Zero till began as a simple concept. Park your cultivator, add a dash of Roundup and continuous crop your way to profitability. However, simple concepts rarely remain simple for long. Past experience dictates that we have no choice but to deal with concepts we had no intention of exploring.
As an example, water management with zero till starts with tall stubble to catch snow. We soon discovered that water management is more complex. Evaporation rates, infiltration rates and micro-climate have more to do with water use efficiency than trapping snow. These were ideas we never considered when we started.
Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases trap heat and the climate warms as these gases increase. It is a simple concept and one I was skeptical about.
One weather pattern model developed years ago suggested overall climate change wouldn't be all that dramatic but there would be an increase in individual severe weather events. This model came long before the "Flood of the Century" in Manitoba and the "Ice Storm of the Century" in the east. Somewhere there is a smug scientist who can say he was right. As a parallel in agriculture, think back ten years or more if you happened to be a no-tiller. Many of the then critics now direct seed. To be blunt, the debate over global warning is over. The world agreed at Kyoto in December 1997 that something must be done. Let's look at how it affects us.
The science is simple. Burning fossil fuel (we all do) creates among other things, carbon dioxide (CO2) which is bad. Plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere (which is good), put the oxygen back into the atmosphere (which is better) and store (sequesters) the carbon in the soil. If we don't till the soil, most of it stays buried (good again). Presto, good air to breath and healthier soils. Perhaps we won't have to give up our motor homes and sport utilities, at least not yet.
It is comforting to think that good soil stewardship can be good atmospheric stewardship as well. Let' consider the potential here. Perhaps there are benefits we have never considered.
If we use the Census figures that 8% of Manitoba, 20% of Saskatchewan and 8% of Alberta are under low disturbance seeding (LDS). Take this area and multiply it by the 0.15 to 0.30 tonnes of carbon per hectare, Ag Canada data suggests can be sequestered (stored) per year. You get between 600,000 and 1,200,000 tonnes of carbon per year. Since most fossil fuels are made up of about 60% carbon this would translate into 1 to 2 million tonnes of fuel.
Land zero tilled on the prairies now will convert the carbon dioxide released by burning this fuel into oxygen in the atmosphere and carbon, in the form of organic matter in the soil.
Astonishingly what plants, nature and zero till can accomplish. Start out with something as simple like trying to keep your soil from blowing away or washing away and you are suddenly able to clean up the atmosphere.
Now let's be a bit mercenary here. My math may be a bit shaky but if fuel weighs 8 lb per gallon that is between 275 and 550 million gallons per year of fuel. Metrified this translates to 1.24 to 2.48 billion litres per year and no one is forced to do anything they don't want to.
Farmers should certainly be looking at this. In a national context, instead of being part of the greenhouse problem, farmers are part of the solution. Think of rewards not penalties. It is amazing what farmers can do when they park their tillage equipment.
My suggestion is that you all talk to your neighbours and politicians to see that the concept of soil as a carbon bank does not fall off Canada's emission reduction plan. It would not hurt to suggest in the same breath that farmers' contributions to the Greenhouse gas problem be appropriately recognized