Is anyone else disappointed by GLAS? Heralded as the Green Low carbon Agri Scheme, and eagerly awaited by thousands of farmers, it was hailed to the general public as part of Ireland’s global warming response, hence the inclusion of the L for low carbon. While it is great news that the COP21 talks in Paris have officially accepted the huge potential of our soil to offset carbon emissions, I fear GLAS will not make much of a contribution.
The withdrawal of options
For a number of reasons, I waited until phase two to apply. Looking through the options still available for phase two, I am struggling to find options that incentivise farmers to sequester more carbon. Planting a new hedgerow is gone, planting hedgerow trees is gone, planting field trees is gone, planting a traditional orchard is gone and creating permanent habitat is gone. The reason given is that nurseries are out of plants! Surely this should have been anticipated and planned for.
It also happened in AEOS 1, but on that occasion the Department allowed plantings to be carried over until the following year. Why was this not done this time? From a rural development perspective, it is unreasonable to expect nurseries to produce stock for such sporadic demand. It takes at least three years from seed to sapling. They need to know there will be a demand every year. Rather than abolish these options altogether, why wasn’t some way found to allow them to be spread out over of a number of years? Pity. It also begs the questions: will these options be put back on for next year when nurseries have plants again? Will those of us losing out now get to apply for those options next year? Need to think this through guys.
Carbon effects of present GLAS options
The remaining available options seem to me to be mostly carbon-negative or neutral. For discussion, any activity that locks more carbon into your farm is carbon positive. While any activity that releases additional carbon into the air is carbon-negative. If it has no clear effect one way or the other then it is carbon neutral. Below is my assessment of the remaining actions:
Woodland plot – positive.Min till – positive.Traditional meadow – Carbon positive since the long close-up period should build SOM (soil organic matter).Wild bird seed planting – carbon negative since tilling releases soil carbon to the air.Coppicing and hedge laying – negative, since most farmers will burn the trimmings.Cover crops – neutral.Fencing off watercourse – neutral.Low input grassland – neutral.Bird, bat and bee boxes – neutral.Another missed opportunity
It is also disappointing that an opportunity to incentivise dairy farmers towards carbon-positive farming has been missed. Farmers presently following rotational/paddock systems have huge potential to sequester more carbon while simultaneously building humus and SOM. This can easily be done by just extending the grazing rotation lengths from 20-30 days, to 30-40 days. This would allow more growth of grass roots. When the tillers are subsequently tightly grazed, these stronger roots will decay, thus increasing SOM. If incentivised by a suitable GLAS-type payment, many farmers could readily lengthen their rotations, thus involving thousands of acres and sequestering thousands of tonnes of additional carbon. Any losses in grass digestibility would be offset by increases in DM yield, nutrient density and probably herd health. Would someone please take time off examining cows’ belches and have a good look at all this.
Read more
Rush to submit GLAS plans before deadline
Is anyone else disappointed by GLAS? Heralded as the Green Low carbon Agri Scheme, and eagerly awaited by thousands of farmers, it was hailed to the general public as part of Ireland’s global warming response, hence the inclusion of the L for low carbon. While it is great news that the COP21 talks in Paris have officially accepted the huge potential of our soil to offset carbon emissions, I fear GLAS will not make much of a contribution.
The withdrawal of options
For a number of reasons, I waited until phase two to apply. Looking through the options still available for phase two, I am struggling to find options that incentivise farmers to sequester more carbon. Planting a new hedgerow is gone, planting hedgerow trees is gone, planting field trees is gone, planting a traditional orchard is gone and creating permanent habitat is gone. The reason given is that nurseries are out of plants! Surely this should have been anticipated and planned for.
It also happened in AEOS 1, but on that occasion the Department allowed plantings to be carried over until the following year. Why was this not done this time? From a rural development perspective, it is unreasonable to expect nurseries to produce stock for such sporadic demand. It takes at least three years from seed to sapling. They need to know there will be a demand every year. Rather than abolish these options altogether, why wasn’t some way found to allow them to be spread out over of a number of years? Pity. It also begs the questions: will these options be put back on for next year when nurseries have plants again? Will those of us losing out now get to apply for those options next year? Need to think this through guys.
Carbon effects of present GLAS options
The remaining available options seem to me to be mostly carbon-negative or neutral. For discussion, any activity that locks more carbon into your farm is carbon positive. While any activity that releases additional carbon into the air is carbon-negative. If it has no clear effect one way or the other then it is carbon neutral. Below is my assessment of the remaining actions:
Woodland plot – positive.Min till – positive.Traditional meadow – Carbon positive since the long close-up period should build SOM (soil organic matter).Wild bird seed planting – carbon negative since tilling releases soil carbon to the air.Coppicing and hedge laying – negative, since most farmers will burn the trimmings.Cover crops – neutral.Fencing off watercourse – neutral.Low input grassland – neutral.Bird, bat and bee boxes – neutral.Another missed opportunity
It is also disappointing that an opportunity to incentivise dairy farmers towards carbon-positive farming has been missed. Farmers presently following rotational/paddock systems have huge potential to sequester more carbon while simultaneously building humus and SOM. This can easily be done by just extending the grazing rotation lengths from 20-30 days, to 30-40 days. This would allow more growth of grass roots. When the tillers are subsequently tightly grazed, these stronger roots will decay, thus increasing SOM. If incentivised by a suitable GLAS-type payment, many farmers could readily lengthen their rotations, thus involving thousands of acres and sequestering thousands of tonnes of additional carbon. Any losses in grass digestibility would be offset by increases in DM yield, nutrient density and probably herd health. Would someone please take time off examining cows’ belches and have a good look at all this.
Read more
Rush to submit GLAS plans before deadline
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: