Carbon sequestration in European soils through straw incorporation: Limitations and alternatives

We compared alternate uses of cereal straw (4.25 t dry matter ha−1 containing 1.7 t carbon (C)) for their effectiveness in relation to climate change mitigation. The scenarios were (1) incorporation into soil to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) content (“carbon sequestration”) and (2) combustion to generate electricity. The Rothamsted Carbon Model was used to estimate SOC accumulation in a silty clay loam soil under the climatic conditions of north-west Europe. Using straw for electricity generation saved seven times more CO2 than from SOC accumulation. This comparison assumed that electricity from straw combustion displaced that generated from coal and used the mean annual accumulation of SOC over 100 yr. SOC increased most rapidly in the early years, but then more slowly as a new equilibrium value was approached. We suggest that increased SOC from straw incorporation does not represent genuine climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration. In Europe, most straw not already incorporated in the field where it is grown is subsequently returned elsewhere, e.g., after use for animal bedding and production of manure. Only additional retention of C in soil compared to the alternative use represents sequestration. Maintenance of SOC for soil functioning is a more appropriate rationale for returning straw to soil than climate change mitigation. This analysis shows that considerably greater climate change mitigation is achieved through saved CO2 emissions by burning straw for electricity generation, replacing some use of fossil fuel.