney test score was 9.2, whereas the regenerative field showed almost four times more organic matter and a soil health score three times higher.


![psenice.jpg](/uploads/psenice_6e6c0ba725.jpg)

Regarding nutritional composition, the cabbage grown on a regenerative farm was superior to that grown on a tilled organic field:
- 46% more vitamin K
- 31 % more vitamin E
- 33 % more vitamin B1
- 60 % more vitamin B3
- 23 % more vitamin B5
- 41 % more calcium
- 22 % more potassium
- 66 % less sodium
- 35 % more carotenoids
- 74 % more phytosterols


## The mineral content in winter wheat was found to be many times higher
The last side trial from crop production examined the effect of regenerative agriculture on the mineral content of winter wheat (using the same varieties). Two adjacent fields in northern Oregon were compared, where weed control in between cash crops and total crop rotation were handled differently, but both fields were sown using the direct seeding method. In one field, preemergence and weed control was managed with periodic applications of herbicide (glyphosate) until wheat was planted, and in the other field, a multi-species cover crop mixture was planted and then directly seeded. Mineral fertiliser was applied in the field with herbicide use, while in contrast, compost was applied to the cover crop field.

Wheat in both fields yielded 5 tonnes per hectare. Concentrations of the elements B, Na, Mg, K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mo and Cd were determined. In total, the wheat samples seeded directly into the cover crops had higher mineral contents, with significantly more boron (41% more), magnesium (29% more), calcium (48% more), zinc (56% more) and molybdenum (4 times more), as well as more potassium (26% more) and manganese (35% more) and 33% less nickel.


## Comparison of beef and pork quality from regenerative grazing
The meat samples from each species represented three different types of animal husbandry. For beef, the first sample was from regenerative grazing, where cattle were fed 100 % forage, raised and grazed on restored native prairie and cover crops and fed hay bales in the winter. The second meat sample came from cattle from a regional organic brand that were also fed only forage, but not on regeneratively managed pastures. The third sample was from conventionally raised cattle that were fed corn and soybean meal, silage, and the meal of other conventionally grown grains.

The pork reared regeneratively was raised on pasture after weaning and was also offered a mixture of regeneratively grown ground cereals, usually oats, peas, barley and flax. The second sample came from a local regional health-promoting brand which raised pigs in large barns with access to outdoor space, and the pigs were mostly fed non-GMO corn and soybean meal. The final pork sample was from conventional production where pigs were fed conventionally grown GMO corn and soybean meal throughout their lives.

In this study, the authors monitored and analysed the total omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid content, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) and the omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and, in beef, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA).

![skot_face.jpg](/uploads/skot_face_0a2239a44c.jpg)



## The results and effects of regenerative grazing on meat quality

Beef from the regenerative farm had 3 times more omega-3 fatty acids and over 6 times more alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) than conventional beef. Regenerative beef also had 50 % to almost 75 % higher content of the trio of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (EPA, DPA and DHA) and only two-thirds the content of omega-6 fatty acids as conventional beef. Thus, the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 was one-fifth that of conventional beef (1.3:1 versus 6.2:1). Values for the regional brand of grass-fed beef were intermediate. The CLA content was 2-fold higher in regenerative beef compared to organic beef and more than 3-fold higher compared to conventional beef. Pork from the regenerative farm had over 9 times more omega-3 and 3 times more omega-6 fatty acids, so the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 was one-third as high as conventional pork. Pork from the regenerative farm had more than 11 times more ALA, almost 2 times more EPA, 3 times more DPA and more than 4 times more DHA than conventional pork.

## Study conclusion: healthier soil produces more nutritious crops

Given that the farmers involved in this study were selected on the basis of their success in applying regenerative farming methods, the authors of the study believe that the differences described above can be considered an upper limit to what can be achieved quickly by following the principles of this farming approach. Nevertheless, the consistently higher micronutrient content of regeneratively grown food shows the enormous potential of these soils and soil conservation practices, which, as shown, lead to improvements not only in soil quality but also in the nutritional profile of crops and livestock meat.

It is also interesting to note that each of the regenerative farms was previously managed conventionally and the soil organic matter content was previously similar to that of the paired conventional farm. The resulting analyses show that these practices **can increase topsoil organic matter content and improve soil health** **just a few years after the complete implementation of regenerative practices**. In addition, consistently higher soil health scores on regenerative farms indicate the potential for greater nutrient cycling compared to conventionally managed fields.

Although the sample set was small, all three areas of study mentioned above (farm pairs, cabbage comparison and wheat trials) found that, compared to conventionally grown commodities, regeneratively grown crops contain higher levels of key secondary metabolites, vitamins and minerals important for human health. Despite considerable variability between crops and specific farm pairs, the wheat study showed that conventionally grown grain had more Cd, Ni and Na, elements detrimental to human health, while regeneratively grown grain had more micronutrients beneficial to human health. It appears that healthier soils with more soil organic matter and microbial life can increase the micronutrient and health-promoting phytochemical content of harvested products by affecting nutrient cycling and biochemical signalling.

The fatty acid composition and ratios of the regeneratively grazed cattle were significantly better than those of the other rearing methods. It is now understood that forage-based diets compared to cereal-based diets affect the fatty acid composition of meat. Unfortunately, studies comparing meat quality from animals reared on regenerative farms and on conventional pastures are still scarce. The resulting differences show that better soil conditions can have a major effect on meat quality and nutritional value.

## It is important not only what we eat, but how we grow it.


The mechanisms and relationships by which regenerative agriculture practices, and hence the soil microbiome, affect the nutrient content of food, and thus human health, deserve more attention not only from experts but also from society as a whole. Only in the future will we be able to fully appreciate the impact of the activities of the soil microbial community on plant, animal and human health. Above all, soil health seems to be strongly influenced by the level of secondary metabolites, which are known to reduce the risk of various chronic diseases and to have a major impact on immunity, overall human health and, most likely, on all other organisms that are entwined in the soil. However, the interconnectedness of soil ecology, the human microbiome and other related topics will be discussed in more detail in subsequent blog posts.

The results of this study, perhaps controversially, point to soil health monitoring as a more appropriate metric for assessing the impact of agricultural practices on the quality and nutritional profile of plant and animal products than the usual division of food to either conventional or organic. Although plant products are currently mainly evaluated based on technological qualities, it can be expected that in the coming years, there will be increasing pressure and demand for a more detailed assessment of the nutritional qualities of food as described above. Clearly, one of our last options to combat the modern epidemic of chronic diseases is to rethink not only what we eat, but also how we grow it. **Regenerative agriculture not only offers a solution to the burdensome issues of modern agriculture and our society, but it also comes with the pleasant bonus of better quality food.** It, therefore, brings forth a very logical equation - **healthy soil equals healthy people**.

*Do you have questions or comments about this article? Let us know by e-mail at [praha@carboneg.eu](mailto:praha@carboneg.eu) ! We will be happy to discuss the topic with you individually.*


1. Montgomery DR, Biklé A, Archuleta R, Brown P, Jordan J. 2022. Soil health and nutrient density: preliminary comparison of regenerative and conventional farming. PeerJ 10:e12848 https://peerj.com/articles/12848/
2. Haney R.L. et al. 2018. The soil health tool—theory and initial broad-scale application. Applied Soil Ecology 125(12):162-168. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139316303663?via%3Dihub



Výživová hodnota potravin z regenerativního zemědělství je vyšší

large_shutterstock_1576249396.jpg

medium_shutterstock_1576249396.jpg

small_shutterstock_1576249396.jpg

thumbnail_shutterstock_1576249396.jpg

vyzivova-hodnota-potravin.jpg

The Effects of Regenerative Farming on Food Quality

#### From time to time, some unwelcome climate news like that published in recent months reminds us why we do all of this. Why we at Carboneg are trying to change the engrained systems of farming, to talk about erosion and soil degradation and to encourage farmers to step out of their comfort zone and experiment with unconventional practices. Because we are not *only* interested in healthier, more stable and sustainable food production. We also care about the active removal of carbon (or CO2) from the atmosphere, through which regenerative farmers are helping to put the brakes on global warming and the rapid climate change we have been facing in recent years.

In this post, we've summarised some interesting recent climate data and statements. We've also added an explanation of the link between climate and agriculture.

## Record concentrations of greenhouse gases in the air
Last October, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released an alarming report for 2021. 
The concentration of the main greenhouse gas (CO2) rose [by 2.5 parts per million (ppm)]( https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/more-bad-news-planet-greenhouse-gas-levels-hit-new-highs) to a total of 415.7. That level was last seen on Earth at least three million years ago. It corresponds to a significantly higher average planetary temperature, one which our ecosystems are not evolutionarily prepared for. The concentration of methane (CH4) is also at record highs. It has never risen as dramatically as it had in 2021 since systematic measurements began in 1983. Global methane concentrations are projected by the WMO to rise by 18 to 1,908 ppb in 2021, equivalent to 262 % of pre-industrial levels. As the WMO reports, all greenhouse gases combined have caused an increase of 1.1 °C in the average global temperature since the late 19th century.


Also in October, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published a summary report showing that if the world does not change its attitude to the environment, the climate will, by the end of the century, warm up [by 2.8 °C]( https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022) compared to pre-industrial times. In the past, countries have pledged to limit warming to no more than 2 °C. The AP reports that experts say the approach of the G20, which account for 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions, will be key. 

## Extreme glacier loss is not just a result of warming

Another disturbing testimony to a significantly warmer climate came from Neil Entwistle, a professor at the University of Salford, who said in an October [report for The Conversation](https://theconversation.com/glaciers-in-the-alps-are-melting-faster-than-ever-and-2022-was-their-worst-summer-yet-189197) that the summer of 2022 was the worst on record for Alpine glaciers. They were melting faster than ever before.

> “Over the 19 years that I have visited and studied the glaciers in Switzerland, I have not seen a summer like 2022. The scale of change is staggering.”

said Neil Entwistle, adding that glaciologists like him used the word "extreme" to describe an annual ice loss of about 2% of the total glacier volume. Swiss glaciers, for example, lost an average of 6.2% of their ice in 2022. This change is therefore truly staggering.

Several factors are to blame, he says. The Alps received very little snowfall the previous winter. The glaciers were therefore not well insulated against the coming summer season of melting. The spring was particularly harsh because natural atmospheric weather patterns brought Saharan dust into Europe and covered the Alpine landscape. Since sandy dust absorbs more solar energy than snow (which is white and therefore more reflective), the orange-coloured snow melted faster than ever before. Later that summer, due to global climate change, all of Europe faced unprecedented heat waves, which accentuated the situation.

However, this was not the case in the previous century. Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century, glaciers around the world have not been accumulating, but rather melting, but the annual protective layers of snow used to be thick enough to compensate for summer temperatures and the resulting loss. It is this protective mechanism of glaciers that is becoming less effective as warming and other climate changes progress.

## Time is running out, but there are solutions. Decisions are being made now.

WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said the continued rise in greenhouse gas concentrations, including record acceleration in methane levels, shows the world is heading in the wrong direction. "The needed changes are economically affordable and technically possible. Time is running out," Prof. Taalas stressed. During a recent press conference in Geneva, he also said that the Russia-Ukraine war may even be a blessing from a climate perspective, as it will accelerate the transition and investment in green energy in the long run - despite the fact that fossil fuels are in high demand at the moment and their scarcity is putting us in many difficult situations. "From the 5 to 10-year time scale, it’s clear that the war in Ukraine will speed up our consumption of fossil [fuels, but in the long-term,...] it’s speeding up our green transition” and the search for more efficient solutions, [stated Taalas](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-united-nations-weather-ece2a951b35fe8be9a7090cd93b3a0ac), adding that the energy sector is responsible for three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions.

“A global transformation from a heavily fossil fuel and unsustainable land use dependent economy to a low-carbon economy is expected to require investments of at least US$4–6 trillion a year”, the UNEP report said. In doing so, UNEP has directly expressed its support for so-called carbon farming, or regenerative agriculture, whose practices, among other things, enable the sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. It also called for greater involvement of financial institutions, such as central banks, in the transition to a low-carbon economy, or for the expansion and improvement of the greenhouse gas emissions fee system.
Many of the upcoming steps were discussed by a number of world leaders at the world's largest climate conference, COP 27 in Egypt, where the Czech Republic, thanks to its EU Presidency, has a privileged position among the EU countries. The importance of this event is obvious. As it was said [in an interview by Respekt](https://www.respekt.cz/podcasty/potrebujeme-ukazat-ze-v-eu-neresime-jen-ceny-energii-a-zmena-klimatu-zustava-prioritou) with Deputy Minister of the Environment Jan Dusik and analyst Romana J. Březovská from AMO:
> We now need to show the world that in the EU we are not only dealing with energy prices and the climate remains a priority.
The Green Deal for Europe adopted in 2019 remains a timely, and perhaps even more relevant, EU target, as does the subsequent package of specific measures to reduce EU emissions by 55% by 2030 known as [Fit for 55]( https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/) in 2021.


## The potential of regenerative farming to mitigate climate change

After the oceans, the soil is the second largest natural carbon sink in the world. Unfortunately, the way we have traditionally farmed the land contributes to a large release of carbon into the atmosphere. However, by changing our practices, such as implementing regenerative agriculture or carbon farming, it is possible to store carbon from the atmosphere in the soil. This is provided that the soil is alive and the symbiosis between soil microbiology and plants is functioning. All that is then needed is to exploit the great potential of the wonderfully efficient process of photosynthesis. In this process, green plants "just need" light and water to consume (otherwise problematic from our point of view) carbon dioxide from the air and convert it into useful substances. Photosynthesizing plants split CO2 into O2; the oxygen is released back into the atmosphere, which we then breathe, and the remaining carbon is used to build sugars. The plant expels some of these sugars through its root system into the soil, where they become the fertile building blocks of all living organisms in the form of humus. The carbon thus sequestered then remains in the soil as long as there is life in it and is not uncovered or disturbed by mechanical or chemical processes during intensive farming. It is exactly this minimisation of disturbance of the soil that regenerative agriculture is all about, which you can read about in our [article on the 5 principles of regenerative agriculture](https://carboneg.eu/blog/principy-regenerativniho-zemedelstvi-1).

Up to 52 % of the world's agricultural land is already degraded, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and unfortunately, the condition of the soil is similar in the Czech Republic, as evidenced, for example, by recent [data from VÚMOP](https://statistiky.vumop.cz/?core=account) showing the potential [threat of water erosion to Czech soil](https://eagri.cz/public/web/file/697802/Puda_2021_Web.pdf).

The total arable land area in the Czech Republic is 4.2 million hectares.

> Therefore, in the Czech Republic alone, up to 42 million tonnes of CO2 can potentially be sequestered in the soil each year (at a sequestration rate of 10 tonnes of CO2 per hectare).

"Our goal at Carboneg is to get close to this number and thanks to the ongoing expansion of the project, to surpass it many times over," said Václav Kurel, founder of the Carboneg project, in a [recent commentary for Ekolist.](
https://ekolist.cz/cz/publicistika/nazory-a-komentare/vaclav-kurel-reseni-klimaticke-zmeny-lezi-zemedelcum-primo-pod-nohama#diskuse) 



*Do you have questions or comments about the article? Let us know by e-mail at mailto:praha@carboneg.eu ! We will be happy to discuss the topic with you individually.*

large_6.jpg

medium_6.jpg

small_6.jpg

thumbnail_6.jpg

6.jpg

The years 2021 and 2022 broke climate records. Unfortunately, not for the better.

#### For our 10th episode of the Půdcast, a podcast from Carboneg, we had a captivating interview with Alex Page, owner of the first and, so far, only dairy buffalo farm in the Czech Republic. 

The interview was conducted by Carboneg founder Václav Kurel on the premises of an unusual family farm in Ohaří, 20 km from Příbram. The farm is interesting not only because of the unusual selection of animals, but also because the owner has been practicing regenerative grazing for a few years. In the following Půdcast video, you will not only get to know many fun facts about buffalo breeding, but also Alex’s own personal story. How strong are buffalo? How do they function in a herd? Is it difficult to make mozzarella from buffalo milk? And does Alex like doing it? What does the neighborhood have to say about all of this? Is it difficult to sell buffalo milk products? And would Alex Page go into this business again? Find out below.

You can find the original video on our [Youtube Channel](https://youtu.be/PDAX_ekR1Ok), or you can find the audio version on  [Spotify](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6QeyGfFlXc4HOOeRGDgLLW?si=4a3c8aa2fb324039), [Google podcasts](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy83N2Q3NWY4OC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir8ueB0uf6AhVvkP0HHdNFCEYQ9sEGegQIARAC&hl=cs) and [Apple podcasts](https://podcasts.apple.com/cz/podcast/p%C5%AFdcast/id1608343303?i=1000582266785).


### Video recording of the interview between Václav Kurel and Alex Page (Půdcast)
<div class="videoWrapper">
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PDAX_ekR1Ok" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>



large_IMG_5833.JPG

medium_IMG_5833.JPG

small_IMG_5833.JPG

thumbnail_IMG_5833.JPG

IMG_5833.JPG

This Buffalo Farm is a Paradise for Birds and Dairy Lovers - Thanks to Regenerative Grazing

#### One of the biggest concerns and challenges farmers face when transitioning to regenerative agriculture is weed management. Which practices will suppress weeds and which will support their proliferation? We will focus on that in this article, which gathers information from a vast list of studies and sources.

Conventional agriculture has relied heavily on synthetic herbicides over many decades. Today, however, more attention is being brought to their undesired effects.

Herbicides and their soil residues have a high potential for a negative impact on:
- food safety
- untargeted, yet often beneficial, organisms
- groundwater, thus also on public health
- the environment ([1](https://www.cibtech.org/J-LIFE-SCIENCES/PUBLICATIONS/2014/Vol-4-No-2/JLS-087-099-DADAR-DETERMINATION-TOMATO.pdf)).

As a result of constant exposure to high doses of herbicides, weeds develop resistance to these chemicals ([2](https://www.cabi.org/isc/FullTextPDF/2003/20033037775.pdf)).

Regenerative agriculture is based on minimal soil disturbance, year-round soil cover, and crop rotation. It is generally considered a sustainable alternative to systems involving conventional tillage. However, the application of regenerative agriculture principles changes the dynamics and populations of weeds, therefore modification of weed management methods is often necessary. Knowing your local weeds, their noxious potential, and their reproductive habits are key to developing a successful weed control strategy. 

## Crop rotation as a key factor

In regenerative agriculture, crop rotation is fundamental. It is simultaneously the most influential tool in the fight against weeds. Each plant species creates specific and unique conditions (both biotic and abiotic) which set limits for weed growth. In this way, any given crop species can be considered a filter that only allows certain types of weeds to grow while suppressing others ([3](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232240043_Assembly_theory_applied_to_weed_communities)). If we add different sowing times on top of the rotation of different crops, these filters will alternate and the pressures will intensify, preventing a single weed species to dominate. 

Weeds can thrive when they have a synchronised crop cycle ([4](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0261219494900124),[5](https://benman.sharepoint.com/:b:/s/carboneg/ERWzeacEgDdDg2FHthX-qAQBaLntBT_VRcbz_fyxh-3-uw?e=eGQOQi)). Conversely, weed growth that is desynchronised with crops provides a unique opportunity for its control. Weeds growing in the absence of crops can be removed with a non-selective herbicide, while weeds in the vegetative stage during harvest can be removed before the seed is sown. Crop rotation allows weeds to be controlled at different emergence times, thus preventing a specific type of weed from repeatedly completing its life cycle. 

Various studies ([6](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219414001860?via%3Dihub),[7](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429015300150?via%3Dihub)) confirm that regular crop rotation with different sowing times leads to a reduction in the weed seed bank. Another important aspect is related to preventing the formation and accumulation of weed seeds. When drawing up a seeding strategy, rotations for each field should be designed in consideration of the relevant weed species for that particular field. 

Crops that grow quickly and can beat weeds (such as corn) are an excellent addition to the rotation.

## Cover crops = an effective tool in the fight against weeds

Incorporating cover crops into the crop rotation offers many benefits, such as reduced soil erosion, improved soil structure and fertility, but also the opportunity to use plants with strong weed suppressing capabilities ([8](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43265879_Cover_crops_and_weed_management)). 

*Incorporating cover crops* into agricultural systems prevents the growth and development of weeds by occupying vacant niches (the cover crop takes up the space that would otherwise be available to weeds). 

*Cover crop residues* can suppress or slow down weed germination and growth ([9](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2008.00665.x),[10](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-008-9827-6)), due to both allelopathic and physical effects ([11](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00164.x)). Additionally, plant debris on the soil surface can result in less variation in the soil temperature and reduced light penetration, both of which have been shown to inhibit weed germination ([12](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ecological-management-of-agricultural-weeds/26FC8424411DCC504C1C36972B1C6462)). 


As for specific examples, the contribution of allelopathic cover crops such as rye, subspecies of buckwheat, sorghum, or alfalfa are worth mentioning. Cover crops, including rapeseed (*Brassica napus*) and white mustard, can also prevent weed seeds from germinating and thus prevents their emergence. Legumes are usually not the strongest contenders for weed management due to the nitrogen released by their residues positively stimulating weed growth. 

Instead of leaving a field fallow, even for a short time, it is possible to plant annuals or cover crops that grow quickly and take up space before weeds have a chance to emerge and crowd them out. For example, if the plan is to sow cash crops in early spring, it is possible to choose winter-hardy cover crops, such as a mixture of oats and crimson clover, which die back early. For sowing cover crops in late spring and early summer, it is again possible to use winter-hardy crops, for example, hairy vetch (*Vicia villosa* or *Vicia hirsute*) and rye. Freeze-killed cover crops can be used, for instance, as mulch or allowed to die naturally. 


## Ploughing can encourage weeds - a no-till system is the way to go

Empirical studies suggest that tillage does not affect the reduction or increase of weed seed bank density ([13](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429015300150?via%3Dihub), [14](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232275462_Promotion_of_weed_species_diversity_and_reductin_of_weed_seedbanks_with_conservation_tillage_and_crop_rotation), [15](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232670964_Crop_rotation_and_tillage_system_effects_on_weed_seedbanks), [16](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232691541_Weed_seedbank_community_composition_in_a_35-yr-old_tillage_and_rotation_experiment)). In other words, ploughing your field several times a year does little to reduce, let alone eradicate, weeds on your property. On the contrary! Tilling redistributes seeds throughout the soil profile, which ultimately helps weeds. 

In a no-till system, weed seeds penetrate the soil through slow processes (cracks in the soil, fauna...). Therefore, 60-90% of seeds accumulate only in the upper 5cm of the soil ([17](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/weed-science/article/effects-of-herbicide-management-practices-on-the-weed-density-and-richness-in-dicambaresistant-cropping-systems-in-indiana/EFB02C643279959DA93754B8E910B83F), [18](https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0009764311&origin=inward&txGid=7958c12cf00bb9e19f22fdbcd854849d&featureToggles=FEATURE_NEW_DOC_DETAILS_EXPORT:1,FEATURE_EXPORT_REDESIGN:1)). This may result in a higher rate of predation (eating by animals), which limits the number of available seeds ([19](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4539431#metadata_info_tab_contents)). Ploughing, aka burying seeds, reduces their availability to predators ([20](https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps91-112)). Thanks to no-till, weed seeds accumulate near the surface and rodents, insects, and birds have better access to them. We must not forget to utilise animals as an effective natural tool for reducing the seed bank of weeds([21](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4046750#metadata_info_tab_contents), [22](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4539371#metadata_info_tab_contents), [23](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2010.00807.x))!

> Ploughing buries seeds below the surface, reducing their availability to predators. On the other hand, no-till encourages the accumulation of seeds near the soil surface where predators have easier access to them, thus reducing the number of weeds. 

In contrast with tillage, no-till also promotes biodiversity and predator abundance ([24](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049964414002242?via%3Dihub)). 

Ploughed soil offers better germination conditions for most seeds while providing a stimulus for seeds requiring light for germination or those requiring larger temperature fluctuations ([25](https://www.mssoy.org/uploads/files/weed-seed-bank-fcr.pdf)). Tillage reduces soil resistance to weed root penetration, leading to the establishment, emergence, and growth of germinated weed seeds ([26](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270162268_Conservation_Agriculture_Improving_Soil_Quality_for_Sustainable_Production_Systems), [27](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00836.x)). In other words, more ploughing can mean more weeds. 

Ploughing also allows seed seeds to germinate at a greater soil depth ([28](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4044916#metadata_info_tab_contents)). If the roots of the germinated weed seeds are located directly on the surface of the uncultivated soil, it is difficult for them to penetrate to the lower layers and they will die more easily. 

And what does this look like in practice? It often happens that in the first year after switching to a no-till system, there are more weeds in the field than under the previous system. However, in the following years, things turn around and in no-till, the weed seed bank is depleted within a few seasons ([29](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1941792#metadata_info_tab_contents)).

A no-till system and careful management of cover crops can be an opportunity for long-term weed control ([30](https://www.mssoy.org/uploads/files/weed-seed-bank-buhler.pdf)).

## Transitioning to regenerative agriculture

The standard approaches to regenerative agriculture (such as more varied crop rotation, cover crops, or the introduction of a no-till system) are not effective in the fight against weeds on their own. Therefore, it is essential to use a combination of practices to the greatest extent possible. The various methods then work together and can cumulatively reduce the number of weeds.

Weed management during the transition to a no-till system is critical, and it may take several years for yield, soil properties, and weed populations to stabilise ([31](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3987602#metadata_info_tab_contents)). The implementation of no-till is most successful in agricultural systems that use at least a two-year crop rotation and utilise cover crops or their residues in their seeding procedures. 


## Soil is a fragile, interconnected ecosystem

In the transition to regenerative agriculture and no-till, weeds are often one of the tricky obstacles that farmers must overcome. And, indeed, it is not possible to get rid of weeds overnight if we are not using intensive chemical herbicides, which are not sustainable in the long term (neither ecologically nor economically). Especially in the first seasons, farmers cannot do without patience. Nevertheless, by using several measures at once, the desired results can be achieved relatively quickly (within a few years). 

It is important to ask whether it is even necessary (or to what extent) to wage this war on weeds. Even weeds can contribute to desirable ground cover, nutrient stabilisation, habitat creation, or a nutritious food source for pest predators, which do not necessarily reduce yield. As [this study](https://carboneg.eu/cs/blog/pripadova-studie-ZD-Krakovany) shows, yields will not permanently decrease with the transition to regenerative farming. And the soil, landscape, and its inhabitants, both large and small, will rejoice at minimising our interventions in these natural processes.



**The list of literature and studies used in this article can be found [here](https://benman.sharepoint.com/:b:/s/carboneg/EcUKya4cAy5Hrby-3UqqMygBfae7I4U-EFCDFRa4GyHz7A?e=4zofg2).**


*Do you have questions or comments about the article? Let us know by e-mail at mailto:praha@carboneg.eu ! We will be happy to discuss the topic with you individually.*


large_IMG_7263 (1).jpg

medium_IMG_7263 (1).jpg

small_IMG_7263 (1).jpg

thumbnail_IMG_7263 (1).jpg

IMG_7263 (1).jpg

Weed Management in Regenerative Agriculture

#### We have succeeded in the [EIT Food](https://www.eitfood.eu/) call and are receiving support for training activities for farmers in the Czech Republic. 
What does this mean for you? 

Thanks to the support of [EIT Food](https://www.eitfood.eu/) - [**Regenerative Revolution Programme**](https://www.eitfood.eu/blog/can-regenerative-agriculture-replace-conventional-farming), we will organize the second conference on regenerative agriculture Living Landscape 2023 in the Czech Republic, and other events for farmers. We are also preparing face-to-face meetings, exchange of experience, and collaboration on individual holistic plans for farmers for this autumn and winter. Specific agenda of the events, dates, and venues will be announced soon. 

> Regenerative agriculture in the Czech Republic is only in its infancy and I am delighted that Carboneg was chosen in 2022 as one of five organizations in the CEE region to cooperate within Europe's largest agri-food network, which EIT Food undoubtedly is. We promise to start possible international cooperation in the future certification of regenerative production and exchange experiences with other European organizations in the process of implementing regenerative agriculture.

— says Václav Kurel, CEO Carboneg.


<div class="videoWrapper">
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uCZFwivd2Vg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

### EIT Food is:
- Europe's largest food initiative, working to make the food system more sustainable, healthy, and trustworthy. The aim is to create and foster an environment that supports innovation and entrepreneurship across Europe.
- Part of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), an independent body of the European Union, established in 2008.

[![EIT Food + EU Logo RGB Landscape.png](/uploads/EIT_Food_EU_Logo_RGB_Landscape_764ce993ad.png)](https://www.eitfood.eu/)

The EIT Food Programme in the Czech Republic includes the [Impact Hub](https://eitfood.impacthub.cz/startup-programy/), which coordinates activities within the Czech Republic, and the [University of Chemical Technology in Prague](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw-WooAB1_3JMZGHR_3Rg0Q). 

### What do we expect and look forward to?
There are other organizations in the current call together with us. These include, for example, the Polish foundation [Terra Nostra,](https://fundacjaterranostra.pl/) or [ABNT](https://www.facebook.com/%D0%90%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%91%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%9D%D0%BE-%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8A%D1%80%D0%B8-106385791175728/)  (Bulgarian Agricultural No-Till Association), which works on the introduction of regenerative agriculture and no-till technology in Bulgaria. Establishing new contacts with farming associations across Europe is something for us not to be missed. We are interested in scientific knowledge from local scientific institutions and sharing experiences with each other. We also appreciate the opportunity to share the experience of Czech farmers throughout the Programme. 

Are you interested in what we are up to or further details on the [ EIT Food](https://www.eitfood.eu/)  Call? Perhaps you are considering joining the Programme and asking us about our experience..? Get in touch with us at mailto:praha@carboneg.eu. 


large_EIT Food_Key image with arms_1920x848 (1).jpg

medium_EIT Food_Key image with arms_1920x848 (1).jpg

small_EIT Food_Key image with arms_1920x848 (1).jpg

thumbnail_EIT Food_Key image with arms_1920x848 (1).jpg

EIT Food_Key image with arms_1920x848 (1).jpg

Carboneg and European Programme EIT Food

#### We have already informed you in a number of previous blog articles that responsible agriculture has great potential for solving the climate crisis. We wrote about the general [connection between agriculture and climate](https://carboneg.eu/cs/blog/klimaticka-zmena-regenerativni-zemedelstvi), about [specific methods of cattle breeding and their different influence on the amount of CO2 produced]( https://carboneg.eu/cs/blog/chov-skotu-a-klimaticka-zmena) or for example about different ways which [helps agriculture to capture excess carbon from the air](https://carboneg.eu/cs/blog/methods-of-removing-carbon-from-the-atmosphere), respectively carbon dioxide.

## Carbon Farming as a term used by the EU

In recent months, the term *Carbon Farming* (i.e. carbon management), which is not far from regenerative agriculture, has resonated very much. This is mainly due to the work of the European Commission, which has the task of implementing partial goals of the European Green Deal into practice, and which uses the term in newly prepared documents and upcoming legislative amendments.

As the Vice-President of the European Commission (EC) [Hans Trimmermans pointed out in a December 2021 speech](https://youtu.be/yDJo5Yuz5lI), agriculture directly supports diversity, returning to natural processes and participating in the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere is one of the ways to fight the climate crisis effectively. The topic is therefore one of the priorities for the EC and the EU.

<div class="videoWrapper">
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yDJo5Yuz5lI" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture- in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

**But what does this mean in practice? Will the agricultural sector in the European Union have to undergo a fundamental change? Is promoting carbon sequestration one of the ways the EU is trying to get closer to sustainability and climate change goals?**

Vojtěch Bašný and Filip Hloušek, environmental lawyers from [Deloitte Czech Republic](https://www2.deloitte.com/cz/cs), specialize in EU legislation in the agricultural sector and know the answers to these questions. We have therefore prepared a short summary for you, which explains how the EU currently thinks about *Carbon Farming*.

## Sustainable carbon cycle in agriculture

As part of the EU's climate goals to reduce carbon emissions, attain climate neutrality, and implement adaptation measures, the creation of a sustainable carbon cycle will play a key role. In this context, the European Commission adopted on 15 December 2021 [Communication on a sustainable carbon cycle (COM 2021 800 final)](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6687).

A sustainable climate-resilient carbon cycle should be based on three pillars:
- (1) Decarbonisation strategy in the industry, transport, construction and energy)
- (2) Recycling of carbon from waste, sustainable biomass or directly from the atmosphere and its use in sectors that will continue to be dependent on carbon (recycling and use of carbon should enable new approaches and technologies such as bioeconomy in forestry and agriculture or technology "carbon capture and use").
- (3) Increasing carbon sequestration through agricultural and forestry measures or through industrial solutions.

Above all, the third pillar directly affects the area of ​​agriculture and forestry, as natural ecosystems will be key to achieving negative emissions and compensating for produced emissions. In this regard, the European Commission is also proposing an amendment to the LULUCF Regulation with the aim of achieving by 2035 that absorption from terrestrial ecosystems balances emissions from land, livestock and fertilizer use. However, the LULUCF regulation sets targets at the level of the member states and does not specify exact conditions or tools for motivating individual farmers and foresters as entities that manage specific ecosystems and bear the associated costs.

## Certification system and carbon credits as a motivation for farmers

In order to increase the motivation of farmers and foresters, the European Commission is committed to presenting a proposal for an EU legal framework for a certification system for accounting and certifying the absorption of emissions from agriculture and forestry at the level of economic entities and their land, by the end of 2022.

Currently, until May 5, 2022, a public consultation of the EC is launched as part of the preparation of this legislative framework. You also have the opportunity to find out the direction of the EU and influence the creation of future rules - on the EC website entitled [Certification of carbon removals – EU rules](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13172-Certification-of-carbon-removals-EU-rules/public-consultation_en).

The main objective of the intended legislative innovations is to create a unified framework that would set requirements for monitoring, reporting and verification of absorbed emissions and to support a voluntary trading model with verified carbon credits.

This business model is based on the assumption that products from such certified resources with greater added value will have a competitive advantage in the market over standard production, and verified carbon sequestration credits will be in demand by entities that want to improve their carbon footprint and market position in relation to conscious consumers.

* *Vojtěch Bašný and Filip Hloušek from Deloitte were speakers at the conference Živá krajina 2022. In their lecture, they explained this topic in even greater detail. The recording of their presentation is already available on our YouTube channel.*

<div class="videoWrapper">
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4RnZA_7CP5I" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture- in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

*Do you have questions or other observations on the topic? Share them with us via e-mail praha@carboneg.eu. Thank you!*

Zemedelstvi v EU bude lidr v zachytavani uhliku a nasledne certifikaci

large_Nejvýznamnější událost o regenerativním zemědělství v České republice. (1200 × 850 px).png

medium_Nejvýznamnější událost o regenerativním zemědělství v České republice. (1200 × 850 px).png

small_Nejvýznamnější událost o regenerativním zemědělství v České republice. (1200 × 850 px).png

thumbnail_Nejvýznamnější událost o regenerativním zemědělství v České republice. (1200 × 850 px).png

Zemedelstvi EU lidrem v zachytavani uhliku a certifikaci - Deloitte Česka republika

EU Agriculture as a World Leader in Carbon Sequestration Certification

#### How is Deloitte taking a stand on regenerative agriculture? What are the expectations of the transformation of the agricultural sector in the future? Or what is the company's approach to achieving carbon neutrality? We asked Beata Hlavčáková from [Deloitte Advisory s.r.o.](https://www2.deloitte.com/cz/cs.html), the largest consulting company in the Czech Republic, about these and other questions.

Also, with the support of Deloitte, the first **conference** [Živá krajina](https://carboneg.eu/cs/blog/vyber-z-konference-ziva-krajina) took place at the beginning of March this year. It was a unique event that opened up the topic of regenerative agriculture and more sustainable farming in the Czech Republic.
- The event brought new perspectives on possible ways of reducing the carbon footprint through farming.
- It outlined a more sustainable vision of the future for soil, landscape and agricultural production.
- And it presented fundamental trends and innovations in animal and plant production.

In a follow-up interview with Beata Hlavčáková from Deloitte Advisory, we found out why the topic of regenerative agriculture is interesting and important for Deloitte.

## Why does Deloitte support regenerative agriculture and Carboneg?

**Why did Deloitte decide to support the topic of regenerative agriculture and the first ever conference of its kind in the Czech Republic, Živá krajina?**

For Deloitte, sustainability is a key topic, and regenerative agriculture, with its complexity, scope and inclusiveness, also applies to the area of social justice, depleting natural resources less, improving their sustainability and bringing benefits to local communities.

**Deloitte has been dealing with innovation and the issue of climate change for a long time. How do you think the agricultural sector will change?**

In connection with climate change as well as a growing global population, the agricultural sector faces major challenges, and at the same time, current agricultural practices are not sustainable in the long term. We know that, for example, Czech agriculture suffers from soil erosion and, according to climate scenarios, must also expect more frequent droughts and a lack of water for irrigation. Changes towards sustainable practices using the natural functioning of ecosystems and the protection of soil health will therefore be necessary. The European Commission, which presented the new ([EU Soil Strategy for 2030](https://www.interregeurope.eu/news-and-events/news/eu-launches-new-soil-strategy-for-2030)), is also aware of this.

**Agriculture is troubled by the ever-increasing price and quantity of inputs. In addition, they make the final production more expensive. How big of an opportunity can the switch to regenerative agriculture be for farmers? What can it bring them?**

Yes. Currently, industrial practices and processes in agriculture cause a decrease in organic matter in the soil, reduce its absorption capacity and fertility and cause its degradation. At the same time, by releasing a large amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere, they contribute to climate change, chemicalization of soil and water with high doses of industrial fertilizers, and plant protection agents. And at the same time, they are also financially demanding for farmers. It is precisely the principles of regenerative agriculture with closed cycles and synergy with nature, that increase biodiversity, regenerate the soil and increase its fertility and thus yields. For example, the farmer does not have to buy nitrogen fertilizers, but plants mixed crops with legumes, which capture it from the air and deposit it in the soil through bacteria.

> Connecting the so-called draws, natural belts, between the fields improves biodiversity, increases the number of birds and the number of insects, and improves pollination of crops, which increases the yield and income for the farmer.

**The topic of *carbon farming* is coming to the fore. Healthy nature and landscape and climate protection are among the priority topics on which the Czech Republic will profile itself as part of its presidency of the Council of the European Union. What role can the Czech Republic play in this regard?**

British and American research suggests that some regenerative farming practices can actually be regenerative and can return CO2 to the soil. If we promote carbon retention in the soil, we can reduce the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. The Czech Republic can educate farmers and introduce programs supporting biodiversity and sustainable agricultural practices, which will also help sequester CO₂ by increasing the organic component in soils.

**In the future, are you interested in joining the Carboneg project and buying a carbon credit (offset) to achieve your carbon neutrality?**

As part of our sustainability program, we at Deloitte have also taken measures to reduce our carbon footprint. In order to achieve carbon neutrality, we also need a CO₂ offset, and we are therefore interested in joining the Carboneg project, in which we will also involve our clients.

## Deloitte on opportunities for farmers planned by the European Commission

Of course, the Živá krajina conference could not avoid the upcoming new legislation or the upcoming EU subsidy calls. The new strategy of the European Commission (EC) until 2030 supporting the so-called *carbon farming* was presented. Our partners from Deloitte Advisory also worked on the topic as part of the conference.

In the previous article, we already shared with you a practical summary of information about [what carbon farming actually is and what are the objectives of the European Commission in agriculture](https://carboneg.eu/cs/blog/zemedelstvi-EU-lidrem-v-pohlcovani-uhliku). You can listen to a lecture on this topic by Filip Hloušek from Deloitte below:

<div class="videoWrapper">
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4RnZA_7CP5I" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

It is obvious that regenerative farming and applying its principles in practice, which will enable an increase in soil fertility and thus an increase in yields, is one of the ways of the future development of agriculture. Therefore, it is desirable that space is created for discussion, development and support of this issue, also within events such as Živá krajina. 
We believe that this also brings us closer to achieving carbon neutrality and a healthy environment.

*Did you like the lecture at the Živá krajina conference? Have you used Deloitte consulting in the past and want to share your experience with us? Or do you think that agriculture will go in a different direction in the future? Share your observations with us via e-mail praha@carboneg.eu. Thank you!*


Deloitte supports Carboneg and regenerative agriculture

large_Beata Hlavackova.jpg

medium_Beata Hlavackova.jpg

small_Beata Hlavackova.jpg

thumbnail_Beata Hlavackova.jpg

Beata Hlavackova.jpg

Why Deloitte Supports Regenerative Farming and Carboneg

#### You have only until 2 May 2022 to participate in the public consultation on the development of a legislative framework for [EU rules on carbon sequestration certification](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13172-Certifikace-pohlcovani-uhliku-pravidla-EU_cs). The initiative will develop the necessary rules for tracking, reporting and verifying the authenticity of carbon sequestration. The aim is to expand sustainable carbon sequestration and encourage the use of innovative solutions for CO2 capture, recycling and storage by farmers, foresters and industries. This represents a necessary and important step towards integrating carbon sequestration into EU climate policies," summarises the official description of the call for feedback.

And as this legislation directly affects Carboneg's activities, we took our chance to comment on the text of the proposal and sent our comments. Will you get involved too?

The European climate legal framework ([Regulation EU 2021/1119](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2021.243.01.0001.01.CES&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2021%3A243%3ATOC)) requires the EU to achieve a balance between greenhouse gas emissions and removals by 2050 at the latest and to achieve negative emissions thereafter, effectively erasing its historical emissions debt. Currently, the EU is not on an ideal path to achieving this goal: carbon sequestration in natural ecosystems has been declining in recent years and industrial carbon sequestration in the EU is currently below significant levels.

The main obstacle to increasing carbon sequestration rates is the lack of common EU standards to transparently identify activities that remove carbon from the atmosphere in a sustainable way. Existing public and private schemes, such as voluntary carbon markets, certify agricultural practices that improve carbon sequestration but use a wide, unclear range of approaches to quantify their climate benefits. [Industrial carbon sequestration is rarely addressed.](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/forests-and-agriculture/sustainable-carbon-cycles_en)

Carbon sequestration certification faces a number of technical challenges. Carbon sequestration is under threat of uncontrolled re-emissions, as well as measurement and monitoring difficulties.
Establishing a framework for the certification of carbon sequestration is therefore a key stepping stone to achieving a net contribution from carbon sequestration in line with the EU's climate neutrality objective.

Whether you are part of the private sector or the general public, please take the opportunity to engage in commenting on the draft rules for the certification of carbon sequestration in the EU. The online consultation is accessible via the [Commission's central public consultation pages](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13172-Certifikace-pohlcovani-uhliku-pravidla-EU_cs) and [DG CLIMA's website](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/news-your-voice/consultations_en).

And how did Carboneg leader Václav Kurel comment on the call? Read below:

>“We expect high general standards of carbon offsets based on EU certification principles. It should support all kinds of CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) – nature-based and technology-based, with long term and short term durability, etc. We need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in high volumes very quickly so we need all of them.“

### We recommend requiring these principles: 

- Carbon offsets are only issued for tonnes of CO2 that have been removed from the atmosphere.
- The volume of CO2 removal is based on physical measurements or precise estimates based on scientific studies with minimal error.
- Carbon removal is based on voluntary additional activities, not required by law
- Carbon storage should be intended to have at least 50 years of permanence. The project owner should be able to guarantee at least 5 years of permanence of carbon storage.
- The project should not generate any additional GHG emissions elsewhere, and if it does, they should be calculated and included in the emissions balance.
- Soil and Forestry types of projects should set aside 10-20% of credits in a buffer pool that can be drawn down to account for “reversals” (carbon loss) over time. ”

Do you agree? Disagree? Or would you add anything else? Let us know at praha@carboneg.eu. And most importantly! Don't forget that you too have until 2 May 2022 to read the official draft rules and influence their future shape - by commenting on the EC's page entitled [Carbon Sequestration Certification - EU rules](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13172-Certifikace-pohlcovani-uhliku-pravidla-EU_cs).

Interested in this topic and want to know more? Read our [previous articles](https://carboneg.eu/blog).


large_renewable-energy-g7d7fc8442_1280.jpg

medium_renewable-energy-g7d7fc8442_1280.jpg

small_renewable-energy-g7d7fc8442_1280.jpg

thumbnail_renewable-energy-g7d7fc8442_1280.jpg

renewable-energy-g7d7fc8442_1280.jpg

What is Carboneg's Position on EU Certification for Carbon Sequestration?

#### It is true that the effect of methane on the greenhouse effect is much greater than that of CO2. And it is the production of methane that is associated with cattle farming.  

But what is forgotten is that cattle farming can be climate-positive if it is done right ([regenerative grazing](https://carboneg.eu/en/blog/regenerativni-pastva)) and if we really look at its impact in its full complexity.  

### Cattle Farming and Methane Production 

One of the main reasons given against beef consumption is methane production. Cattle farming is rightfully associated with it for two reasons.  

1. Methane is produced naturally in the bodies of large ruminants in the process of digesting grazed grass.  
2. Manure piles, where anaerobic digestion occurs, are also a major source of methane. 

However, appropriate husbandry, specifically regenerative grazing, can significantly affect the impacts of both of these.

Regenerative grazing mimics the natural movement of herds on pastures. It has a positive impact on carbon sequestration in the soil and natural principles can cope with the methane excreted by the cows' digestive systems. Manure accumulation is even eliminated completely in regenerative grazing. 
 
### Regenerative Grazing and Its Roots 
 
If we look back in history, we see herds of large herbivores such as bison, elephants, reindeer, buffalo, and even earlier, mammoth, grazing on the grasslands.   

All of these herbivores produced large amounts of methane when their digestive tracts anaerobically decomposed cellulose. This amount of methane was not significantly different from the amount of methane that comes from cattle farming today. 

In a [study in 2012](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.357.5821&rep=rep1&type=pdf) scientists estimated the biomass of large mammals on Earth during the last ice age at about 1.4 billion tonnes. And, as the Czech scientists report [ in an article in the journal Vesmir](https://vesmir.cz/cz/casopis/archiv-casopisu/2020/cislo-3/velci-bylozravci-zmeny-klimatu-i.html), that's more than the sum of today's human (0.4 billion tonnes) and livestock (0.8 billion tonnes) biomass. 

In [another study](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Historic%2C-pre-European-settlement%2C-and-present-day-Hristov/a9a08cf4be0b758ac14921e8c27a1a9c9a58a4a3), they compared the methane production of wild buffalo and other herbivores before Europeans arrived in the Americas. They found that methane production then was equivalent to 86% of today's methane production from livestock in the US. Large amounts of methane were produced by the digestive tracts of herbivores long before climate change. 

So the problem is not the methane itself, but the environment in which it is produced. The difference between prehistoric natural grazing and today's factory farming is huge. Natural mechanisms can eliminate the negative effect of methane from cellulose digestion. There are two basic natural principles. Either methane can be broken down by chemical reactions in the atmosphere or it can be broken down by soil bacteria.  

![IMG_20211005_142758.jpg](/uploads/IMG_20211005_142758_478269d79f.jpg)
*An example of rotational grazing, which is a useful tool for mimicking the grazing by herds of large herbivores in the past.* 

### Fission of Methane in the Atmosphere 

A crucial role in the lower atmosphere is played by the hydroxyl radical (OH), which can split methane (CH4) into the methyl radical (CH3) and water (H2O). Further oxidation reactions then result in the conversion of the original methane into the much less harmful carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H). 

Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen coined the term "[atmospheric scavenger](https://niwa.co.nz/publications/wa/vol16-no1-march-2008/detergent-of-the-atmosphere)“ for OH to describe this important scavenging role of OH. The hydroxyl radical is a highly reactive gas with a lifetime of only one second, and its abundance is highly variable in time and place. It is formed by the action of solar UV radiation on ozone in the presence of water vapor. The highest concentrations of OH are found over tropical areas where there is the most sunlight and water vapor. 

Historically, the amount of light does not change, but the amount of water vapor does, because the small water cycle is significantly disturbed in man-managed industrial landscapes. The purpose of regenerative grazing is then to regenerate diverse vegetation and promote water absorption in the soil, thereby increasing the capacity and activity of the small water cycle, where plants transpire water vapor which then condenses into rain. 

### Methane Decomposition in Soil 

[Methanotrophs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph), bacteria that decompose methane, live in healthy soil. It is their only source of carbon and energy.  As [a 2018 Polish study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469817/) showed, the activity of bacteria Methanotrophs in soil with not-till management is 2 to 4 times higher than in cultivated soil. 

The highest activity of methane-decomposing bacteria is in healthy soils with a high ratio of moisture and organic matter. Such conditions occur on pastures with lush vegetation, which is also supported by regenerative grazing. It cannot be achieved by continuous grazing of a large area, which often results in overgrazed vegetation. These pastures have a lower proportion of moisture and organic matter.

### Sources of Methane Emissions 

[The Global Methane Budget 2008-2017](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1561/2020/) provides estimates of methane emissions and decay by source. It indicates that soil breaks down only about 5% of the volume that decomposes in the atmosphere. The future threat is the decreasing potential for methane to decay in the atmosphere due to lower ground moisture and collapsing small water cycles.  

![MethaneInfographic2020.png](/uploads/Methane_Infographic2020_406baef3ee.png)

*Source: Global Carbon Project 2020. Most methane emissions are eliminated in the atmosphere and soil. This will cover naturally occurring methane emissions. However, it is not enough to offset emissions from human activities.*

Today, total methane emissions are higher overall than what can decompose in the atmosphere and soil. This is due to emissions from fossil fuel extraction and use, agriculture and landfilling. 

The amount of methane emitted directly from cattle farming depends on the method of farming and the type of feed. According to [ a 2006 IPCC study](http://cloud.agroclimate.org/tools/deprecated/carbonFootprint/references/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf), emissions from the digestive tract of cattle range from 55-99 CH4 kg/year per livestock unit (LSU) and emissions from manure are 6-11 CH4 kg/LSU/year. 

For outdoor grazing, methane emissions from manure are zero because no manure pile is formed and therefore anaerobic decomposition of the feces doesn't occur. The cow manure decomposes in the presence of air, and its decomposition on the land also enriches life both above and in the soil.

### Climate Positive Beef 

A positive effect of regenerative grazing on methane decay in the soil and especially in the atmosphere probably exists, but is very difficult to quantify, so there are no scientific studies on this. However, there are already studies that demonstrate the positive effect of regenerative grazing on the capture of CO2 from the atmosphere and its deposition in the soil as organic matter. 

This carbon sequestration process uses the principles of photosynthesis and the symbiosis between plants and soil microbiology. Carbon dioxide is converted by plants into carbon-based sugars during photosynthesis. Plants use most of it for their own construction and transport about 40% through the its roots to bacteria and fungi in the soil, which in return make nutrients available to the plant. This promotes the growth of organic matter, which stores carbon in the soil. This process only works properly and intensively in healthy pastures with a variety of grasses that have deep roots.

In [a 2018 study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338), scientists calculated that through carbon sequestration, regenerative grazing can offset the negative impacts of methane emissions. The researchers estimated the annual sequestration value at 3.6 tonnes of carbon per hectare, or 13 t CO2/ha/year. 

In this study, the researchers compared the greenhouse gas emissions of conventionally reared cattle with those of regenerative grazing. Per kilogram of slaughter weight, emissions were lower in the conventional (FL) system because cattle grow faster and to a higher weight under these conditions. However, once they factored in the carbon sequestration value of regenerative grazing (AMP), they came up with a negative value for the emissions. 

The carbon footprint per kg of deadweight is 6.12 kg CO2eq for conventional grazing, whereas for regenerative grazing it comes out to a negative value of -6.65 kg CO2eq. Beef from regenerative grazing is thus climate positive and its consumption contributes to combating the cause and effects of climate change.
 
![1-s2.0-S0308521X17310338-gr2.jpg](/uploads/1_s2_0_S0308521_X17310338_gr2_37a511e877.jpg)

*Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338*

Conventional livestock farming is prevalent in the world and in Europe and is a major burden on the planet. Therefore, recommendations to limit beef consumption to reduce our personal carbon footprint are reasonable. Projects are developing to produce various beef substitutes with a lower carbon footprint. 

But none of them are carbon negative like beef from regenerative grazing. In addition to carbon sequestration, this method of farming has many other benefits that plant-based meat does not provide. It contributes to a better ability to retain water in the landscape and an increase in biodiversity in the landscape. There are more insects, birds and other species of flora and fauna on healthy pastures. 

In the Carboneg project, we therefore support farmers to switch to regenerative grazing. Next time we will bring you the story of two Czech farmers who discovered this method by themselves years ago and are pioneering it in the Czech Republic. 

large_shutterstock_1803764482.jpg

medium_shutterstock_1803764482.jpg

small_shutterstock_1803764482.jpg

thumbnail_shutterstock_1803764482.jpg

shutterstock_1803764482.jpg

Cattle Farming and Climate Change

#### There are many ways to graze cattle. However, the best method to improve soil quality is regenerative grazing. Do you know what to make of this term? In this article, we will describe its principles in more detail. 

Regenerative grazing, especially in vulnerable environments, leads to soil regeneration by dramatically increasing the organic matter content and the number and condition of microedaphone in the soil. It also leads to higher yields, better water retention and an increase in the diversity of the plant and animal community. These fundamentally support the health of the ecosystem and the surrounding landscape. 

### The origin and meaning of regenerative grazing

In the past, the most fertile soils were created by large herds of migrating ruminants. The herds grazed in a certain area, then moved on and did not return until the next year. It is this intensive but short-term disturbance of the vegetation that leads, among other things, to minimal soil compaction and provides a sufficiently long period for recovery and regrowth of the vegetation. Regenerative grazing attempts to simulate this primordial pattern. And the great news is that it can work in any system, whether it is permanent grassland, annual crop or intermediate crop.

The purpose of regenerative grazing is to mimic as much as possible the natural migration and grazing of herds of wild herbivores (bison, horses, aurochs and others) that used to move daily from place to place in our landscape and graze in compact herds for their protection and safety. It is therefore grazing that is intensive (large numbers of cattle on a small area) but short-lived (the herd often moves to new locations).

### Differences and similarities of different types of grazing

The most common grazing type in our conditions is *continuous grazing*. In this type of grazing, animals are left in a large paddock for a significant part of the season. However, this type of grazing is highly destructive both for the productivity of the pasture and ultimately for the soil, as it leads to soil compaction, uneven distribution of excreta and urine, grazing of the vegetation, stripping of the soil surface, erosion and, in susceptible areas, desertification.  

Slightly better off is *rotational grazing*, but this does not result in an even distribution of excreta, as shown in the illustration. In most cases the vegetation is overgrazed. 

Regenerative grazing is very close to *mob grazing* or *strip grazing*. The key difference is the amount of ungrazed vegetation, as we describe further below.

![Differences_grazing methods-ENG-notext.png](/uploads/Differences_grazing_methods_ENG_notext_62943bdb51.png)

*Figure 1. Differences in grazing methods. As can be seen from the illustration, by making the paddock smaller, the density of animals per area increases, but at the same time the length of time the cattle stay on the area decreases. Towards the right, a higher increase in organic matter can be observed, which translates into further positive impacts on the soil, plants and the ecosystem. These include higher water retention capacity, higher microbial populations and activity, higher yields and higher biodiversity*.


### Strip grazing

Regenerative grazing is typically characterized by dividing pastures into smaller paddocks that provide short duration, high stocking rates followed by a reasonably long period of rest and recovery for the stand. 

![rozclenenipastvy.png](/uploads/rozclenenipastvy_4d4b8e183c.png)
*Figure 2. Schematic division of the pasture into sub-ranges.*

The area of each paddock is determined by herd size, length of grazing and amount of biomass of the vegetation. It is common practice to set out one-day paddocks, but the interval can be extended to two or three days. Of course, it depends on what suits you and what works best for your land.

![oplutky.png](/uploads/oplutky_93beea20f4.png)
*Figure 3. Higher concentrations of animals in the paddock are typical for regenerative grazing*.


### The right level of crop salvage is key

Overgrazing or repeated grazing of plants is not so much related to the amount of cattle on the pasture, as is generally assumed, but to the length of time the crop is exposed to cattle. If cattle stay too long in the paddock or return too early, a certain percentage of plants are weakened by overgrazing. 

The plant responds to grazing by secreting more root exudates into the soil to support the symbiotic soil microbiota, which in turn helps it acquire macro and micro nutrients. This helps the plant to re-grow. 

When the plant is overgrazed, it reacts differently. It is forced to interrupt this "cooperation" in order to conserve energy for its own survival, and its regrowth then takes much longer.  

![Plant growth curve_ENG-notext.png](/uploads/Plant_growth_curve_ENG_notext_33a684a51c.png)

*Figure 5. The growth curve of grasses. During grazing, it is necessary to leave enough biomass on the plant so that it does not fall into the left third of the graph. Ideally, no more than 50% of the mass should be removed so that the plant stays in the middle part of the curve, when growth and regrowth are fastest.*

However, this does not happen with proper regenerative grazing management. Part of the vegetation is grazed, part trampled and part remains not grazed. This, together with the excreta and urine left behind, creates an ideal environment for improvement soil fertility and quality. 

In general, for adequate regeneration and longer grazing periods, it is best not to allow cattle to graze more than 50% of the available biomass of the stand. For example, if the average height of the stand is 60 cm when animals are allowed into the paddock. They should leave the paddock when the average height of the vegetation is 30 cm. For optimum regrowth and maximum crop yield, it is recommended that cattle do not graze stands below 15-13 cm.  

![Regenerative grazing-ENG-notext.png](/uploads/Regenerative_grazing_ENG_notext_5c66ec380d.png)
*Figure 6. Effect of aboveground plant loss with respect to crop establishment. Comparison of different grazing methods to show the effect of grazing intensity on plant regeneration rate.

### Vary grazing intensity and interval

It is advisable to vary the grazing load by varying the intensity of livestock units per hectare during one season and in subsequent years. Each different stock density has a specific purpose and a specific impact on the soil and its surrounding biota.  

It is also very important not to graze the pasture every year in the same way. For example, if you usually start grazing in paddock A, then move to paddock B and then C, try starting in paddock C, then moving to paddock D, or even skipping a few paddocks and following with paddock G, etc. 

Changing the order of grazing individual paddocks during each season brings extra diversity to the ecosystem and avoids routine and possible stagnation. This change is especially important for plants that only grow during a certain part of the year and thus get room for a longer growing season or the end of their life cycle and seed production. 

It is also advisable to vary the resting time of individual plots. For example, if you normally allow 30 days of rest, you can allow 60 days for the selected paddocks. This change has very positive effects on soil biology. Obviously, it is not possible to give every paddock this extra rest period every year, but once every 3-4 years is sufficient to achieve reasonable results.  

It is also essential to vary the amount of grazing and therefore the height of the vegetation to be grazed. 

If you usually aim for a forage height of about 30-40 cm before grazing, try waiting until the stand reaches 50 cm. Most importantly, generally practice a 50-50 approach, leaving 50% of the biomass in the paddock at each grazing. However, there are exceptions to this rule. There are times when it is advantageous to graze less or more forage. It is recommended that you never let the stand graze below 13 cm unless you are deliberately switching from an intercrop to a subsequent crop.  

### Species diversity

Each species of livestock leaves different types of microorganisms on the soil and plants. This contributes to an increase in the number and diversity of the soil microbiome. If you graze more than one species of livestock (which is great in itself), it is worth varying the order in which they enter the pasture. You may think that you always have to graze cattle first, then sheep or goats, then chickens or pigs. There are reasons for moving some species in a particular order, but sometimes it is advisable to break that order and let the smaller species in first and then the cattle. You don't have to do this too often to get good results. 


### Summary - recommendations for regenerative grazing

There are a few recommendations to follow for regenerative grazing:  

- monitor and vary the grazing height, do not overgraze,
- vary the stock numbers in the pasture,
- do not rotate cattle in the same pattern every year,
- vary the rest periods of the pasture,
- where appropriate, vary the order in which the different species of livestock enter the pasture.

When moving to regenerative grazing, you need to think in advance about the size and order of the paddocks, taking into account the number of animals and your capacity for more frequent grazing. It is also necessary to provide suitable conditions for the animals in each of the paddocks currently in use (especially access to water).

## Conclusion - the effect of regenerative grazing and its impact on the sustainability of cattle farming

Cattle farming is known for its economic intensity and, in certain parts of the world, for its negative environmental footprint.
 
But as another of our articles describes in more detail, regenerative grazing is a solution to reduce the negative impacts of livestock farming and even contribute positively to the state of the land and landscape.

Even over a short period of time, within a few years, regenerative grazing can achieve significant results, particularly in increasing soil organic matter and overall soil health. Studies have also shown more robust and faster development of plant root systems, including root depth and weight (compared to other grazing methods). This has a positive effect on reducing soil compaction, improving water absorption capacity and preventing erosion.

We hope we have made you interested in the topic of regenerative grazing. If you are interested in learning even more about it, we recommend the Savory Institute's e-books, especially #8 *Basics of Holistic Grazing Planning* and #9. *The Origins of the Holistic Grazing Plan*. 

Regenerativní pastva v oplůtkách prospívá krajině i půdě.

large_oplutky.png

medium_oplutky.png

small_oplutky.png

thumbnail_oplutky.png

oplutky.png

Regenerative Grazing

#### Principle 3: Increase biodiversity

It is essential to encourage and enable diversity of all life forms, not only of the crops grown, but also of soil microbes, insects, birds, wildlife and livestock. The greater the diversity, the greater the positive impact. 

Species-rich communities are close to nature, unlike monocultures that are human-made. Since diversity in the soil is due to diversity above ground, it is essential to cultivate the richest possible mixtures of intercrops. 

**Greater species diversity of cultivated plants**
- increases the total plant mass 
- increases the diversity of the edaphon 
- maximizes energy uptake from the sun (different leaf size shapes - higher LAI - leaf area index) 

Each plant species has its own specific chemical composition of root exudates and their excretion into the soil promotes diversity of soil microorganisms. Root exudates of spring plants are rich in sugars, Leguminosae in proteins and, for example, buckwheat and lupin produce organic acids that improve phosphorus availability. Therefore, species-rich mixtures of plants provide a balanced diet of sugars, proteins and nutrients that allow for high growth and diversity of microbial populations. 

#### Principle 4: Live roots throughout the year 

Keeping living roots in the soil, that is, growing continuously, is important because live roots feed the soil microbes, which in turn promote plant growth. This maximizes the possible supply of carbon to the soil, in the form of various plant metabolites. This process, however, only works if the above ground plant is photosynthetically active. This is the only way that the primary energy of the sun in the form of carbon compounds reaches the soil through the roots to the microorganisms. It is therefore necessary to eliminate periods when no vegetation grows on the plot to a minimum. 

![dobytek.jpeg](/uploads/dobytek_d48e0efa3b.jpeg)


#### Principle 5: Involving livestock 

Bringing livestock onto the land and mimicking the impact of wandering and grazing herds is an imitation of how most landscapes and fertile soils around the world have been shaped. Livestock are an integral part of the nutrient cycle and the digestive system of cows is populated approximately 50% by bacteria found in the soil, thus reintroducing these beneficial bacteria and nutrients back into the environment through grazing and excretion. 

The impact of cattle grazing is a key aspect in the holistic concept of regenerative agriculture, which increases and accelerates soil regeneration, dramatically increases the organic matter content and the number and status of micro-sediment in the soil. Plants respond to grazing by secreting more root exudates into the soil to support the soil microbiota, which in turn provides them with mineral elements that help the plant to grow. Regenerative grazing is the practice of improving soil quality by grazing animals on perennial and annual forages and crops in a way that promotes ecosystem health and mimics as closely as possible the grazing patterns of large herds of herbivores. 

**Regenerative grazing is typically characterized by**
- high stocking densities 
- frequent changes of paddock 
- long recovery times 
- low to no synthetic inputs 
- increased diversity of plant, animal and microbial life 

The principle is to divide the overall pasture into many sub-ranges which will be gradually made available to the cattle. It is very important not to overgraze the individual paddocks, i.e. always keeping a certain amount of biomass in them and then moving the cattle to a new paddock. This is because the plants are not as weakened by this method of grazing and grow back quicker, while at the same time not breaking the cooperation with the soil microbiome. 

medium_shutterstock_1660533496.jpg

small_shutterstock_1660533496.jpg

thumbnail_shutterstock_1660533496.jpg

shutterstock_1660533496.jpg

Principles of Regenerative Agriculture - Continued

#### Regenerative agriculture is a holistic method of soil management that harnesses the power of photosynthesis in plants to store carbon in the soil, enhancing soil health and crop resilience. In particular, it improves soil health and quality through practices that increase soil organic matter, which helps increase the diversity and quantity of soil biota, the availability of nutrients, and the soil's ability to retain water. 

The basic principle is to mimic nature and its ecological and biological processes and relationships as closely as possible. These self-renewing and self-regulating principles make it possible to increase the resilience and health of the ecosystem. Since they have been operating long before the advent of humans, it is appropriate to take them into account and work with them instead of against them. 

Sunlight, water, minerals, plants, mammals, insects, and microorganisms ideally work in harmony. Unfortunately, most of the current production model today is about man trying to impose his will on nature. As producers, we have adopted the current model, which leads to land degradation. But if we follow nature's template, we can use the five principles of a healthy ecosystem to regenerate our resources and the environment we live in. Below we will first briefly present them all, and then individually - in more detail - in the following blog articles. We have added one more bonus principle that should be part of the thinking of every good farmer.

**The 5+1 principle of regenerative agriculture:**

- Continuous coverage of the soil surface
- Minimum amount of mechanical and chemical soil disturbance
- Maximum diversity of plants, animals, insects, and soil biota
- Aim to have living roots in the soil ideally all year round
- Integration of livestock on the soil 
- Be receptive to nature and its processes
 

#### Principle #1: Minimal soil disturbance 

In nature, tillage does not naturally occur for certain reasons. We too should minimize soil disturbance and reduce mechanical tilling, chemical inputs (plant protection products), fertilizers, and other practices that harm living and non-living soil components. 

**Mechanical processing of any kind**
- has a negative effect on soil structure
- has a negative effect on water absorption (surface runoff & water erosion)
- has a negative effect on soil organic matter content
- has a negative effect on the micro- and macro-edaphon

**Plant protection products and synthetic fertilizers**
- adversely affect arthropod and insect life 
- negatively affect soil fungi populations (reduction of mycorrhiza) and bacteria
- may also have a negative effect on the growing crops (leaf burn, etc.)  

Soil is an ecosystem that has evolved over the time into a highly sophisticated and efficient system of mutually supportive symbioses. However, this system has been disrupted by human intervention and it is now necessary to restore the soil's natural properties, step by step, in order to restore its fertility. The ideal is to start applying minimal tillage and sowing or planting into mulch, stubble, or directly into the support crop (whose growth has either frozen or been rolled by the cutting rollers or chemically treated). 

![meziplodiny smes.jpg](/uploads/meziplodiny_smes_b50763f14b.jpg)

#### Principle #2: Covering the soil surface 

It is necessary and essential to keep the soil covered throughout the year, whether it is plant debris or living vegetation. As is the case in nature, which is constantly trying to cover the soil surface. In natural conditions, we do not normally encounter exposed soil, except in upheavals and landslides. 

**Continuous vegetation ground coverage**
- reduces water erosion 
- reduces wind erosion 
- protects against high temperatures (reducing soil drying and soil micro-organism activity)
- helps increase soil organic matter content (an energy source for soil biome) 

Continuous vegetation cover can be achieved by firstly minimizing mechanical tillage and secondly by growing cover crops (sometimes also referred to as intercrops) ideally in a multi-species mixture. 

**Auxiliary crops**
- increase biodiversity (attract beneficial insects and pollinators) 
- cover the soil surface and thus prevent overheating of the soil 
- build soil aggregates together with bacteria and fungi 
- increase soil organic matter 
- participate in the nutrient cycle 
- provide food and shelter for organisms 
- suppress weed growth 
- convert solar energy to our benefit (even when it would otherwise be unused)

![louka směs.jpg](/uploads/louka_smes_427757ff06.jpg)

Regenerativní zemědělství - to je diverzita, to je život. 

large_regenrativni-zemedelstvi-makro.jpg

medium_regenrativni-zemedelstvi-makro.jpg

small_regenrativni-zemedelstvi-makro.jpg

thumbnail_regenrativni-zemedelstvi-makro.jpg

regenrativni-zemedelstvi-makro.jpg

5+1 Principles of Regenerative Agriculture - Part 1

#### Offsets have historically had a bad reputation. Some critics call them "indulgences" while others disparage them as "not solving the real problem". But what is the reality? Is there such a thing as a quality offset and a poor quality offset? And how do you tell them apart in a gradually expanding range of products and services?

The push for corporate environmentalism is not just a recent development. As far back as the beginning of the millennium, companies, individuals and various groups in the West were buying offsets to balance the negative environmental impact of their activities. Often they did so with good intentions and invested in a meaningful project. In some cases, however, much of the money went to waste, calling into question the whole concept of offsets. It is in these times of intensifying climate change, when it is particularly important to be able to distinguish between good and poor quality offsets.

The main idea behind carbon credits, in the form of 'offsets', is that by purchasing them, a company can compensate the carbon dioxide emissions that its activities directly or indirectly cause. This is where the first problem can arise. When it is just offsetting emissions from their direct activities, in simple terms from their own chimney. These emissions are under the company's control and should be eliminated by making savings or switching to a different technology. If a company uses coal as a heat source, they should replace it with an alternative source as soon as possible. However, alternative low-emission technology may not always be available today or may be extremely expensive and difficult to use. In that case, my view is that it is better to use the offset than not to address the carbon footprint at all. It is the same as someone needing to get from Europe to the US. Either they can take a long sailing trip across the ocean, or they can buy an offset to compensate the carbon footprint of a plane trip, such as [Lufthansa](https://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines/lufthansa-launches-groundbreaking-carbon-offset-program.html) offers. Similarly, they can offset a car trip for gasoline, which for example [Shell in Canada](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/shell-canada-carbon-emissions-offset-gas-station-pumps-1.5799313) offers.  
 
If an individual or company purchases an offset in a sincere effort to reduce their carbon footprint, they should still verify that the offset is of sufficient quality. Quality has four main components. First and foremost, a quality offset credit must represent at least one metric ton of additional, permanent, and non-displaced removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. This is called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). Second, a quality offset credit should come from activities that do not contribute significantly to social or environmental damage. Third, the offset program should be certified and audited by an independent authority according to international standards, such as [Verra](lhttps://verra.org/). And fourth, the co-benefits that the project brings beyond carbon capture are assessed. These can be particularly important for CDR projects built on natural mechanisms, thus increasing their value. However, these three criteria are primarily assessed: additionality, permanence and leakage.  

## Additionality: Would carbon sequestration have occurred without offset support? 

An offset carbon offset program has value only if it can be shown that it would not have occurred without offset financing. For example, tree planting or an increase in soil carbon due to a shift to regenerative agriculture would not have occurred. Thus, for example, reforestation that a forest owner is legally obliged to carry out after clearing the original forest cannot be reported. Similarly, measures that have been largely financed by state subsidies should not be included in the offset project. 

It is essential that the baseline from which the amount of carbon sequestered and stored is calculated is always carefully established. 
 

## Durability and risk: How long will the captured carbon be stored outside the atmosphere? 

CDR projects are divided according to the duration of carbon storage into short-term (less than 100 years), medium-term (100 to 1000 years) and long-term (more than 1000 years). The longer the period of carbon storage outside the atmosphere, the higher the value of the project.  

The largest volumes of offsets today are generated in tree planting and soil carbon sequestration. These projects are labeled as short-term because carbon removal is inherently ephemeral in natural ecosystems, unlike engineered solutions that can store carbon over the long term. 

Offset issuers are therefore now using so-called 'buffer stocks' from which they can replace tonnes of carbon that are returned to the atmosphere (for example, as a result of forest fires, illegal logging or ploughing up organic-rich soils). Equally, however, issuers of offsets should apply strong measures to minimise the risks of leakage back into the atmosphere. 


## Offsets: won't this cause emissions elsewhere? 

Some projects unintentionally shift emissions from one geographical area to another (even internationally). Typically this happens when a forest is planted somewhere or biomass is grown in a field to produce biogas, reducing food production in that location which leads to clearing forests for more agricultural soil. These potential negative consequences of the project need to be quantified and subtracted from its benefits.

large_shutterstock_1553946905.jpg

medium_shutterstock_1553946905.jpg

small_shutterstock_1553946905.jpg

thumbnail_shutterstock_1553946905.jpg

shutterstock_1553946905.jpg

Assessing the Quality of Offsets

#### How are different ways of removing carbon from the atmosphere being applied? They are all developing because each has its advantages.
   
  
#### In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, different ways of directly removing carbon from the atmosphere are beginning to get support. There are big differences between them. They have their advantages and disadvantages. There is not just one right option among them. We need all of them to prevent the planet from warming by more than 1.5 °C. They must be used on a large scale and as soon as possible. For the time being, however, they all have insufficient capacity. Their necessary development will be assisted, in particular, by companies that have ambitious climate targets. 
  
In terms of emissions, we can divide companies into two types. The first are direct CO2 emitters, such as coal-fired power stations, heating plants, steel and cement producers. Their emissions are regulated by a system of emission allowances. They are financially incentivised to reduce emissions gradually. And these reductions are happening because the price of emission allowances is rising dramatically, accelerating the shift away from coal. 
  
The second type are companies that do not emit CO2 directly from any of their chimneys, but indirectly contribute to CO2 emissions through their consumption of electricity, gas, petrol, etc. These companies are not obliged to reduce their carbon footprint today. However, they will be under increasing pressure from their shareholders, creditors and customers to reduce their carbon footprint significantly over time. Progressive companies are setting ambitious targets to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. [Komerční banka, for instance, wants to achieve carbon neutrality even as early as 2026](https://www.kb.cz/cs/o-bance/pro-media/tiskove-zpravy-2020/kb-bude-do-roku-2026-uhlikove-neutralni). And it is precisely the position of these companies that will support the development of various ways of removing carbon from the atmosphere in the coming years, because they will need someone to remove their indirect emissions from the atmosphere on their behalf. And so they will buy carbon credits, so-called offsets, because without using them, they will not be able to achieve carbon neutrality throughout their entire supply and demand chain. 
  
More than 95 % of the offsets offered up to 2020 were projects that sought to avoid further emissions by protecting rainforests, or by trying to reduce emissions by using more efficient technology to generate electricity or heat. Nowadays, offsets that directly remove carbon from the atmosphere, known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR), are becoming increasingly popular. This either makes use of natural principles of photosynthesis or mineralisation, or uses modern technology.  
    
  
**There are six main ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere:** 
  

#### 1) Reforestation and afforestation  

Trees are particularly good at storing carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis. Expanding, restoring and better managing forests to encourage greater carbon uptake can harness the power of photosynthesis and convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbon stored in wood and soil.  

The main advantage of this solution is its high absorption capacity with prices around USD 10 per tonne of CO2. At the same time, they bring significant co-benefits such as cleaner water and air. Forests also support the small water cycle, cool the local climate and help maintain biodiversity in the landscape. This is also why it is the most used CDR project method.  

One of the main challenges is to ensure that the expansion of forests in one area is not at the expense of forests elsewhere. Afforestation of agricultural land, for example, would reduce food supply. This could necessitate the conversion of other forests to farmland if improvements in farm productivity do not fill the gap. Similarly, failure to harvest timber in one forest may lead to over-harvesting in another forest. Afforestation thus has its limits in the insufficiency of suitable sites for afforestation. It is all the more important to ensure that rainforests do not get cleared, as they are a huge carbon sink. Tropical forest restoration typically captures 11 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year, but the loss of one hectare of mature forest can release more than 30 times that amount of CO2 - over 400 tonnes all at once.  
  
Examples of such projects include [Pachama](https://pachama.com/) and [NCX](https://ncx.com/). 

  
  
#### 2) Carbon in the soil
  

Soil naturally stores carbon in organic matter. There is 3 times more carbon in the soil than in the atmosphere. Historically, industrial agriculture has released large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, causing that agricultural soils are now degraded in many places, losing fertility as well as the ability to retain enough water and to resist wind and water erosion. Since agricultural land is so vast, even a small increase in the amount of carbon in the soil could have a big impact.   
  
[Regenerative farming](https://carboneg.eu/regenerativni-zemedelstvi) has been proven to increase soil carbon and provide many side benefits. Planting cover crops at a time when fields are otherwise bare can extend photosynthesis throughout the year and, if mechanical and chemical disturbance to the soil is reduced, about 10 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year can be stored, as projects in [Austria](https://www.oekoregion-kaindorf.at/index.php?id=515) and [Germany](https://www.carbocert.de/) have demonstrated. The biggest challenge is a radical change in farming practices, which must also be permanent, since a return to ploughing can wipe out previous carbon gains in the soil.   
  
Examples of projects include [Carbocert](https://www.carbocert.de), [Carboneg](https://carboneg.eu/), [Nori](http://www.nori.com), [Indigo](https://www.indigoag.eu/for-growers/carbon-farming), [Grassroots Carbon](https://buildgrassroots.com/). 

  
A large natural carbon stock exists in peatlands. Although [they make up only 3 % of the Earth's mainland, they contain 42 % of the total carbon stored in the soil](https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/peatlands-and-climate-change). Hence, projects are being set up to restore peatlands to boost the carbon sequestration capacity of this ecosystem. 
  
[Moor Futures](https://moorfutures-bb.de/berechnung/) is an example of such project. 


#### 3) Use of biomass  

Bioenergy production with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is another way to use photosynthesis to combat climate change. However, it is much more complex than planting trees or managing land - and not always beneficial for the climate.  

BECCS is the process of using biomass to generate energy in industry, power or transport, capturing its emissions before releasing them back into the atmosphere and then storing the captured carbon either underground or in long-life products such as concrete. 

It is important that BECCS are carbon negative overall and primarily use agricultural residues or wood waste from nearby areas as fuel. These materials may be key to the future of BECCS as they would not require special land use. In such a case, BECCS can bring the anticipated climate benefits. 

Another option for using biomass for carbon sequestration is the conversion of biomass by pyrolysis into [biochar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar) or carbon oils that can get almost permanently stored underground, which is their main advantage.  

Project examples: [Biouhel](linkhttps://biouhel.cz/?page_id=2), [Charm](https://charmindustrial.com/), [Carbofex](https://www.carbofex.fi/?view=Home). 

#### 4) Direct carbon capture from the air  

Direct Air Capture (DAC) is the process of chemically cleaning carbon dioxide directly from the ambient air and then storing it either underground or in long-life products. This new technology is similar to the carbon capture and storage technology used to capture emissions from sources such as power plants and industrial facilities. The difference is that direct atmospheric capture removes excess carbon directly from the atmosphere instead of capturing it at the source.  

It is relatively easy to measure and account for DAC's climate benefits, and its potential range of deployment is enormous. However, the technology is still expensive and energy demanding. The current capacity of existing projects is therefore still relatively small, as they need sufficient emission-free energy to achieve net carbon removal. At the same time, suitable permanent storage must be available nearby.  

Project examples: [Climeworks](https://climeworks.com/), [Carbon Engineering](https://carbonengineering.com/). 

#### 5) Carbon mineralisation  

Some minerals, such as [olivine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivine), naturally react with CO2 to convert carbon from a gas to a solid. This process is commonly referred to as carbon mineralization or enhanced weathering and naturally occurs very slowly over hundreds or thousands of years.    

The aim of this CDR project is to accelerate the natural chemical weathering of the mineral by spreading a large amount of grinded rock containing olivine over a large area. The main advantage is the virtually permanent storage of carbon. Limitations lie in finding a suitable and sufficient source of the particular mineral, a sufficient area for dispersal and low-emission extraction and transport of large quantities of rock.  

Project examples: [Vesta](https://www.projectvesta.org/), [Heirloom](https://www.heirloomcarbon.com/). 

#### 6) Ocean exploitation  

The main method of carbon sequestration in the ocean is through photosynthesis in coastal plants, seaweeds or phytoplankton.  Seaweed cultivation could remove carbon while boosting ecosystem restoration and also reducing ocean acidification. The advantage of this option is the vast expanse of oceans available and the great potential in carbon sequestration due to the rapid growth of algae. However, little is still known about the wider ecological impacts of these approaches and further research is needed to better understand the potential risks before such methods can be implemented on a large scale.   

In the near future, cultivated seaweed could also be used to produce products such as food, fuel and fertiliser, which, while not carbon-removing, could reduce emissions compared to conventional production and provide an economic return that will support the growth of this field.  

Project example: [RunningTide](https://www.runningtide.com/). 

![NETs_NationalAcademies_web.jpg](/uploads/NE_Ts_National_Academies_web_6fc4e2bde4.jpg)

large_IMG_7250 (1).jpg

medium_IMG_7250 (1).jpg

small_IMG_7250 (1).jpg

thumbnail_IMG_7250 (1).jpg

IMG_7250 (1).jpg

Removing Carbon from the Atmosphere

#### The fight against climate change requires all the tools available, including removing carbon from the atmosphere.

#### The cause of climate change is the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The European plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions aims to reduce their annual additions with the technologies we have today. This is necessary, but it does not address the cause of climate change. At the same time, we need to develop capacities to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The problem of climate change is quite complex, therefore (for most people) hard to imagine. However, it can be analogized to a very relatable situation. Imagine that your bathtub is overflowing. You have 1,650 litres (8 full bathtubs) already spilled on the floor and more water is coming in through the tap. Each year, this adds up to approximately 34 more litres (3.5 buckets). Now imagine the damage that spilled water causes. You've got ruined floors, furniture, and the ceiling in the floor below where the water is leaking. You need to shut off the water supply as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the tap is rusted, so you cannot close it all the way. It is hard to do, but at least you made a little move, better than nothing. In any case, to stop further damage, you will have to start mopping up the excess water as soon as possible. The water level is quite high and it makes your cozy apartment truly hard to live in.  

It is similar to climate change.

Only this time it is not about litres of water, but billions of tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. Approximately half of our emissions will be absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere, but the rest will remain in the atmosphere for another thousand years unless we remove it. Since the year 1751, mankind has emitted 1,649 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, [more than half of it in the last 30 years](https://ieep.eu/news/more-than-half-of-all-co2-emissions-since-1751-emitted-in-the-last-30-years). The estimate of global CO2 emissions for 2020 is 34 billion tonnes. We plan to eliminate a large part of these emissions by 2050 by switching to renewable sources of electricity and phasing out the use of fossil fuels in industry and heat production. But in certain sectors, we may not reach zero emissions even in 2050. Furthermore, in cement production and air transport, for example, we have no carbon-free technology available today that we could use on a large scale in the future.   

As mankind, we are now devoting a great deal of energy to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that is absolutely right and necessary. However, we should put just as much effort into building the capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it permanently, the so-called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The[ IPCC's latest assessment report](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Headline-statements.pdf) states that all scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5°C assume a CDR of 100-1000 billion tonnes of CO2 over the course of the 21st century. 

There are two basic types of CDR approaches. Either they use existing natural processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (e.g. by increasing its uptake by trees, seaweed, wetlands or soil), or they use chemical processes that, for example, capture CO2 directly from the ambient air and store it elsewhere (usually underground) using huge fans. All CDR methods have their advantages and any available capacity to remove carbon from the atmosphere will be needed. Therefore, we should work on developing and testing all CDR methods. 

The development of CDR today is mainly funded by progressive corporations who want to achieve net-zero emissions in the foreseeable future for their carbon footprint measured across their entire supply and demand chain. With existing technologies, they cannot get to net-zero by 2030, nor 2050, and they need someone to sequester their customers' and suppliers' emissions. They, therefore, buy so-called offsets, which are a kind of carbon credits from various CDR projects. In the US, this approach is exemplified by companies such as [Microsoft](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2021/01/28/one-year-later-the-path-to-carbon-negative-a-progress-report-on-our-climate-moonshot/) and [Stripe](https://stripe.com/newsroom/news/spring-21-carbon-removal-purchases), which openly communicate their principles to make it easier for other companies to seek a responsible approach and set boundaries for offset providers.   

Fortunately, similar intentions are emerging among European corporations. The [European Commission recognizes the crucial role of carbon reduction](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/689336/EPRS_BRI(2021)689336_EN.pdf) and intends to focus on natural CDR methods as they appear to be more cost-effective and viable in the short term. 

Carboneg's aim is to support these intentions and build sufficient capacity to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and store it permanently in the soil. 

**Reducing emissions is not enough. **

At the same time, we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere and regenerate natural ecosystems, so that they can better withstand the impacts of climate change and perhaps also help us in this battle.

Blog

The higher nutritional value of food from regenerative production is often touted as one of the benefits of this farming method. Until now, however,...

From time to time, some unwelcome climate news like that published in recent months reminds us why we do all of this. Why we...

For our 10th episode of the Půdcast, a podcast from Carboneg, we had a captivating interview with Alex Page, owner of the first and,...

One of the biggest concerns and challenges farmers face when transitioning to regenerative agriculture is weed management. Which practices will suppress weeds and which...

We have succeeded in the EIT Food call and are receiving support for training activities for farmers in the Czech Republic.

We have already informed you in a number of previous blog articles that responsible agriculture has great potential for solving the climate crisis. We...

How is Deloitte taking a stand on regenerative agriculture? What are the expectations of the transformation of the agricultural sector in the future? Or...

You have only until 2 May 2022 to participate in the public consultation on the development of a legislative framework for [EU rules on...

It is true that the effect of methane on the greenhouse effect is much greater than that of CO2. And it is the production...