Carbon Emission
Due to increasing level of the productions, the carbon pollution becomes a serious issue for the environment. It is because it is continuously affecting the atmosphere and the living standards of the mankind. So, in order to overcome this issue and to have the control on the carbon pollution, there are different steps that are taken by the different countries. Australia is also one of the major countries which are also facing the issue related to the carbon pollution (Lovasi etb al., 2013). There are different steps that are also taken by the Federal Government of Australia for overcoming this issue and to make the eco-friendly environment. In this, additional carbon in agriculture soils is the major way that is used by the government and for this, there are different methodologies such as conventional tillage, minimum tillage, farm forestry, etc that can be used by encouraging farmers and the land managers (Bhatia et al., 2010). At the same time, this paper two proposed methodologies for better use in the cut of carbon pollution.
Tillage system is helpful to make the soil environment favourable to growing plants that helps to reduce the carbon emission in the environment. According to Li et al., (2011), tillage method is the physical, chemical or biological soil manipulation that is crucial to make the conditions suitable for germination, seedling establishment and crop growth. it is because soil manipulation can be effective to change the fertility status and contribute in the performance of crops and reducing carbon emission. The following tillage methods can be used to reduce the carbon emission:
Conventional Tillage
It is also one of the best and effective ways for cut the carbon pollution. It helps to reduce labour, saves time that is quite appreciate for the farmers and the land managers. It also assists the farmers to save the fuel that is mandatory to overcome the use of carbon pollution or to reduce the green house gases. In this, for an acre, only 3.5 gallons fuels are required that is quite low as compared to the other way of the tillage (Babujia et al., 2010). At the same time, it is also helpful to traps soil moisture for improving the availability of the water. In this, a shade is provided to remain the crop and catch the water in the soil that helps to reduce the water evaporation. It also improves the quality of the water and also helps to control the impact of pesticides and also for reducing the runoff into water surface. Because of this, the conventional tillage is one of the best ways for cutting the carbon pollution (Li et al., 2011). Along with cutting the carbon pollution, it is also helpful to increase the wildlife. It is because it provides the food and the shelter for the wildlife including small animals and birds.
Conventional tillage is a tillage system using cultivation as the major means of seedbed preparation and weed control. It is a system which uses cultivation as the main means for preparing seedbed and weed control. It is a sequence of soil tillage, which produces a fine seedbed. It helps in destroying of the shelter of the pests and it controls the weeds and makes it easier to undertake the other farm practices. It helps in an equal distribution of the soil nutrients throughout the soil (Lovasi et al., 2013).
It is also one of the effective ways for the farmers and the land managers to overcome the impact of carbon and to increase the fertility of the land. In addition, the minimum tillage is also known as a soil conservation system. One of the main advantages of this is that help to keep safe the soil during the tillage. As well as, in this method, the plows are highly used by the farmers and the land managers for changing the structure of the soil. This method is also not time and the cost is consuming so that in the short land, the farmers prefer to use the minimum tillage way. At the same time, in the research of Castellini, & Ventrella (2012), it is also stated that the minimum tillage is also helpful for reducing the energy consumption and the labour cost. It is because in this technique, the land is limited and there is no need for the land manager and the farmers to use the high fertilizer and ingredients. Because of this, it is time and cost consuming. It is also helpful to preserve the moisture because sometimes high moisture affects the fertility of the land. It assists to keep safe the land and the plan farm from unnecessary erosion that helps to overcome the pollution and to make the eco-friendly environment (Guto et al., 2012). It is a type of conservation tillage which helps in creating an appropriate soil environment for growing the crops. It helps in conserving the soil, energy, and water resources by diminishing the intensity or strength of tillage. It is the traditional method of farming, where the soil is prepared for planting with the help of a tractor, followed by upcoming additional tillage for cultivation of the crop by smoothing the soil surface.
It leaves about one-third of the crop residue on the surface of the soil. Due to this, the movement of the water slows down, which in turn reduces the amount of soil erosion. It is one of the popular technologies being used. It lessens the overall production cost. It helps in improving the condition of the soil (Vanlauwe et al., 2011). It results in high infiltration which is caused by vegetation. It helps in improving the structure at the same time. Due to this, the crops can be sown instantly. The organic matter content can also be used to improve the condition of the soil. As the top soil is protected, it helps in reducing the erosion and helps to conserve the water.
Compare & Contrast Methodologies
The similarities in the two are that both are types of tillage and both helps in improving the texture of soil making it more fertile. The farmers are also benefited by using this tillage’s as it is economical and not much time-consuming. Both of them help to reduce the greenhouse gas and aims to cut the carbon pollution (Prasad et al., 2012). The harmful effects of the pesticides are also decreased. Both methods have a significant impact on bulk density andsoil aggregation.
The differences in the two are that, conservation tillage has the major advantage of sowing the crops immediately, before the previous crops have been harvested which is time-consuming for the farmers. This is not possible in the case of conventional tillage. The land which is not accessible due to wet conditions can be accessed in conservation tillage drilling the wheat crop. The conventional tillage requires more labor cost for the preparation of the soil which is not in the case of conservation tillage (Prasad et al., 2012). It also increases soil erosion. Conservation tillage not only saves time but also the labor cost and the fuel by an average of 3.5 gallons an acre. It also lessens the pesticides, leaching of the fertilizer into the ground water. Conservation tillage also serves the purpose of reducing field operations (Steiner et al., 2010).
Conventional tillage has been the regular practice in most agricultural land. However, in the previous two decades or therefore, a few improvements in the field of agribusiness have directed uncommon changes in tillage practices. In the first place, the accessibility of herbicides fit for controlling a large portion of the significant weeds has turned out to be accessible at sensible cost. This improvement lessened the requirement for cultivating and even plowing in some cases. Second, high increase in fuel costs constrained tractor-dependent farmers to look for methods for decreasing their tillage operation costs(Paul et al., 2013). Third, the increasingenvironmental concerns have constrained a re-assessment of soil erosion as source of off-site water contamination. These significant improvements have encouraged researcher and farmers to look at the impacts of minimum tillage methods, which permit less erosion than the conventional tillage systems.
Minimum tillage systems are different with specific field operations involving less tillage system as compared to conventional tillage. Apart from this, minimum tillage system is better in terms of soil protection than conventional tillage. The conventional tillage system leaves around 1-5% of the soil surface which is covered with crop residues, whereas minimum tillage system generally leaves 15-25% soil coverage. These distinctions in residues land have a significant impact on both soil erosion and runoff(Cordell et al., 2013).
Various investigations have demonstrated that the conventional tillage method is the least suitable method because it prompts higher erosion. On the other hand, minimum tillage method that keeps up the soil cover with crop residues brings about less erosion as compared to the conventional tillage system. Moreover, surface runoff is diminished, in spite of the fact that the distinctions are not articulated as with soil erosion(Fisher et al., 2012). Even in soils with high erosion possibilities, soil loss is far beneath as far as possible under the minimum tillage method. There is low soil loss in minimum tillage due to high percentage of soil cover in comparison of conventional tillage method. As there is minimum loss of nutrients in the minimum tillage system as compared to conventional tillage system (McDonnell, & Hahs, 2013). The low nutrient loss particularly nitrogen happens in light of the fact that the greater portion of the soil happens in conventional tillage system due to erosion, which for the most part contain nitrogen and in minimum framework, less fine fraction are brought out through erosion. In terms of crop yield, the minimum tillage method is equally or more effective than the conventional tillage method. It is because minimum tillage method is useful in improving soil fertility and water utilization efficiency (Abdullah, 2014). The use of this method with proper planting leads to in the increasing yield. If there is low yield, the main reasons could be lower soil temperature and plant diseases which may be higher in the conditions of the higher moisture.
Minimum tillage system has variable impacts on the soil properties by leaving the porosity in surface of soil as compared to conventional tillage system. Apart from this, there is high moisture in upper soil layer while using minimum tillage system because of the reduced evaporation that is brought by the residues left on surface(Delagarde et al., 2011). Therefore, minimum tillage declines soil erosion, fertilizer leaching, pesticides and herbicides into the ground water.
Minimum tillage is effective in improving activity of earth worm and other soil micro flora. From some studies, it was found that there is high soil microbial activity with conventional tillage due to better aeration (Teague et al., 2011). Apart from this, minimum tillage method is helpful in increasing soil infiltration rate and reducing soil evaporation by increasing soil water storage. There is high soil organic content due to higher residue in surface soil in minimum tillage method (McDonnell, & Hahs, 2013).
From the above discussion, it can be stated that conventional tillage and minimum tillage methods are effective techniques to reduce soil erosion and cut the carbon emission from the environment. However, the use of conventional methods has reduced over the time due to more utility and benefits of the minimum tillage system which is s a conversion method. From the discussion, it can also be summarized that minimum tillage system is better than conventional tillage method. Minimum tillage method is effective in terms of securing soil residues, low labour and energy requirements and low soil erosion as compared to conventional tillage method. The cut in labor requirements by the minimum tillage method has made it popular among farmers and encourage them to switch from conventional to minimum tillage method.
Bhatia, A., Sasmal, S., Jain, N., Pathak, H., Kumar, R., & Singh, A. (2010). Mitigating nitrous oxide emission from soil under conventional and no-tillage in wheat using nitrification inhibitors. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 136(3), 247-253.
Babujia, L. C., Hungria, M., Franchini, J. C., & Brookes, P. C. (2010). Microbial biomass and activity at various soil depths in a Brazilian oxisol after two decades of no-tillage and conventional tillage. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(12), 2174-2181.
Li, D., Liu, M., Cheng, Y., Wang, D., Qin, J., Jiao, J., … & Hu, F. (2011). Methane emissions from double-rice cropping system under conventional and no tillage in southeast China. Soil and Tillage Research, 113(2), 77-81.
Castellini, M., & Ventrella, D. (2012). Impact of conventional and minimum tillage on soil hydraulic conductivity in typical cropping system in Southern Italy. Soil and Tillage Research, 124, 47-56.
Guto, S. N., Pypers, P., Vanlauwe, B., & De Ridder, N. (2012). Socio-ecological niches for minimum tillage and crop-residue retention in continuous maize cropping systems in smallholder farms of Central Kenya. Agronomy Journal, 104(1), 188-198.
Abdullah, A. S. (2014). Minimum tillage and residue management increase soil water content, soil organic matter and canola seed yield and seed oil content in the semiarid areas of Northern Iraq. Soil and tillage research, 144, 150-155.
Cordell, D., Jackson, M., & White, S. (2013). Phosphorus flows through the Australian food system: identifying intervention points as a roadmap to phosphorus security. Environmental science & policy, 29, 87-102.
Fisher, J., Tozer, P., & Abrecht, D. (2012). Livestock in no-till cropping systems–a story of trade-offs. Animal Production Science, 52(4), 197-214.
Teague, W. R., Dowhower, S. L., Baker, S. A., Haile, N., DeLaune, P. B., & Conover, D. M. (2011). Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 141(3), 310-322.
Delagarde, R., Faverdin, P., Baratte, C., & Peyraud, J. L. (2011). GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 2. Prediction of intake under rotational and continuously stocked grazing management. Grass and Forage Science, 66(1), 45-60.
Paul, K. I., Reeson, A., Polglase, P., Crossman, N., Freudenberger, D., & Hawkins, C. (2013). Economic and employment implications of a carbon market for integrated farm forestry and biodiverse environmental plantings. Land use policy, 30(1), 496-506.
Prasad, J. V. N. S., Srinivas, K., Rao, C. S., Ramesh, C., Venkatravamma, K., & Venkateswarlu, B. (2012). Biomass productivity and carbon stocks of farm forestry and agroforestry systems of leucaena and eucalyptus in Andhra Pradesh, India. Current Science, 536-540.
Lovasi, G. S., O’Neil-Dunne, J. P., Lu, J. W., Sheehan, D., Perzanowski, M. S., MacFaden, S. W., … & Perera, F. P. (2013). Urban tree canopy and asthma, wheeze, rhinitis, and allergic sensitization to tree pollen in a New York City birth cohort. Environmental health perspectives, 121(4), 494.
McDonnell, M. J., & Hahs, A. K. (2013). The future of urban biodiversity research: moving beyond the ‘low-hanging fruit’. Urban Ecosystems, 16(3), 397-409.
Beesley, L., Moreno-Jiménez, E., & Gomez-Eyles, J. L. (2010). Effects of biochar and greenwaste compost amendments on mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environmental pollution, 158(6), 2282-2287.
Steiner, C., Das, K. C., Melear, N., & Lakly, D. (2010). Reducing nitrogen loss during poultry litter composting using biochar. Journal of environmental quality, 39(4), 1236-1242.
Vanlauwe, B., Kihara, J., Chivenge, P., Pypers, P., Coe, R., & Six, J. (2011). Agronomic use efficiency of N fertilizer in maize-based systems in sub-Saharan Africa within the context of integrated soil fertility management. Plant and soil, 339(1-2), 35-50.
