Category: Insights

Who owns the carbon?

Posted on January 7, 2022 by - Insights

This article was written by FCT Director Andrew Rigg for the RSA blog in December 2021. We are reposting it here with permission:

Farmers have a huge part to play in the fight against climate change. Andrew Rigg, FRSA,  a farmer, and Director of the Farm Carbon-Cutting Toolkit CIC, explains how his community is taking carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it back in the soil. But, he cautions calculating the net gains and losses is far from simple.

In 2020 the RSA awarded The Farm Carbon-Cutting Toolkit Community Interest Company a Catalyst Scaling-up Grant to look at carbon sequestration on farms. We have a long name, but it does tell you what we do, and it underlines our approach to our farming community: we’re run by farmers for farmers. The award came at a time when interest in farms and carbon, and in particular soil carbon, was rising rapidly. To us, this was no surprise as the biological world, and so of course farming, offers one of the very few effective mechanisms for drawing down carbon from the atmosphere. Put simply, the total size of the soil carbon reservoir exceeds the total mass of carbon in vegetation and atmosphere combined. There is room for more to be stored, and with about 45 per cent of global soils under some form of agricultural use, farming has a vital climate mitigation role to play.

The grant enabled us to scale up our existing soil carbon sampling, develop improved measurement protocols, and examine how farmers might be remunerated for climate services. We talked to a lot of people over the year as interest grew in the subject. While some questions were answered, many more emerged and assumptions got challenged amidst a wide array of parties and conflicting interests in carbon measurement.

Satellite companies are seeking to measure soil carbon from space, some are flying drones over farms to assess carbon locked into hedgerows. Former derivative traders are trying to work out financial instruments to allow trading of reliable farm carbon offsets. Food companies are trying to understand how carbon flows from field to fork, and farming service companies are seeking to integrate carbon into their services for their farming clients. Meanwhile, farmers are looking to not only improve their soil, but to see if their lost EU payments can be replaced by payments for carbon.

As carbon increases in value, the question “Who owns the carbon” is of increasing importance.

There is a race to get to net zero. Measurement of carbon in natural systems is complex, so how will we know, not only when we are making progress, but how to prioritise the most effective strategies? Farm Carbon Toolkit has developed a farm carbon calculator for farmers to better understand how carbon flows through their farms. This is a “tool” rather than an “audit”. So, recent lower yields and a damp harvest (requiring extra energy to be used to dry grain in store) means the author’s wheat footprint in 2021 is much higher than in the dry and high-yielding harvest of 2020. Variability is everywhere.

Nevertheless, we need the measurement, recording, verification and the appropriate allocation of carbon. Codes exist for woodland creation and peat-land restoration. We are members of a team working on a Farm Soil Carbon Code, and recently started work on a code for hedges. These codes are vital to give confidence to any organisation that may be entering a financial contract with respect to carbon. DEFRA is looking at “blended financial instruments”: how might public payment for public goods be combined with private sector offsets to best achieve carbon drawdown, the removal of carbon from the atmosphere? This is particularly relevant where biodiversity and carbon interests overlap.

Even with a robust set of codes, many questions remain around carbon offsets. Measuring small amounts of carbon absorbed per field is costly both to verify and to aggregate into a financial “instrument”. Consideration needs to be given to the length of the agreement, and the fact that offset values may vary as the price of carbon changes. The permanence of the management changes must be secured; legal agreements need to be drawn up.

If the offset is delivering other co-benefits such as biodiversity gains, does this alter its value? If the sequestration has been achieved because of other funded activity it is perhaps not allowable? Importantly, would an offset interfere with other supply contracts that the farmer wants to sign; can their produce still be considered low carbon if they have also sold carbon offsets?

Crucially, will the offset provide real net gain? A switch to a farm management practice that delivers carbon sequestration in one place, may, if the result is less food being produced, have the effect of creating a bigger carbon footprint elsewhere. This is known as the “leakage issue”. As we achieve local carbon sequestration, can we be sure that collectively these national improvements are not actually making the global situation worse? We in the UK have off-shore some of our manufacturing footprint to China. Can we be sure that a UK offset is not actually increasing the problem? Imported food may have a bigger carbon footprint than home grown produce.

There is a great deal to consider, and complexity to manage, but putting in place financial incentives in order to accelerate carbon sequestration while continuing to produce food is an urgent and important task.

Land use change can be one of the biggest emitters of carbon in agriculture as previously locked-up carbon is released. The potential extent of land use changes implied by the extra food needed in Africa (the UN projects there will be twice as many people in Africa by 2055 than in 2025) makes it imperative that farmers globally not only understand their most carbon-efficient way of farming, but also integrate sequestration into their farm management. In addition to carbon, there are also social and ethical reasons why the global food trade needs to be better managed. But avoiding land use change is possibly the most critical issue in the food chain, for both biodiversity and climate reasons.

Climate futurist Alex Steffen writes that “We’re not yet ready for what has already happened.” We need to also prepare for what is about to happen. The balance between population, diet, climate and biodiversity is set to dominate the next decade. In the UK’s parochial race to net zero, we must not lose sight of global net gain.

Collectively we all need to get a whole lot smarter about how carbon flows through the food chain so we can develop effective strategies for change.

Our work in accounting for carbon within our farming communities continues; you can find out more on our website here.

As well as being Director of the Farm Carbon-Cutting Toolkit, Andrew Rigg farms a 400-acre family arable farm in Hampshire. He co-founded the Environment Centre in Southampton in 1992 and was its chair for 18 years.

Farming and the climate crisis

Posted on March 3, 2022 by - Insights, News

Roots of green manures fixing nitrogn

What can farming do for the climate crisis?

COP26 in Glasgow brought a sharp focus on human activities that create greenhouse gases. There were many welcome announcements on reducing methane from oil and gas, cutting coal, limiting deforestation, “keeping 1.5 alive”, and a whole other host of measures. While many campaigners and leaders agree that the pledges do not go far enough, progress  has been made, momentum must continue and these pledges must now be translated  into action on all scales from grassroots to governments, across the world.

Building carbon in soils is a win-win for farmers and society

But one major issue was not given adequate attention – food and farming. Representing around 21-37% of global carbon emissions and something so fundamental to our daily lives, the lack of discussion is baffling. Is it because farming is a knotty problem and governments think there aren’t easy solutions? There could be many reasons for this lack of discussion, but the net effect is a lack of  policy and action driving the collective carbon footprint of food and farming in the right direction.

At Farm Carbon Toolkit we’ve been working on the ground, encouraging, informing and enabling farmers and growers to cut their carbon and increase sequestration on their farms for more than 10 years. We enable them to measure their carbon footprint, using the Farm Carbon Calculator, and point them to tried and tested solutions, advice, inspirational events and other learnings through the Toolkit.

The level of interest in our work has increased hugely over the past 18 months and we see that as very encouraging. Many farmers and growers want to reduce their carbon footprint, and can see the benefits. Legislation might well demand it soon, and some supply chains are already requiring their farmers to start going on a path towards net zero carbon, many of which point towards 2030 as an end date. Eight years from now…that’s not long.

How can farms be net zero?

All farms have greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions, such as from fuels, fertilisers, livestock, bought in materials, and soils. These all have to be accounted for, and steps must be made to minimise these emissions. Reducing emissions is the first step and every effort must be made to go as low as possible.

However farms are one of just two main industries in the UK that can also sequester (absorb) carbon – the other being forestry. The soils, hedges and woodlands of our farms can, when managed in the right way, lock-up carbon over a long time and keep it there. In the case of soils, when farms build organic matter it not only sequesters carbon, but also improves soil fertility, crop growth, water management, and biodiversity.

When the carbon emissions and sequestration are added together – the carbon balance, it’s quite possible for farms to be net zero, or better still ‘sub zero’ where they absorb more carbon than they emit. Or should that be ‘carbon positive’?!

Farms that have already made it

Plenty of farms that are using the Farm Carbon Calculator are already net or sub zero, including livestock, arable and horticultural businesses. Through a combination of reducing emissions and maximising sequestration, these farms are showing that farms can produce quality food, run successful businesses, and be part of the solution to the climate crisis.

Farmers and growers have a wide range of actions open to them, such as generating excess renewable energy and exporting it, reducing cultivations (which both saves fuel and increases soil organic matter), planting and better maintaining hedgerows, building soil organic matter, reducing fertiliser use (which also saves money), and changing the way livestock are fed.

There are huge business advantages to being net or sub zero – reducing costs, access emerging market trends, being in line with future subsidy systems, and morally doing the ‘right thing’.

Farming to be part of the solution

When farms transition to sub zero they are actually becoming a part of the climate solution in a very active way. When farms absorb more carbon than they emit, carbon dioxide is sucked out of the atmosphere providing a mechanism of helping to reduce the climate crisis.

This is clearly a positive in environmental terms, but also socially because it provides an empowering connection with customers to say that your business is doing such a good thing for society and the planet. And for customers to have the opportunity to buy carbon negative (or positive – the terms can be confusing!) food.

The bigger picture

We believe that many more farms could and should transition to sub zero carbon as soon as possible. It is certainly possible, the benefits are clear, and the planet requires it. So what’s stopping it?

Part of it lies with farmers and growers themselves, in having the knowledge and drive to do so. Learning new techniques, knowledge-exchange with peers, and rethinking business models and practices. We have seen many forward thinking and dedicated farmers achieve fantastic transformations in the carbon performance of their businesses. 

Farmers learning about good soil management

But critically, there is also a policy context in how the environment in which businesses work can be tweaked to favour low carbon practices. Some change is happening but much more is needed, and faster. The legal framework for business is important, ensuring that environmentally damaging practices are outlawed , whilst assessing the equivalence of imported produce. The subsidy regime must support sub zero farming in the future. Supply chains need to require and support businesses to meet net (or sub) zero targets.

The whole food system needs reform, from the farmers and growers who produce food, through the packhouses, retailers and processors that sell us food, through to us all who eat the food we buy. A systemic shift towards a better food system that values low carbon, low impact, quality food over merely price and convenience. The same level of thinking that got us into this mess will not give us the solutions we need to fix the problems.

Perhaps what’s missing though is the big picture. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and maybe what’s needed is a movement. Going back to COP26, what was important was the political context. One success of Glasgow is that the need to act is not in dispute now, it’s the how. The same doesn’t feel true in the farming industry…yet.

Taking a lead

Leadership is crucial for the advancement of critical issues, and in the area of farming and the climate crisis leadership does not appear to be in abundance. Equally, leadership by businesses collectively can lead to huge change, and this is being shown to be true with the climate crisis in other industries. Farmers and growers could become that lead in this sector.

Improving the carbon performance of a farm can go hand in hand with a whole host of other benefits, including more biodiversity (above and below ground), water management, reduced inputs, better soil management, and better food quality. These qualities, and many more, are also key to improvements in the environmental and social impacts of our farming and at FCT we see these wider benefits as critically important too, and know that many farmers and growers care deeply about this also.

So why not build momentum for Zero Carbon Farming 2030 in the UK? Is it possible to achieve? Maybe. Should it be achieved? The moral argument is hard to refute. Sometimes a vision and target is what’s needed, then work out how you get there. No one is pretending it will be easy, painless or cheap. But the planet is facing a crisis and we in farming should be part of the solution, not the problem.

Demystifying farm carbon offsetting: three watch-outs for farmers

Posted on August 12, 2021 by - Insights

There’s a rise in farmers and landowners interested in getting paid for carbon sequestration. Yet in the UK, an absence of robust guidance, protocols and industry experience makes this space feel like the “wild west”. Farmers are at risk of being misled, while NGOs and industry groups are struggling to form clear positions in what’s a fast-moving and confusing landscape.

Written by Samuel Smith

At the Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT), we help farmers to measure, understand and act on their greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). It’s our mission, as a farmer-led organisation, to help farmers become knowledgeable and empowered on this topic, building profitable and resilient businesses that also help to restore our fragile and deteriorating ecosystems. Reducing GHG emissions from farms is a priority and all farmers can begin now. 

Therefore we take a close interest in the emerging opportunities for farmers and landowners to access payments for carbon sequestration and storage on their farms. Through our work, we are witnessing more carbon payment opportunities coming through supply chains, grant-funded projects, as well as future options within ELMs and in voluntary carbon offset markets. 

With our deep understanding of GHG emissions in agriculture, combined with on-the-ground experience of measuring farm and soil carbon, we are helping to inform various schemes and start-ups. What we witness is mixed. Some schemes are well-designed and robust in their approach to supporting farmers and having impact. While some are less carefully designed, with limited transparency and a possibility of unintended consequences. Farmers, landowners and organisations have limited guidance on best practice and a lack of standards make comparison between schemes challenging.

Context: how a Net Zero paradigm is renewing interest in offsets

As climate breakdown becomes ever more visible, many people and organisations are scrambling to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of “net zero” carbon commitments from some of the world’s biggest companies and institutions. To meet these ambitious targets, organisations will need to use every tool at their disposal. This means not only reducing emissions as far as possible, but also investing in activities such as “nature-based solutions” to cover any residual emissions. 

Achieving net-zero across society means a gigantic shift in business practice; reinventing business models and shifting the products and services available to citizens. Culturally, industries are in different places on what this means. Some industry leaders are recognising and preparing to implement radical changes, yet can often be working alongside others who are constrained by a tendency towards business-as-usual. What many companies have in common though, is a desire to buy offsets in the short-term to help achieve net zero faster – and many are now turning to farm carbon. 

For example, Microsoft recently purchased $500,000 of soil carbon credits from Wilmot Cattle Company, who own an 11,000 acre farm in New South Wales. In the US, various brokers exist to pay farmers for carbon, many using an agreed protocol and a proposed Growing Climate Solutions Act may require the USDA to help farmers access these carbon markets in the future.

Why Offset Schemes Require A Special Scrutiny

There are various ways in which farmers can be supported to shift towards more regenerative agricultural practices. For example, via government subsidies, philanthropic projects, landowner initiatives and through supply chains taking an “insetting” approach. The selling of carbon or biodiversity offsets is another route, coming with a greater need for accurate, trusted measurement and verification.

There is currently a lot of excitement around farm and soil carbon offsets in the UK and various new schemes are launching. A recent farmers’ attitude survey we conducted suggested that 30% of farmers are “very keen and willing” to partake in offsetting schemes. Meanwhile, 27% of respondents were uncomfortable and suspicious about this topic.

Farmer survey results: interest in selling carbon or biodiversity offsets
FCT survey results from May 2021: farmers’ attitudes towards selling carbon or biodiversity offsets

We urge farmers to recognise the risks that exist around these schemes and ask tough questions to any organisation seeking to “buy” your carbon. To support a more credible and robust environment for farm and soil carbon payments, we are part of a consortium of organisations working towards a UK Farm and Soil Carbon Code. 

With carbon offsets – and any other mechanism to support change – there can be risks of driving unintended consequences, especially if we only focus on a narrow goal of carbon reduction. Instead, taking a “food systems” lens to the way we design projects can help us in building a healthier, more socially just food system.

3 Watch-Outs for Farmers Selling Carbon Offsets

To ensure farmers are empowered and clear on the terms in which their whole-farm or soil carbon credits are being sold, we believe farmers should demand the following from organisations seeking to pay them for carbon offsets:

1) What claims can you make in the future about your carbon footprint?

In a carbon offset, the sequestered carbon being sold is effectively taken off the farm or landowners carbon balance sheet and appears on the balance sheet of another business or individual: the “buyer”. This means that the buyer has an exclusive claim to the carbon reductions or removals made by the farm.

What is often overlooked or missing in the marketing materials of offset intermediaries, is that the farm may no longer be able to make claims about any associated produce being “low carbon”. While the farmer may be doing all sorts of positive practices, some or all of their sequestered carbon is on the balance book of the “buyer’ of carbon credits. A farm claiming it is low-carbon could be misleading, amounting to double claiming, propagating a false view of our overall progress against climate change.

For illustration, if all farmers in the UK sold their sequestered carbon via offsets to private companies (that often operate beyond national borders), then the NFU’s Net Zero farming ambition may become impossible to reach, as would the climate pledges of many food retailers and brands who have made Net Zero pledges covering their Scope 3 emissions.

This is a challenge and risk for farmers. Those selling direct-to-consumer may talk about their positive practices but may feel in a tricky position when explaining their carbon credentials, especially if their sequestered carbon has been purchased by an oil or airline company, who are some of the more prominent industry groups currently seeking offsets.

Farmers selling through their supply chains may also be in a weaker position. Retailers are increasingly wanting to buy low-carbon produce and cannot do this if the farm has sold much of it’s sequestered carbon via a private offset. If the farm carbon offset sector follows the recommended principles around double-counting and double-claiming, then farmers may find themselves less desirable to customers.

2) Does the scheme have a transparent, robust methodology on permanence, additionality, measurement and verification?

The credibility of a high quality offset can be tested through its approach to:

  1. Permanence:
    In the ideal offset project, reversals of carbon emissions are physically impossible or extremely unlikely. Standard convention in offset markets has been to guarantee that carbon is kept out of the atmosphere for 100 years. Yet, this is not practical for soil carbon, which is considered as “short-lived” storage carrying a higher risk of reversal. In the USA, Nori manage permanence by offering short-term credits that expire after 10 years. In Europe, Soil Capital has a 5 year crediting period, in which farmers can earn and generate credits, followed by a 10 year retention period. Carbon Farmers of Australia must choose between 25 and 100 year permanence guarantee.
  2. Additionality:
    This is about whether the payment the farmer receives plays a decisive role in helping remove carbon from the atmosphere. Additionality is essential for the quality and credibility of the carbon offset market. Yet, especially in farming, its determination is subjective and deceptively difficult. Is this payment providing the make-or-break difference?
  3. Measurement, verification and scope:
    This is a complex area. For example, what’s included in the scope of the carbon footprint? Is the scheme considering the whole-farm’s carbon balance, or is it based on a per-hectare field basis? For example, in the USA, White Oak Pastures received scrutiny last year as their claims about having carbon negative beef neglected their wider, whole-farm footprint and landuse.

    For measurement and verification, what protocols and tools are being used to measure and verify the sequestration? Is the payment based on actual field measurements (and if so, to what depth, to what lab test, resolution and frequency), or are they computer models of how carbon stocks are expected to change with different practices? How much of a buffer is in place for uncertainty? Can we trust those models, given how nascent our understanding is around soil carbon sequestration? Are they based on the UK context?

3) Demand transparency and having a choice in “the buyer“

It’s a common principle that organisations seeking to offset through farm and soil carbon should prioritise cutting their own emissions: minimising the need for offsets in the first place. As outlined in the Oxford Offsetting Principles, buyers of offsets should also publicly disclose their current emissions, accounting practices, reduction strategies and targets to reach net zero. 

Furthermore, for the sake of the seller’s reputation, we believe farmers and landowners should also have some say or agreement to who’s buying the carbon offset. We believe geographically local carbon offsets are preferable, as it further assists with transparency and can provide an opportunity for the wider public to understand offsetting.

What next?

We are keen that farmers are incentivised and rewarded for farming sustainably. This may include payments for carbon reduction, building soil health and increasing sequestration. To this end, we’re aware our Farm Carbon Calculator is beginning to be used as a helpful tool to help guide such payments. 

We will continue to draw on our practical, on-the-ground experience and expertise to contribute to projects in this space – always keen to support and advocate for robust and credible projects, schemes and marketplaces. Looking ahead, we have various innovations and services in the pipeline to support better, more accurate and meaningful carbon assessment. We’re also keen to continue contributing to the science and understanding of GHG emissions in agriculture. There’s lots to crack on with!

Useful further reading

The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions – new paper released

Posted on April 6, 2020 by - Insights

A new paper has been released in Nature Sustainability this month which highlights the potential for soil carbon sequestration as a climate solution. You can access the full paper here. The abstract is below.

Mitigating climate change requires clean energy and the removal of atmospheric carbon. Building soil carbon is an appealing way to increase carbon sinks and reduce emissions owing to the associated benefits to agriculture. However, the practical implementation of soil carbon climate strategies lags behind the potential, partly because we lack clarity around the magnitude of opportunity and how to capitalize on it. Here we quantify the role of soil carbon in natural (land-based) climate solutions and review some of the project design mechanisms available to tap into the potential. We show that soil carbon represents 25% of the potential of natural climate solutions (total potential, 23.8 Gt of CO2-equivalent per year), of which 40% is protection of existing soil carbon and 60% is rebuilding depleted stocks.

Soil carbon comprises 9% of the mitigation potential of forests, 72% for wetlands and 47% for agriculture and grasslands.

Soil carbon is important to land-based efforts to prevent carbon emissions, remove atmospheric carbon dioxide and deliver ecosystem services in addition to climate mitigation.

Grazing experiment shows the benefit of white clover inclusion in grassland for GHG emissions

Posted on June 18, 2020 by - Insights

Source: Rothamsted Research News article, 5th June 2020

Direct emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas from certain pasture types are lower than previously thought – meaning the climate impact of grass-fed cattle herds may be overestimated.

A team from Rothamsted have shown urine from animals reared on pasture where white clover grows – a plant commonly sown onto grazing land to reduce the need for additional nitrogen fertiliser – results in just over half the amount of nitrous oxide previously assumed by scientists to be released.

Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas that is 265 times more harmful than CO2 and can account for 40% of beef supply chain emissions, and the group say these findings may help farming achieve its ‘net zero’ ambition by 2040.

In perhaps the most realistic re-creation of real farming practices to date, the researchers measured emissions from just one herd on their experimental beef and sheep farm in Devon, whereas most studies looking at the emissions from livestock arrive at their conclusions by combining data from a variety of experimental systems in addition to some estimated values.

Atmospheric chemist, nitrous oxide expert and co-author of the study, Dr Laura Cardenas said such estimates are currently provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to scientists wishing to include it in their calculations on the climate impact of our food supply chains.

She said: “Due to technical and logistical challenges, field experiments which measure losses of nitrous oxide from soils usually add livestock faeces and urine they have sourced from other farms or other parts of the farm, meaning that the emissions captured do not necessarily represent the true emissions generated by the animals consuming the pasture.”

Writing in the journal Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, the team report how they created a near ‘closed’ system whereby the circular flow of nitrogen from soil to forage to cattle and, ultimately, back to soil again, could be monitored.

The research was carried out at Rothamsted’s ‘farm lab’, the North Wyke Farm Platform, a unique facility where all relevant environmental, agricultural and economic data related to livestock farming are collected 24/7.

For this experiment, herds of 30 cattle were grazed on either land that had long been pasture; a high-sugar grass commonly sown by farmers; or a high sugar grass and white clover mix.

Lead author of the study, Dr Graham McAuliffe and colleagues had previously discovered system-wide reductions of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the inclusion of white clover in pasture. This conclusion was primarily driven by a lack of need for ammonium nitrate fertiliser, whose production and application create greenhouse gases.

However, in the absence of evidence at that time, the team relied on figures provided by the IPCC which assume all cattle urine or faeces deposited to soils cause the same volume of nitrogen-based emissions irrespective of pasture type.

The most recent IPCC figures provided to scientists estimate this ‘emission factor’ as 0.77%. However, the Rothamsted team’s latest experiment found it was 0.44% on the white clover-high sugar grass mix, once the additional nitrogen captured from the air by clover was accounted for.

Dr McAuliffe said: “These differences might not sound like much, but when used in calculations of the climate impact of beef, they have a considerable effect as nitrous oxide emissions can account for over 40% of entire supply-chain greenhouse gas losses.”

This new research is the first time Rothamsted scientists have quantified the climate-change related benefits of white clover, achieved both directly through lower nitrous oxide released at pasture, and indirectly by lower fertiliser requirements.

According to Dr Cardenas, further research is required to explain the detailed mechanisms behind the observed complementarity between white clover and high sugar grasses – but that the data point towards an effect of sowing clover on the soil’s microbes.

“The evidence suggests that including white clover amongst high sugar grass decreases the abundance of microbial genes associated with nitrous oxide production compared with microbial communities observed under just high sugar grass.”

As the UK strives to achieve cross-industry net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century, improving our understanding of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potentials has never been more important, she added.

“Although white clover is unlikely to be a ‘silver bullet’ for agriculture’s net-zero ambitions on its own, adopting combinations of multiple emissions-abatement interventions, such as increasing legume-inclusion in pasture compositions and utilisation of ‘low-carbon’ fertilisers, will be essential to maximise farming’s national and international contribution to a cooler planet.”

Soil Farmer of the Year 2020 Farm Walk with John Martin

Posted on September 23, 2020 by - Insights, Soil Farmer of the Year

Learn more about why John Martin was awarded runner up in this year’s competition.

John farms 300 acres in Dorset on an all arable rotation with two thirds of the farm in spring cropping. The farm was a former dairy farm until 2000, and since then the overarching aim of the management has been to keep the soil status in good health. John’s farm is situated in an area with a high degree of designations on it, being within a Class 1 Soil Protection Zone, an NVZ and the Poole Harbour Catchment, meaning that there has been a large focus on efficient nutrient use, especially on nitrogen.

A key strategy employed on the farm to boost soil health and also to help capture nutrients has been the use of cover cropping. All of the land that is in spring crops has a cover crop before it, and John has been experimenting with increasing the diversity of the mix. The mix now includes sunflowers, buckwheat, phacelia, linseed, and various clovers to ensure that the soil biology have a diverse diet.

John explains:

It’s like taking a coach party of people to a fish and chip shop, some will want fish, some sausage and some pie and chips. All of the soil bugs bring something to the party and are all important, so we need to provide a diverse food supply for them so they can do their jobs.”  Nothing is set in stone however and everything is flexible. The farm grows a high proportion of spring cropping, which allows the cover crops to be utilised fully. John explains “We harvest sunshine for 6 months of the year to feed the combine (and the bank manager), we can spend the other 6 months feeding the soil.

The diversity of cover crops grown provide lots of roots to feed the soil microbes and rapid breakdown of Nitrogen release for the spring.  

The group then moved onto look at some flower strips which John has planted in one of his fields through the ASSIST project. The overarching aim of these was to encourage biodiversity into the fields rather than just being round the edges, and also to allow the farmer to move away from insecticides and use natural pest management. The strips are 8m wide with 2m of tussocky grasses framing the flowers in the middle. John is seeing the benefits of these strips, but is learning as the project develops.

The first year we just planted some annual strips of flowers, but it was a little bit like a drive through McDonalds; so we then replaced them with permanent strips that provide food and habitat throughout the year.

The strips were established at the end of March with a Vaderstaad Drill.  and were cut every 8 days.  John has these strips in a variety of fields and has three strips per field. Next year the plan is to cut them once or twice.

John is farming on chalk soils and enjoys the challenges that this soil type can bring. He first started looking at soils in the 80s, digging his first soil pit in 1985. This then prompted a move towards bigger, low ground pressure tyres and focussing on axle weights of machinery to minimise compaction. There is always a spade in the tractor allowing John to assess the structure of the soil at two key periods in the year; in winter when the soils are wet, to assess how the drainage is doing, and then after cultivation to see whether the machine has achieved its goal.

The chalk soils mean that John is keen to build resilience in his soils to aid water retention. A key strategy is focussing on returning organic matter to the soil to build humus. All of the crop residues are chopped and returned to the fields and 75% of the farm is cover cropped to ensure that there is something growing all year round. When John started his transition to enhanced soil management he took some baseline soil samples.

He explains

“We tested fields for organic matter and they weren’t bad, but we wanted to get another 1 – 1.5%. If we can get hold of that then we’ve got more resilient soils to do spring cropping. We can tell that we are moving in the right direction as the soils are much more springy. That elasticity is coming from the humus and the soils are developing the resilience to carry us through.”

The farm is situated in a highly protected area for water qualiy. The farm sits above a Wessex Water pumping station and as such Nitrogen is limited and cover crops are always grown. John’s next step is looking at how to cut his Nitrogen back on his spring barley and is making good progress on its reduction. “We’ve got to make more out of Nitrogen,” John explains, “which is all about looking at holding onto nutrients over the winter and then using it efficiently during the growing season.”

John has been running various trials on the farm, including one with Wessex Water looking at cover crops after peas, to try and find a way of harvesting the Nitrogen in the soil after peas. After the peas were harvested, a cover crop was drilled and when the cover crop was up and away in mid November the next crop wsas direct drilled into it. The cover crop was sprayed out in the spring. Although this approach led to a 20% yield penalty the leaching from the porous pots (which Wessex Water had installed to look at leaching rates) dropped from 67% to 4%. This trial is being run again this year with different mixes of cover crops that are established and terminated in different ways to look at the optimal method which effectively captures Nitrogen but provides a good yield.

John’s focus on his soils is linked to his overarching aims for the farm which is to develop a more sustainable way of farming with consistent yields. “You never stop learning when you are focussed on the soil” John explains, “and it’s a fascinating adventure.”

Thank you to John and his family for a brilliant walk.