We’re pleased to announce the three outstanding finalists for this year’s Carbon Farmer of the Year competition, sponsored by HSBC UK Agriculture:
Catherine and Malcolm Barrett – Tregooden Farm, Cornwall. Mixed farmers and Duchy of Cornwall tenants, building a resilient system through agroforestry, rotations and community connection.
Stuart and Helen Rogers, Longmoor Farm, Dorset. Profitable, pasture-based dairy farming rooted in tree planting, soil health and biodiversity.
Richard and Lyn Anthony – R&L Anthony, Bridgend, South Wales. Progressive arable system combining cover crops, precision operations, and passion for soil health (image courtesy of GWCT Wales).
Catherine and Malcolm Barrett – Tregooden Farm, CornwallStuart and Helen Rogers, Longmoor Farm, Dorset.Richard and Lyn Anthony – R&L Anthony, Bridgend, South Wales (Image courtesy of GWCT Wales).
The final round of judging takes place in August, and we will announce the winner at the Farm Carbon Toolkit’s Annual Field Day on Tuesday, 30th September 2025, this year kindly hosted by The Pink Pig Farm, near Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire.
For many, views of animals grazing under large trees invokes the image of a slower pace associated with older farming periods. Whilst few would dispute the beauty of this, modern agriculture has largely forgotten the utility of trees in farming systems, often seeing them purely as a refuge for wildlife and a nuisance to farming activities . But the work of Dr Lindsay Whistance, Senior Livestock Researcher at the Organic Researcher Centre, is seeking to provide farmers with evidence of how valuable trees are in both environmental and economic terms. Trees can support greater animal welfare and more resilient farm enterprises overall. In this case study, we look at some of Dr Whistance’s research, which examines some of the ways trees positively contribute to livestock farming systems.
Trees on Farms through the Ages
In the past, trees in both hedgerows and fields were much more integrated features of the British farming landscape. Farm trees, hedgerows and woodland were managed carefully to produce a variety of resources. These included raw materials for many household items and crafts, timber for buildings, fuel, as well as fodder and shelter for farm animals.
As the value of wood declined, alongside the adoption of more mechanised and larger scale agriculture, the use for trees on farms diminished. Consequently, many farmland hedgerows and trees were removed in the last century to increase efficiency and productivity. The decline of trees in the farming landscape meant many benefits were lost, some which were noted and others which are only becoming more apparent now.
The Benefits Triage
Trying to understand and put meaningful data behind what these benefits might be has been a key component of Dr Whistance’s research. She has helped identify several key areas, both directly and indirectly, where trees positively contribute to livestock welfare and has provided a strong case for their inclusion in farming systems.
1. Shelter – buffering the extremes
One of the key challenges farmers face now is the increasing extremes of climatic events. Extreme heat, cold, wind and rain are all challenges to livestock who cannot access places to take refuge. Animals maintain a ‘thermal comfort zone’ where bodily processes are regulated. When temperatures move beyond this zone, the animal begins to experience stress which leads to a greater susceptibility for illness or death.
In hot environments, where animals’ body temperature exceeds the higher critical temperature (HCT), animal food intake decreases in an attempt to reduce heat load. An example of this is in dairy cows, where heat stress leads to a negative energy balance, increases metabolic disorders, and decreases milk production. FCT’s Jemma Morgan explores this issue in her recent blog.
In cold temperatures, animals need to increase their food intake every 1°C that drops below the lower critical temperature (LTC). This puts pressure on food availability.
Dr Whistance provides evidence that trees can help solve these issues. In high temperatures trees canopies help break any solar radiation and capture and store more moisture, leading to a cooling effect. This provides valuable refuge to animals seeking an escape from the heat. In challenging cold conditions, trees help to capture and store warm air underneath their branches, which can sometimes be as much as 6°c warmer than surrounding temperature.
Sheltered refuge is especially valuable during lambing, as newborn lambs must stay warm and dry in their first few hours of life. Without adequate shelter, they risk hypothermia before they can take in vital colostrum, gain energy, and begin to regulate their own body temperature. There are benefits during cold periods too, where grasses grow earlier in the season due to the warm pockets of air. During dry periods, grasses remain green due to the moisture and shade which trees provide. Dr Whistance’s work has also highlighted the benefits of trees in mitigating wind and its influence on ambient temperature.
More farmers are recognising and starting to implement agroforestry to support profitable farming, such as at Longmoor Farm in Dorset.
2- Tree fodder
Trace elements (TE) and plant secondary metabolic (PSM) products form an important part of a herbivore’s diet which directly influence an animals health. Traditionally, tree fodder was a key component of farm animals diet and would provide both of these elements. As access to trees and shrubs has become more restricted in modern day agriculture, these mineral elements have had to be provided through bought in supplements instead.
In one of their studies, Dr Whistance and her team examined mineral content of tree species and found that trees such as willow can provide an important source of cobalt and zinc, particularly valuable for weaned lambs. We have a blog by FCT’s Anthony Ellis on his experiences.
In another of their studies, they also found that the mineral content of stored tree fodder became more available after its storage period, indicating its potential as a stable source of minerals.
As well as animals foraging for the minerals they require, they can self medicate using plants which contain the necessary PSMs. Self selecting behaviour has been studied in goats and sheep and has revealed that those with high worm burdens will seek out leaves with high amounts of tannins to reduce their internal parasites. Certain trees contain high levels of condensed tannins which make them valuable resources for livestock.
Herbal leys provide tannins and trace elements but trees have an advantage due to their larger and deeper root systems that allow them to access minerals deep into the soil. As perennial plants, they also have key relationships with mycorrhizal fungi which increases the variety of minerals and has the ability to use biochemistry to access nutrients that pasture plants cannot. For livestock such as chickens and pigs, alongside providing browse, trees in the field can help promote a wider range of food sources including insects, nuts and seeds and fungi, which all encourages natural foraging behaviour.
3. Expressing animal behaviour
The last point to examine from Dr Whistance’s work is the effect trees can have on farm animal behaviour. The ability for an animal to express its natural behaviour is a key but often overlooked component of farm animal welfare and promotion of healthy animals. Similar to climatic stress and nutrient deficiencies, environmental suppression of animal instinct may lead to abnormal behaviour which then contributes to more serious problems further down the line.
Dr Whistance’s work has found that fields with trees allow livestock to express behaviour such as play (including scratching and rubbing against tree trunks) and encourages the natural instinct to seek hiding places for seclusion. These behaviours support the animals when regulating their own physiological and emotional health. Cattle in silviopasture systems show increased social licking by up to 80%, which is almost double compared to solely pasture systems. This promotes greater social cohesion which results in animals that demonstrate less fear and aggression and consequently stress. On a physical level, animals enjoy and benefit from scratching and rubbing themselves against trees and shrubs as it helps to dislodge parasites and seeds and also removes dead skin and hair which can all contribute to complications. Giving the animal the opportunity to manage its own needs in a suitable way can remove the need for intervention from the farmer.
Conclusion
One of the key insights from Dr. Whistance’s work is the vital role that trees and hedgerows play in helping animals to self-regulate, whether through shelter, diet, or behaviour. Her research highlights the importance of managing and using the natural resources available on the farm to support animal well-being. When used wisely, these resources can offer multiple benefits, reducing the need to purchase external inputs and enhancing the overall sustainability of the farm. By enabling both livestock and the wider farm system to make use of natural features, farmers can strengthen the environmental and economic resilience of their operations – just as previous generations did.
It is important to note that tree systems must be carefully designed to suit the specific needs and conditions of each farm. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, and some adjustments may be necessary as the system grows within each farm.
Key Findings
Trees and hedgerows are valuable on-farm resources, especially for livestock farmers
They provide environmental benefits and are key to livestock’s physical and emotional health by facilitating access to shelter, nutrition and expression of natural behaviour.
Tree planting for livestock requires careful planning so the benefits are optimised and the cost/maintenance kept as low as possible
It is May, it is dry, and farmers are praying for rain. The conversations I’ve had with farmers and veterinarians this week have painted a clear picture: while political uncertainty may cloud the immediate horizon, one thing remains constant—the risk of climate change and its disruption to traditional agricultural systems. These discussions have reinforced a fundamental truth that many in agriculture are grappling with: the old ways of doing things may no longer be sufficient for the challenges ahead.
Cracked ground in May 2025
The Reality of Risk in Modern Agriculture
Farmers today face an unprecedented combination of challenges. Extreme weather events are no longer anomalies but regular occurrences that demand preparation. Prolonged dry periods followed by prolonged wet periods, heavy rain and unexpected late frosts, shifting pest patterns that render traditional management strategies obsolete—these are the new realities of agricultural production.
A warm and very dry spring was the reality for most of the UK in 2025. These plots detail how much rainfall and temperature deviate from the long-term averages between 1991 and 2020. Credit: UK Met Office
After 60 years of being encouraged to use chemical solutions to build yield, and measure efficiency as output per unit of land farmed, we have created a system that is reliant on external inputs where we have no control over price. Alongside that, we have transitioned from a predictable political subsidy system to one where objectives differ, and the expectation of delivering public goods means the subsidy systems now favour land ownership over food production.
Yet the challenge extends beyond the farm gate. Veterinarians are also witnessing cultural shifts that demand their own form of resilience. Changing consumer expectations around animal welfare, evolving regulatory frameworks, and new technologies are transforming veterinary practice. Like farmers, they must adapt to remain relevant and practical in serving their communities.
Understanding Assets and Aspirations
Building resilience requires a fundamental shift in how we think about agricultural assets. Traditional measures of farm value—land, equipment, and livestock—remain important, but they’re no longer sufficient indicators of long-term viability. Today’s resilient farms also invest in knowledge assets, relationship networks, and adaptive capacity.
This broader understanding of assets includes soil health as a foundation for productivity, water management systems that can handle both scarcity and excess, and diversified income streams that provide stability when primary enterprises face challenges. It also encompasses the human capital—the skills, knowledge, and relationships that enable farmers to navigate uncertainty and capitalise on opportunities.
Cattle grazing in silvopasture may become a more common sight as we value the shade trees provide and the additional carbon sequestration cows can bring
Aspirations matter equally. Farmers who view their operations as dynamic systems capable of evolution rather than static enterprises bound by tradition are better positioned to build resilience. This mindset shift—from preserving the status quo to embracing adaptive change—is crucial for long-term sustainability.
Strategies for Long-Term Thinking
Successful resilience building requires moving beyond reactive responses to proactive planning. This means developing systems that can withstand shocks while maintaining productivity and profitability. Several key strategies emerge from successful adaptation stories:
Diversification remains one of the most effective tools for resilience. Farmers who have integrated multiple enterprises—combining crops with livestock, adding value-added processing, or incorporating agritourism—have created buffer systems that cushion against financial challenges. This diversification extends to soils, where longer rotations with a greater variety of crops help build soil carbon and protect soil integrity. For livestock, the diversity of forage mix with different harvest dates will provide more flexibility in responding to weather events.
Soil health investment has proven particularly valuable. Farmers implementing regenerative practices report not only improved drought tolerance and reduced input costs but also enhanced carbon sequestration opportunities that may provide additional revenue streams. Cover cropping, reduced tillage, and integrated pest management create agricultural systems that work with natural processes rather than against them.
A herbal lay that has had no synthetic Nitrogen for four years, 21 days after being grazed (taken in September 2024)
Technology adoption, when carefully selected and implemented, enhances both productivity and adaptability. Precision agriculture tools help farmers optimise inputs and reduce waste, while weather monitoring systems provide early warnings that enable proactive responses to changing conditions. However, technology alone isn’t sufficient—it must be integrated with sound ecological principles and business planning alongside openness to learning new approaches to farming.
The Wake-Up Call We Need
The question that haunts many thoughtful observers of agriculture is what it will take for widespread recognition that complacency is no longer an option. Perhaps the answer lies not in waiting for a singular wake-up call but in recognising that the alarm has already sounded—repeatedly.
At Farm Carbon Toolkit, we work with farmers who aren’t waiting for permission to adapt, providing a whole range of services. They’re already implementing changes, investing in resilience, and building systems designed for uncertainty. They understand that protecting livelihoods and businesses requires accepting that the future will be different from the past.
This recognition is spreading through agricultural communities, driven by both necessity and opportunity. Younger farmers entering the industry often bring fresh perspectives on sustainability and adaptation. Established operators are discovering that resilience investments often improve profitability even under current conditions.
Moving Forward
The path forward requires acknowledging that resilience isn’t a destination but an ongoing process of adaptation and improvement. It demands long-term thinking in an industry which is driven by seasonal cycles. However, it understands the importance of legacy and the inheritance of future generations. Most importantly, it requires moving beyond the comfortable assumption that things will somehow work out without deliberate action.
Fundamentally, building resilience is about developing capacity—the ability to adapt, learn, and thrive in changing conditions. For agriculture to meet the challenges ahead, this capacity building must become as routine as any other farm management practice.
Spring barley crop, Norfolk, May 25 drying out and farmer has little grain expectation and even lower straw yield.
The choice is clear: we can continue to hope that traditional approaches will suffice, or we can embrace the reality that our agricultural future depends on our willingness to adapt today. The farmers leading this transformation aren’t waiting for others to catch up—they’re building the resilient systems that will define agriculture’s future.
At Farm Carbon Toolkit we are supporting those farmers to think and deliver the future.
Three farmers championing soil health and regenerative practices have been recognised in the 2025 Soil Farmer of the Year competition, with the awards ceremony taking place at this year’s Groundswell event.
The competition, jointly run by Farm Carbon Toolkit and Innovation for Agriculture, and proudly sponsored by Cotswold Seeds and Hutchinsons, celebrates farmers across the UK who are leading the way in managing soil as a vital, living resource.
Over the past decade, John has reshaped how soils are understood and managed on his farm. Key management practices now include widespread use of companion crops, a seven year rotation which has incorporated grassland into the arable system, 100% direct drilling and reduced inputs.
John Joseph – Trecorras FarmTrecorras Farm – Ryegrass for seed in companion croppingTrecorras Farm – Companion cropping pre Harvest
Competition judge Jade Prince, Soil Specialist at Hutchinsons, praised John’s “clarity of purpose and scalability.”
“Every decision on John’s farm has a clear agronomic and economic rationale,” she said. “What stood out was his ability to link soil management to business viability—showing that good soil makes good business sense.”
Second place went to Jonathan Hodgson, who farms 285 hectares of clay soils at Great Newsome Farm in East Yorkshire. His system centres on strip tillage, companion cropping, cover crops, and integrated livestock, alongside the elimination of seed dressings and insecticides.
“Jonathan’s approach to enterprise stacking was particularly inspiring,” said Ms Prince. “From growing barley for his own distillery to producing dual-purpose flax and grazing sheep on cover crops, he is building diversity and resilience into both soil and business.”
Third place was awarded to Andrew Mahon, who manages 800 hectares of Hanslope clay across Bedfordshire.
Since 2015, Andrew has shifted to a predominantly direct drill system, with shallow discing being used to establish small seeds. He is now focused on addressing localised compaction and increasing biological activity through targeted interventions.
Jonathan Hodgson – Great Newsome FarmAndrew Mahon – Bromborough Estate
Deborah Crossan, Head of Soils and Natural Resources at Innovation for Agriculture, highlighted Andrew’s work with biological inputs.
“Andrew is pioneering on-farm applications of Johnson-Su compost extract and biological feed at drilling. His attention to soil biology and microbial support is not just progressive, it’s proving highly effective in driving organic matter gains and establishment success.”
Following the awards, each of the three winning farmers will host on-farm events to share their soil management strategies in action. These farm walks will offer valuable insights for fellow farmers looking to build soil resilience and cut input reliance.
“Seeing these systems on the ground is invaluable,” said Ms Crossan. “They demonstrate how different soil types, farming systems and business models can all benefit from a soil-first approach.”
Details on the farm walks will be announced via the Farm Carbon Toolkit and Innovation for Agriculture websites, newsletters and social media channels in the coming weeks.
Innovation for Agriculture is an independent, charitable organisation working to make UK agriculture more sustainable, profitable and resilient. Through interactive workshops, on-farm demonstrations and practical events, IfA aims to provide UK farmers with solutions of real commercial value
Farm Carbon Toolkit is an independent, farmer-led Community Interest Company, supporting farmers to measure, understand and act on their greenhouse gas emissions, while improving their business resilience for the future.
For over a decade, Farm Carbon Toolkit has delivered a range of practical projects, tools and services that have inspired real action on the ground. Organisations they work with include farmer groups, Duchy of Cornwall, First Milk, Tesco, Yeo Valley and WWF. The Farm Carbon Calculator is a leading on-farm carbon audit tool, used by over 7,000 farmers in the UK and beyond. To find out more visit www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk
The competition is being judged by a panel including representatives from IfA and Farm Carbon Toolkit, Cotswold Seeds, Hutchinsons and previous Soil Farmer of the Year winners.
Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT) is now an Employee Ownership Trust (EOT)—a significant move to secure our long-term independence, deepen staff involvement, and strengthen our commitment to farmers, sustainability, and shared leadership.
We remain a Community Interest Company (CIC), driven by the same not-for-profit principles and mission that have guided us from the start: to support farmers in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resilience. All income continues to be reinvested to maximise our impact and support the farming community.
What has changed is who owns the organisation. Ownership of FCT now sits with a Trust, on behalf of all our employees. This means the people delivering our work – from advisory services to carbon calculator development – now have a formal, meaningful stake in shaping the organisation’s future.
A milestone in a farmer-led journey
The Farm Carbon Toolkit was founded at Westmill Farm, Swindon, in 2010 by two farmers who were determined to address the threat of climate change and engage with fellow farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their farms. The organisation has since grown into a widely respected national leader in farmer-driven climate solutions.
Adam Twine, co-founder and sole share owner, has now transferred ownership to a newly created Employee Ownership Trust. This brings FCT into a wider community of organisations including John Lewis Partnership, Riverford, and Aardman animations–that seek to place staff directly at the centre of their governance structure.
Michael Brown, Staff Trustee Director and our Customer Support Officer, says:
“Our staff are a major resource and will be well known to many of you on farms and across the industry. Our new governance structure ensures their voices are heard and reflected in the long-term stewardship of the organisation on a formal basis.”
“We hope this will build even greater trust with the farming communities we serve. You can rely on us as an independent organisation, grounded in purpose, led with integrity, and driven by the collective commitment of its employees.”
Henry Unwin, Director Trustee and FCT Non-Executive Director, says:
“This is a significant moment for FCT. Moving to employee ownership not only honours the roots and history of the organisation but also recognises its greatest assets: the people who work here.”
Our values now and into the future
FCT is guided by five core operational values:
Collaborative: we work with others to amplify our impact
Practical: we offer real solutions grounded in farming realities
Science-driven: we base everything we do on robust evidence
Empathic: we listen and respond to the challenges farmers face
Independent: we are not beholden to corporate or political interests
Notes for Editors
Farm Carbon Toolkit is an independent, farmer-led Community Interest Company, supporting farmers to measure, understand, and act on their greenhouse gas emissions, while improving their business resilience for the future.
For over a decade, Farm Carbon Toolkit has delivered a range of practical projects, tools and services that have inspired real action on the ground. Organisations they work with include Velcourt, Arla, the Duchy of Cornwall, First Milk, Tesco, and WWF.
In 2011, we created one of the first tools–the Farm Carbon Calculator–to audit GHG emissions on farm, and we were one of the first to include carbon removals (sequestration) as well as emissions within our audit process.
Today, the Farm Carbon Calculator is a leading on-farm carbon audit tool, with over 9,000 farmer users in the UK and beyond. To find out more visit www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk
As well as the award ceremony to announce the 2025 Soil Farmer of the Year winners at 7pm on Wednesday at Speakers Corner, FCT’s Hannah Jones and Becky Willson are involved in two workshops.
Weds 2nd July 1.15pm: Regenerative Stacking, The Study (Hannah Jones)
Thurs 3rd July 11am: Farming for the health of people and climate, Grass Tent (Becky Willson)
And, of course, we’ll have our usual stand E2 in the Pasture Field where we’ll be happy to chat all things soil and farm carbon related!
Six farmers have been shortlisted for the Soil Farmer of the Year 2025 competition, in recognition of their approach, actions and results in improving the soil health in their farming systems.
Andrew Mahon, Bromborough Estate, BedfordshireJohn Joseph, Trecorras Farm, HerefordshireWill Oliver, A H Oliver and Son, LeicestershirePaul Baker, Wishay Farm, DevonRobert & Ryan Whittal, Square Farm, MonmouthshireJonathan Hodgson, Great Newsome Farm, East Yorkshire
Shortlisted Farmers
Andrew Mahon from Bromborough Estate in Bedfordshire, John Joseph from Trecorras Farm in Herefordshire, Jonathan Hodgson from Great Newsome Farm in East Yorkshire, Paul Baker from Wishay Farm in Devon, Robert Whittal from Square Farm in Monmouthshire, and Will Oliver from A H Oliver and Son in Leicestershire.
The 2025 competition has attracted entries from a vast range of farms, from arable only to all livestock systems, from just a few acres to over 800 hectares.
Business Development and Technical Director Becky Willson from Farm Carbon Toolkit, one of the judges for the 2025 competition, shares that the shortlisting process itself has been a challenging exercise.
“The first step was anonymised, so we were reviewing entry forms and comparing vastly different farms. But what is interesting when looking at it through the lens of soil health, is that the same themes emerge time and time again.
“We’ve seen entries where the actions being taken to improve the soil are helping farms to save input costs, improve resilience to weather events such as drought and in some cases diversify incomes,” she says.
Following the final round of judging, which includes a farm visit, the winners will be announced at Groundswell 2025. Attendees at the Groundswell session, which is taking place at 7pm on Wednesday 2nd July at Speakers Corner, will hear directly from all the finalists about their ideas, practices and results relating to soil health in their farming systems.
There will also be the opportunity to visit each of the top three farms for a farm walk later this year.
The Soil Farmer of the Year competition is run by Farm Carbon Toolkit and Innovation for Agriculture, and is sponsored by Cotswold Seeds and Hutchinsons.
“The competition brings farmers together to celebrate and learn from how the winners have implemented practices to improve their soil and farm business resilience.
“For anyone thinking about coming to either the Groundswell session or the farm walks, I would say go for it, it’s an invaluable way to hear honest perspectives and learn from other farmers’ experiences,” Becky Willson concludes.
Innovation for Agriculture is an independent, charitable organisation working to make UK agriculture more sustainable, profitable and resilient. Through interactive workshops, on-farm demonstrations and practical events, IfA aims to provide UK farmers with solutions of real commercial value
Farm Carbon Toolkit is an independent, farmer-led Community Interest Company, supporting farmers to measure, understand and act on their greenhouse gas emissions, while improving their business resilience for the future. For over a decade, Farm Carbon Toolkit has delivered a range of practical projects, tools and services that have inspired real action on the ground. Organisations they work with include farmer groups, Duchy of Cornwall, First Milk, Tesco, Yeo Valley and WWF. The Farm Carbon Calculator is a leading on-farm carbon audit tool, used by over 7,000 farmers in the UK and beyond. To find out more visit www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk
The competition is being judged by a panel including representatives from IfA and Farm Carbon Toolkit, Cotswold Seeds, Hutchinsons and previous Soil Farmer of the Year winners.
On a sunny day at the end of March, farmers gathered with Simon Cowell to take part in a farm walk with our Soil Farmer of the Year Winner from 2018. Thanks to funding from the AFN+ network, we have been able to revisit two farms this year to understand how their farm and management systems have evolved since being awarded.
Simon farms 400 acres of heavy clay with a large acreage below sea level. He has been working on improving his soils for the last 25 years, and moved to a no-till system in 2006, being flexible with both management and rotations to prioritise soil health.
Originally starting as a dairy farm, Simon converted his farm to arable cropping. At that time, it was full cultivation and deep topsoil ploughing, year after year. For 15 to 20 years, it seemed to work. But then something shifted — yields dropped, costs rose, and the soil stopped cooperating, as Simon reflects here:
“The farm is on heavy clay with high magnesium content. It became impossible to make a workable seedbed. The soil was either too wet and smeared or too dry and baked hard. I’d tried gypsum, but nothing made a lasting difference. Eventually, it became obvious: the more I left the soil alone, the better it behaved.”
During the walk, lots of different topics were discussed — from rotations, cultivation choice, to measuring soil health and the value of organic matter. Below, Simon shares some of his reflections on how his management has evolved over the last 25 years:
Direct Drilling
In 2004, Simon bought his first direct drill and hasn’t looked back since. Establishing crops became more reliable and consistent, especially on the heavy land.
He uses two drills — a disc and a tine drill. The Moore disc drill is brilliant when conditions are right but struggles in extremes (too wet or too dry). The tine drill, on the other hand, works in almost anything. He will often alternate depending on soil conditions, and finds that flexibility is incredibly important to meet the different challenges that may occur.
Building Soil Organic Matter — and Balancing It
Simon reflects:
“One of the biggest long-term wins has been improving soil organic matter. After years of minimal disturbance, my soil tests show I’m adding roughly one tonne of carbon per hectare per year. That’s a big win for soil structure, biology, and long-term fertility.
But there’s a catch. For every tonne of carbon stored, about 100 kg of nitrogen gets tied up—because carbon to nitrogen ratio is about 10:1. That’s nitrogen that doesn’t go into the crop, at least not right away. It’s a good sign environmentally (less leaching), but it forces us to think differently: we’re not just growing a crop above ground — we’re also feeding the soil. And both require nutrients.”
Managing Fields and Staying Flexible
Simon reflects:
“No two fields are ever the same. One of my best lessons has been to stay flexible — don’t do anything out of habit. For example, I never drill straight up and down the slope anymore. In one field, I direct-drilled linseed straight after the previous crop, no cultivation. Most fields still get a roll or a harrow to cover the seed, but only when needed.
Gypsum? I applied 4 tonnes per acre, three times over eight years. The results? Minimal. The Albrecht soil tests showed no real change, and when you do the chemical maths, you’d need unfeasible amounts to really shift the needle. Direct drilling — now that showed results. That’s what made the difference.”
Surprising Soil Behaviour
“One thing that constantly surprises me is how the soil handles moisture. When it’s dry, it goes rock hard. But once it wets up—even a little—it becomes crumbly and friable. That resilience has improved massively since adopting no-till.
In one field, I remember ploughing up an old meadow and seeing just two inches of dark topsoil over clay. The plough buried all the goodness. That was a turning point. Twenty years later, I believe I’ve rebuilt that topsoil layer—just through direct drilling and patience. It’s a stark contrast to where I started.”
Nitrogen, Legumes, and Root Systems
“There’s no denying it: crop yield still relates closely to the nitrogen you apply. Yes, legumes help. But the better the crop above ground, the better the root system—and that means better soil structure, more exudates, and more microbial activity. It’s a feedback loop.”
Straw and Worms: A Change Over Time
“For 15 years, I chopped and returned every bit of straw. The worms loved it at first. But more recently, it’s been sitting on the surface all winter, forming a mat that small seeds like linseed can’t get through. Now, I bale most of it. I’ve realised: the soil doesn’t need more carbon—it needs nitrogen to break down what’s already there.”
Rotations and Crop Choices
“Rotations? They’re always changing. I try to keep about 50% in wheat, with some barley, linseed, beans, and lucerne. About a third of the farm is spring-cropped. I treat each field on its own merits and decide what’s best for it next—nothing is fixed.”
Drainage, Moles, and Water Holding
“Drainage remains a challenge. I’ve started doing some moling to improve water movement. Last winter killed most of the wheat due to waterlogging. Mole drains helped, but only in the mole line—the soil in between takes years to catch up. So I cross-moled with a tine as an experiment.
On some fields, I now get lovely crumbly tilth after winter even with no plant cover, just from natural wetting and drying. But I still wonder: is my soil becoming hydrophobic, in a good way? That is, allowing water to drain through rather than sealing up. That’s the goal—especially on clay.”
Sheep and Grazing in Rotation
“Sheep are a handy tool, especially for cover crops and herbal leys. But I’ve learned to be very cautious—they can damage soil structure quickly, especially in wet weather. Just one day too long, and the field can end up full of holes that hold water into spring.”
Plough Trials
Despite the benefits min till has produced on his farm, Simon is beginning to experiment with ploughing this year to see whether it is possible to mineralise some of the nutrients within the soil. There are two trials going on, one looking at autumn ploughing and other, spring ploughing. He explains:
“The trial with autumn ploughing started in September. It was too dry and hard to plough at first so only a proportion of the field was ploughed. The other half of the field was direct drilled in October when the weather came good, and was no problem. On the ploughed side, I had to wait another two weeks to get on the land as it held all of the water. Although it is an interesting trial, it is going to be difficult to compare due to the delay in drilling the ploughed side. Establishment has been less good on the side which was ploughed compared to the direct drilled.”
The trial confirmed what Simon had been thinking: for his land, direct drilling is the way forward.
“It’s made my soil ploughable again.”
Undeterred, a second ploughing trial has been underway this spring, where a field was ploughed, power harrowed and rolled and then drilled two weeks later. Simon has been impressed with how the field has performed so far. The next door field has been direct drilled, so it will provide a good comparison to look at performance through this season to see how they grow!
“We’ve proved that we can build organic matter through our system, we are now looking at how we can balance occasional disturbance. I’ve been against it in the past because of protecting the soil structure that I have built up and not wanting to lose it, but I’m hoping that because it was in a good state before, it will recover quickly and be back to how it was before.”
I’ve done all the biological products, the trials, the tweaking. In the beginning, you throw everything at the problem. Over time, you start asking: what actually made the difference? I’ve spent years building organic matter. Now it’s time to start using it.
Many thanks to Simon for an inspirational walk and for sharing his knowledge so freely; it gave everyone lots to think about on the drive home!
As a leading carbon assessment tool, The Farm Carbon Calculator is updated on a regular basis. We do this so you benefit from the most recent science, can access additional features, and have an improved experience completing reports. Read on to find out more.
Key Takeaways
Reports ending on or after 01 April 2025 will use the updated emissions factors outlined in What’s Changed 2025
Some changes have been backdated to improve all reports from 01 January 2000 onwards – these will only be applied if you recalculate a report or edit an item.
To maintain a record of your original report, LOCK and do not edit old reports
Instead, make a copy of an old report – this will apply any backdated changes and give you the option to compare to the original report to see what has changed
If you are making a new report you will have many more options for adding:
Specific sprays (branded herbicides, fungicides etc.) “Inputs > Sprays” section
Branded & generic fertilisers “Inputs > Specific fertilisers” section
Imported organic fertility sources and the emissions from their application “Crops > Organic fertility sources”
Potential sequestration from Agroforestry areas “Sequestration > Agroforestry” section
Photo credit: Rob Purdew – Farm Carbon Toolkit
Our Development Cycle
Every April we release updates to the methodology behind the Calculator as well as tweaks to the ways reports are made.
This Spring we will update the calculator 3 times;
Our annual comprehensive methodology and functionality update.
Improvements to how we calculate livestock emissions.
Improvements to our calculations of land-use change emissions.
We’ll focus here on the first of these which will launch on 1 April 2025. Our methodology is the combination and range of formulas which sit behind the calculator and help us calculate emissions on any farm in the UK. We have updated the emissions factors in this methodology, we added new ones, and we have acted on your feedback to improve the way the calculator looks and feels to ensure the system continues to work for you.
Emissions Factors – if you were wondering – are the variables used in the formulas behind your report. They tell us, for example, the emissions produced when fuel is burned, and the emissions produced in manufacturing the fuel in the first place.
Our updated methodology is used for the main calculator at https://calculator.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk, and also by many users of external applications. For example, many farm management systems, banks, and consultants rely on our methodology, as well as multiple white labelled or more specialised calculators across the agricultural industry, and beyond – like the Equine Carbon Calculator.
We’re talking here about thousands of farms creating multiple thousands of reports every year – our team spends the bulk of their time ensuring everything fundamental is right!
We know changes to methodology affect carbon reports, and carbon reports reflect your farm – so you deserve to know a bit about how this is changing. Let’s ask the obvious question first:
Why does the methodology keep changing?
In short, because the underlying sources have changed or updated. The calculator sits on top of thousands of hours of research and experience, coming from within our team over 16 years of development, from agronomists and farmers, from academia, and the research arms of governments and international organisations. The result of this work is the wide range of sources you can see on our references page.
Emissions factors change
Every spring, all emissions factors are checked, and in some cases are changed – for our April 2025 methodology that is 3,000 existing factors, and 7,000 new ones! We update some factors to match new versions of existing data sources, such as annual governmental data sets like the UK GHG inventory which details UK industrial emissions. Our factors and data sources also change as new items are added, better sources become available, and in some cases, factors change because sources fall out of use as they become outdated or irrelevant. Overall the methodology relies on 114 references which can be found on our references page, or listed with each item in our data collection sheet, which can be downloaded from our resources page.
Changes to emissions factors also occur because more industries are undertaking more rigorous carbon footprinting so we can get a better estimate of the emissions from producing, transporting and using various products. This work provides us more granular detail on emissions and allows us to give you more options when selecting items in your reports.
Moreover, as sectors decarbonise, the emissions associated with utilities and commodities change, and thus we need to update emissions factors to reflect this. As an example, this year the emissions associated with the average tariff for electricity have reduced by nearly 10%, due to an increase in the proportion of electricity coming from renewable energy. We therefore want you to see the benefit in your reports as industries decarbonise, so your electricity use this year will be lower than the year before even if the same quantity of energy is used. This should not deter you from making your own efforts to decarbonise, but does allow you to share the benefits of UK progression.
Emissions calculations undergo review
Sometimes the calculations underlying your report change because of an improved understanding of biological systems or a re-interpretation of the available evidence. In a developing field like agricultural carbon footprinting, working with other organisations to make sense of the available evidence and international guidance within the UK context can help us identify areas where calculations can be improved. This is why we continue to seek pre-competitive collaborations with other companies and research organisations (to find out more about the projects and harmonisation work).
One such calculation that has undergone re-interpretation is the calculation underpinning organic fertility emissions. With a better understanding of the underlying processes, and the components relevant to the equation, we have been able to add more specificity and more options to the organic fertility options. You will now see options for when and where fertility sources are applied, and for manures you will have the ability to select application approaches – meaning emissions mitigation approaches such as deep-injection of slurry are appropriately adjusted. Changes like these allow you to better understand your carbon footprinting journey and allow a more nuanced appraisal of your farming emissions. We are striving to increase the specificity of the calculator, aiming to provide you the user with the opportunity to enter the highest tier of emissions calculation.
There are 3 tiers of GHG emissions calculations
Tier 1: This tier uses default emissions factors and data from the IPCC for different climatic regions to generate broad estimates. The use of global data and a general approach results in low accuracy.
Tier 2: This method enhances accuracy by using emission factors specific to a country or region and more detailed activity data, such as local energy consumption. This approach is more accurate than Tier 1 because it incorporates factors that are more relevant to the specific conditions of the region.
Tier 3: Uses real-time data, sophisticated models, and system-specific emission factors, and is the most accurate method, using detailed modelling or direct measurements, as well as highly specific data for the particular circumstances of the country or sector.
We are striving for tier 3 where practical in your reports, however, the reality is that most people do not have time to enter the copious data required for accurate calculation at tier 3.
Changes to the calculator
As explored above, an update like this one has introduced many changes, you will see these highlighted in full:
One example of an item on the calculator that has recently changed is sugar beet crop residues. In 2024, we updated and improved our methodology that accounts for the N2O emissions associated with crop residues decomposing in the field after harvest. This used crop N contents and harvest index ratios from the UK GHG Inventory (1990- 2021 Inv) plugged into the IPCC 2019 refinement crop residue calculation, making it a Tier 2 method. This calculation gave sugar beet a relatively high emissions factor compared to other crops.
This year the UK GHG inventory released a new version (1990 – 2022), which has updated their values for sugar beet. This update by the UK GHG inventory includes adjusting the harvest index, lowering N contents for aboveground and belowground residue and lowering above to below-ground residue ratios; all of which are used for “deriving a country-specific parameter for sugar beet residue emissions”. This has resulted in a 77 – 89% decrease in the April 2025 update depending on the residue management practice. As this is such a large change, which has been updated with better data, we have decided to backdate this emissions factor to ensure drastic changes between years for the same amount of crop residue are not reported.
Not all changes in the calculator are this drastic, and in the “What’s Changed” document you will see a list of changing emissions factors.
So will my carbon footprint go up or down?
We can’t predict with certainty how annual updates will affect your report because every farm is different, but we know there will be changes. It very much depends on what you do on the farm and the best way to see this will be to copy a report, change the end date and see for yourself. We will see some examples of farm reports below. Changes to how you farm will, in most cases, have a larger and more important monitorable effect than changes to the methodology we talk about here.
In other words – if it is your focus, keep looking for ways to reduce emissions on your farm! Bear in mind that changes to practice can take time to show up in your carbon footprint and may have other impacts, be it environmental (benefitting biodiversity, reducing water use, cleaning soil and air pollution), social (ensuring food security, providing jobs, leaving space to roam, nurturing communities) or financial (boosting profits, building resilience, or ensuring financial security). These impacts may not result in reduced carbon emissions, however at FCT we fully support farmers taking a holistic all-encompassing approach to improving their sustainability. If you would like support or advice on reducing your farm’s footprint as part of the wider context of your farm, our advisors can help.
The rest of this blog will dig into some examples of what might change for some example reports.
Visualising the changes with example reports
We have created example farm reports that compare emissions factors before and after the April update for various farming systems. These reports, which span April 2023 to March 2024 and April 2024 to March 2025, use consistent items and quantities to ensure the thing changing is the emissions factors. It’s crucial to remember that actual farm reports will vary year-to-year due to changes in both practices and purchased materials, not just emissions factors.
As you can see in Figure 1, comparing the same reports across both periods does not result in large differences. Table 1 gives the percentage change in the total carbon emissions (tCO2e) and total carbon balance (which includes carbon removals by sequestration – tCO2e) for each report. On average, reports with the updated emissions factors resulted in a decrease in total carbon emissions and total carbon balance. This will vary depending on what items have been chosen in reports.
Figure 1. Carbon emissions and sequestration in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) for farm reports for the years 2024 and 2025. These reports represent individual farm examples and do not represent an average of that farming sector.
The dairy report experienced an increase due to livestock feeds being updated with the latest Global Feed LCA Institute source (GFLI). In comparison, the poultry and the beef report experienced a decrease in emissions due to updating this same source, as some feed items have increased, whilst others have decreased.
The large decrease in the carbon balance for the poultry report is due to a combination of emissions factors decreasing e.g. livestock feeds and bedding (-21.58%), materials (-8.86%) and fuels (-5.43%) alongside changes in carbon sequestration factors (-8.75% i.e. an increase in sequestration), resulting in a relatively large decrease in the carbon balance.
The arable and horticulture report have remained relatively similar with changes below 5%. To see a more detailed breakdown of what changed in these reports and in the calculator, check out our What’s Changed document.
Report
% Change in Emissions
% Change in Balance
Arable
0.87
1.11
Beef
-10.48
-11.65
Dairy
3.78
5.43
Horticulture
3.54
3.91
Poultry
-9.16
-54.30
Average
-2.29
-11.10
Table 1. The percentage change in carbon emissions and carbon balance for each report.
It’s not just changes – there are new items too!
Importantly, we also use this update to add in new items that people have requested. In this update you can expect to see:
Over 6000 more specific sprays (branded herbicides, fungicides etc.)
Over 100 more branded & generic fertilisers
The ability to search an item in the inputs section to quickly find your item on our system
Over 400 new imported organic fertility sources and the emissions from their application in different seasons and with different application methods
New options for agroforestry and silvopasture including a range of densities and ages of woodland
New options to enter market garden crops on a smaller scale
New options to enter landscaping materials associated with paving and decking
For a full list of what has been added see the “What’s Changed” document, or the data collection sheets, where new Items have been flagged with a star.
Communicating this change
If you need to communicate this article in a sentence, for example alongside your report within a supply chain, or to accompany a project you are involved in, use this:
The Farm Carbon Calculator has updated its emissions factors in line with the latest data sources – detailed information about what has changed can be found at https://calculator.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk/resources
Every five years, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)1 publishes a statutory report detailing the UK’s ‘carbon budget’ for a future five-year period. The 7th Carbon Budget covers the period 2038-2042. It is a stock-take of UK GHG emissions (current and future) and provides advice to the Government on how and where these emissions will need to be reduced (‘the pathway’) if the UK is to meet its legal obligations to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050.
Within the 7th Carbon Budget report, it is good to see that the role of land use change in removing carbon is now being linked to agricultural land which gives a truer picture than was previously the case, when land use change was in a separate silo.
It is clear that the carbon budget is very high level, focussing on climate impacts only, with little reference to the impacts of the proposed changes on biodiversity across the UK’s agricultural land. In reviewing this budget, FCT has taken a very practical viewpoint and has reflected on areas where the budget could have helpfully provided more detail and looked at how to fully engage with farmers and growers across the land who are on the delivery frontline.
As other sectors decarbonise, the proportion of total emissions arising from agriculture will increase, putting more pressure on the sector to make progress on emissions reduction and carbon removals. In 2022 the contribution of agriculture to overall UK emissions was 12%. By 2040 this is predicted to rise to 27%, after the activity to reduce emissions set out in the carbon budget and it will be the second highest emitter after aviation even with the target action outlined in this carbon budget.
The report proposes a pathway for agriculture to reach net zero by 2050. Not surprisingly woodland creation, peatland restoration and other land use changes are highlighted as mechanisms to sequester more carbon. There is significant reliance on carbon sequestration into land sinks through the 2040’s but little reliance on any level of carbon sequestration into soil itself.
There is a reliance on increased tree planting from the late 2020’s onwards as trees will only start to sequester larger volumes of carbon from 15 years of age onwards. According to the UK Woodland Carbon Code, sequestration rates for woodland increase dramatically during the “teenage years” of woodland establishment. In total, woodland creation has been modelled to contribute 15% to emissions reduction by 2050 . This will require an additional 1.1 million ha of woodland to be planted by 2050. In addition some 300,000 ha of lowland peat and 970,000 ha of upland peat will be returned to natural/ rewetted condition by the same time.
For agriculture the reduction in overall GHG emissions is targeted at 45% by 2050 compared to 2022, coming primarily from a reduction in livestock numbers (38% by 2050) with a relatively small contribution from the adoption of low carbon farming practices. These reductions are significant, reducing the breeding flock of sheep from 15 to 11 million ewes and the breeding cattle herd from 3 to 2 million head.
The reduction in grazing livestock numbers will release land for tree planting. The combined effect of the changes to farming practice and tree planting is to suggest that the sector will become a net sequesterer of carbon by 2048.
There are a number of important assumptions included within this budget which bear further scrutiny:
Crop yields will increase by 16% by 2050. Presumably this increase is deemed necessary to ensure adequate plant based foods to replace the current levels of meat in our diets. However it is questionable whether this will be achievable in practice, even if gene editing technologies are successful and fully deployed as more adverse weather events are already affecting yield levels in the UK and across the world. It is not clear how critical to successful achievement of the overall plan this is.
Stocking rates for grazing livestock on lowland will increase by around 10% with stocking rates in the upland reduced. Presumably the former is to allow for more land to be released to grow crops for human consumption and the latter to reflect the current over-grazing in parts of the upland and to reflect rewetting of upland peatlands and the proposals for tree planting. Targeting increased stocking rates for lowland livestock could require additional artificial fertiliser inputs which would seem counter intuitive, though the increased stocking rate could potentially be achieved through improvements in grassland utilisation efficiency.
Consumption of meat products (primarily beef and lamb) will fall by 35% by 2050 compared to 2019 levels. On first sight it would appear that changes in consumption are mirroring proposed reductions in livestock numbers, however, no mention is made of any changes in dairy cow numbers, but since the majority of beef produced in the UK comes from the dairy herd this will also impact milk production. Consideration is also given to replacing meat in ready meals with plant based alternatives which will negatively affect carcass balance, with lower value “cuts” often used for this purpose at the moment. This would put further pressure on sector profitability. The targeted reduction in ruminant livestock numbers would lead to a lower requirement of permanent grassland for grazing of a similar order to the reduction in livestock numbers. This would amount to around 3 million ha which could be diverted for other use, where this is possible. Tree planting would be a key use for poorer quality ground (topography and stoniness) with better quality grassland moving to arable cropping where this is possible. This would probably lead to loss of carbon from soils, especially when permanent grassland is first transitioned to arable cropping2. It is not clear whether this has been accounted for within the overall budget.
The carbon budget includes a very low value (0.5Mt CO2e per year for carbon removed by grassland soils). This appears to be low and seems to take little account of the ability for well-managed livestock systems to bring multiple benefits beyond reducing emissions including carbon removals into soils and enhanced biodiversity.
More research and data analysis is required urgently to inform us of the ability of the soil to permanently and reliably store more carbon and how best this can be done. We have some information as do others, but as yet this is not a body of evidence which the CCC can use as part of its carbon budget.
Returning around 300,000 ha lowland peat to a rewetted state will impinge upon its current use for growing vegetables, fruit and arable crops. The report does mention that some 10% of horticultural production will move indoors, which is likely to focus on leafy salad type crops. However for field scale vegetable production left to be grown outdoors the question remains as to where they will be grown. Moving vegetable growing to other parts of the UK will require careful site selection if current levels of margin (currently pretty low) are to be maintained and consideration of the infrastructure required, such as pack houses and cold stores.
There were also a number of notable omissions from the budget:
Whilst the pathway to reduce nitrous oxide emissions are recognised as coming primarily from agriculture, there is no mention of the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuel based N fertilisers. For arable cropping, up to 75% of total emissions arise from the production and use of artificial N fertiliser. Great work is being done to produce low carbon alternatives, but further information on the likely “winning technologies” in this space would have been helpful.
The level of efficiency of the UK to produce food at a lower GHG intensity than some other nations, utilising fewer arable resources (land and feed) and with lower supply chain discards through a circular feed system provides the nation with a competitive advantage in terms of overall emissions per unit of home grown food. This could be better recognised within the budget report.
There is no mention of any target to reduce numbers of pigs and poultry within this 7th Carbon Budget. Whilst the animals themselves do not emit methane, their manures do and their reliance on imported soya has a significant impact on overall UK agriculture emissions as well as the soil degradation associated with cereal production to grow the cereals they wholly rely on. We have estimated that reducing reliance on imported soya by 50% and moving to feeding UK grown beans and pulses will reduce the emissions from agriculture by 7% (primarily due to reduced reliance on artificial N fertiliser and to removing deforestation emissions on 50% soya supply).
Reliance on land use change to enable agriculture to reach net zero by 2050
In the period from 2043-2050 agriculture and land use are budgeted to contribute the largest share of net emissions reduction (35%) – see figure 2 below from the Carbon Budget report, and to reach net zero emissions by 2050 as a result of increases in carbon sequestration into land sinks (primarily increased areas of woodland and reduced emissions from peatland due to changed management) with emissions of around 25Mt CO2e and sequestration of around 26Mt CO2e per year. Current emissions from UK agriculture are around 48Mt CO2e per year.
At FCT, we are in agreement with the Agriculture Advisory Group of the UK Climate Change Committee and its report in calling for more nuanced targets which better reflect the benefits of UK livestock production, especially when it is primarily based on the consumption of forages. We also agree with their view that it is important to reflect on the impact of the different gases on warming aligned to the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Both GWP100 and GWP* metrics are important and could already be reported in concert to inform on both GHG accounting (CO2e) for national inventories and impact of different GHGs on climate warming (CO2e) important for the Paris Agreement.
We believe that the report could be much more positive about the contribution that resilient farming businesses, agricultural land and farmers can make to meeting the climate change challenge. Positive engagement and empowerment of farmers, growers and land managers are critical elements in building confidence and encouraging investment but is currently patchy, with beacons of good practice such as the Farm Net Zero project in Cornwall, which is delivering change on the ground and practically supporting farm businesses to transition towards net zero.
Footnotes
A body set up to hold the government to account on their progress towards net zero and reducing emissions
The UK GHG inventory suggests that the average change in non- organic soil carbon density (to 1M deep) from converting grassland to cropland in England is -24 tonnes C/ ha, in Scotland is -101 tC/ha, Wales -39 tC/ha and NI -68 tC/ha
Recent Comments