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
The collaborative efforts of the three leading carbon calculators resulted in significant progress being made, especially in the area of harmonisation on methods to bring new and novel fertilisers into our Calculators.
An opportunity for harmonisation
Commissioned by Defra in 2022, the independent ADAS report sought to explore the level of divergence in carbon assessments between carbon calculators and provide recommendations for harmonisation, with the ultimate goal of ensuring comparability of results between the different providers. As the report states:
It is not about identification of which calculator is better or worse than others. It is intended that the insights from this analysis will help inform a potential approach that will enable providers to develop their calculators in a way that creates increased comparability of results while still allowing innovation.
Successful collaboration
In response to the publication of the report, three of the UK’s major carbon calculators – Agrecalc, Cool Farm Tool, and the Farm Carbon Calculator – agreed to work together in June 2024 to harmonise their calculator methodologies, on the understanding that such work would ultimately benefit all their end users.
Since that initial meeting, we are pleased to report significant progress on one area of divergence identified by ADAS between the different calculators reviewed, namely fertiliser embedded emissions. In addition, we are working on Calculator interoperability to enable data transfer between Calculators.
We have recently established an Industry Fertiliser Steering Group to explore how new and novel fertilisers with lower carbon footprints should be incorporated into all carbon calculators. This work is being kindly supported by the Agriculture Industries Confederation (AIC). With a range of new and novel fertilisers being developed and introduced into the UK, it is important that any emissions reductions brought about by these products can be accurately accounted for by the calculator tools.
Join us
Following the successful collaboration between Agrecalc, Cool Farm Tool, and the Farm Carbon Calculator, we are keen to invite other calculator providers who also publicly provide transparency in their calculator methodologies to join us on this harmonisation activity. Liz Bowles, CEO of Farm Carbon Toolkit said:
We are keen to support all Calculators who wish to work together for the benefit of the agricultural sector.
Our mutual goal is collaboration with industry, trade bodies, and fellow calculator providers in the UK and internationally, so that we can actively contribute to the development of more consistent approaches to on-farm carbon calculation, for the ultimate benefit of our varied customers. We look forward to hearing from you.
Additional Information
This positive, collaborative work has come about as a direct result of the ADAS report commissioned by Defra. Further information on the report is set out below, together with some key aspects to assist everyone in the agri-food sector to understand more about how farm-based greenhouse gas emissions are estimated.
The purpose of the ADAS work
This project was developed to quantify the level of divergence in the calculation of farm-level emissions between a selection of the main carbon calculators on the market, understand the causes of this divergence, and determine how those differences might impact the user. By its nature, the report focuses on the differences between calculators and the challenges of providing robust estimations while making the process accessible to non-expert users.
However, as the report states:
It is important to recognise that despite these challenges the calculators are all able to provide the farmer with a baseline understanding of emissions and can facilitate the start, and ongoing development, of a decarbonisation process.
Fundamentals of all Farm Carbon Calculators
As the report states:
all carbon calculators are models; there is no single correct answer as they are aiming to simplify a complex biological system
However, it is important to understand why there are differences in results between calculators and identify ways to minimise these differences.
Harmonisation of calculators aims to ensure greater levels of precision of outputs, while recognising the need to simplify data entry to support the use by non-expert users (e.g., farmers), in order to facilitate the provision of consistent guidance to farmers to support their decarbonisation efforts.
Findings of the work
The report did not recommend any one calculator as being superior to the other calculators investigated. Indeed, what has become clear is that different calculators ask different questions and there is currently no one standard question.
It is important for farmers and growers to look at how individual calculators work for them in providing results at a product, enterprise or whole farm level and seek one which meets their specific needs. The report set out the main areas where ADAS found differences between how the calculators dealt with different types of emissions and how the boundaries for such measurements were set.
Conclusions
It is clear that there is still much work to be done by all calculators to ensure they remain aligned with emerging guidance as this science develops and matures. The good news is that data standards harmonisation is underway, driven by the tool owners themselves.
While there continues to be a range of different user and supply chain requirements for a farm carbon footprint (from corporate scope 3 reporting and risk management planning to product footprinting and on-farm resilience planning) there will be an ecosystem of different tools and providers to meet this range of needs. One size does not fit all in this space!
As the UK agricultural supply industry’s leading trade association, the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) represents businesses in key sectors within the supply chains that feed the nation.
Formed in October 2003 by a merger of three trade associations, today AIC has over 230 Members in the agri-supply trade and represents £17.8 billion* turnover at farmgate.
AIC works on behalf of its Members by lobbying policymakers and stakeholders, delivering information, providing trade assurance schemes, and offering technical support.
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.
The Farm Carbon Calculator uses the IPCC 2019 and UK GHG Inventory methodologies and is aligned with the GHG protocol agricultural guidance. Recent developments have allowed us to provide greater interoperability with other data platforms through our Report Export API and Carbon Calculation Engine API. This represents a step-change in the industry’s ability to provide trustworthy carbon footprints with transparent methodologies on platforms where farmers already collect data, thus reducing the data inputting onus on farmers. This new functionality has been warmly welcomed by supply chain businesses who are now using our Calculation Engine to support their customers without the need for further data entry.
The Farm Carbon Calculator is used across the UK and on four continents with global usage growing at around 20% per year.
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 the 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 8,000 farmers in the UK and beyond. To find out more visit www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk
Agrecalc, a carbon footprint tool developed by combining practical expertise with world-class agricultural science, is a precise instrument that offers both breadth and depth of on-farm and through-the-supply-chain calculations of GHG gas emissions.
Agrecalc is the largest source of collated farm benchmark data from thousands of farms, having been used as the designated tool to deliver carbon audits under various schemes since 2016. It is recognised as the preferred carbon calculator in many of the emerging government programmes.
With a mission to increase efficiency and business viability of food production, the scientists, consultants, and developers who work on Agrecalc, strive to constantly upgrade the calculator according to the most up-to-date available research results and recommendations.
Media contact: Aleksandra Stevanovic, Head of Marketing; ([email protected]; 07551 263 407)
Cool Farm Alliance is a science-led, not-for-profit membership organisation (community interest company) that owns, manages, and improves the Cool Farm Tool and cultivates the leadership network to advance regenerative agriculture at scale.
For over fifteen years, the Cool Farm Alliance has worked to put knowledge in the hands of farmers and empower the full supply chain to understand and support agro-ecological restoration by providing a respected, standardised calculation engine to measure and report on agriculture’s impact on the environment. The Cool Farm Tool has established widely endorsed, science-based metrics for water, climate, and biodiversity, supported in 17 languages and used in more than 150 countries around the world.
Cool Farm Alliance members share the need for a respected, consistent, standardised, independent calculation engine and have joined the Alliance to ensure the Cool Farm Tool meets this need, now and in the future. To find out more visit https://coolfarm.org/
Among the many threats posed by climate change, maybe the greatest is to our food systems. With our country producing less than 60% of what we eat, and the climate crisis already having a huge impact on many of the places we import our food from, the UK clearly needs to become more self-sufficient.
But increasingly extreme weather is affecting food production right here too. Following last winter’s endless rains, British farmers have had one of their worst harvests ever. We know that the way our land is farmed and managed can help us to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis… or indeed to make things much worse.
However, with farmers facing unprecedented financial challenges and record numbers now fearing they’ll go out of business, can we realistically expect them to protect us all from climate change too?
Farming and land use are also increasingly becoming a lightning rod in the climate culture wars. Half-truths, misinformation and outright lies are being pushed across social media by those with a vested interest in crushing the whole green agenda.
While filming the Cornwall’s Climate Stories documentaries, we’ve been keen to find out whether all of this is impacting real world efforts to boost pro-climate and nature-friendly farming.
Farmers centre stage, with a supporting role by FCT!
As filmmakers without a personal connection to farming, it’s been fascinating for us to interview so many farmers and food producers across Cornwall (and our film Food for Thought was actually presented by an organic beef farmer).
We’ve also featured several members of the Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT) team, including technical director Becky Willson, who we met in the middle of the 2022 drought.
Becky demonstrating the properties and health of soil
Becky took us out in a Cornish field to show us the huge differences that regenerative farming can make to both farmers and wider society. Biologically-healthy soils are not only more fertile, but also store more carbon, support more wildlife, and hold much more water – reducing flash flooding during our increasingly torrential downpours, but also enabling crops to keep growing during increasing periods of drought.
Another of our interviewees was FCT Impact Manager Jonathan Smith, who is trying to adapt to increasing coastal erosion as the sea level rises around his beautiful organic farm on St Martin’s in the Isles of Scilly.
Meanwhile, Farm Carbon & Soil Advisor Anthony Ellis appeared in our film Power to the People about climate change and energy, addressing one of the biggest flashpoints around climate action in rural areas – solar farms.
The loud public outcry against the idea of solar panels covering productive farmland has been unavoidable. However, Anthony believes we’re missing a trick by viewing land use in such a binary way.
He has raised his panels up 18 inches higher than usual to allow his sheep to graze beneath them. Aside from bringing him in additional income, the panels also improve the welfare of his animals.
When we visited on a very hot summer’s day, the sheep were relaxing in the shade of the panels and Anthony explained the grass holds on better beneath them during droughts than it does out in the open. Chickens can be kept beneath solar panels and all manner of veg grown between them too.
Anthony’s sheep under solar panels on a warm day
Few will argue that solar farms are beautiful – but the popular view of these sites as sterile and lifeless can be far from the truth. Recent studies have found well-managed solar farms act as vital havens for wildflowers and critical pollinators among barren landscapes of industrial farmland.
Bringing nuance into the debate
Concern over food security is totally understandable. However, even if all the solar area envisioned in the government’s net zero plans were built, this would still take up only 0.3% of our land area – just half the amount of land taken up by golf courses (and 0.5% of the land currently used for farming).
Solar farms are far from the only controversial way of using farmland to tackle the climate crisis though. Tree-planting initiatives are also leading to fears of food-growing areas being lost.
However, the picture is more nuanced here too. Agroforestry is a great way of introducing more trees into the landscape, while still using it for farming.
Chris Jones, who farms near Ladock, has planted strips of willow through some fields, allowing him to mob graze his livestock (regularly moving animals on from one small area of land to another, which is a great way of boosting soil biology and carbon storage).
Mob grazed cattle
Planting more trees across a farm, or allowing hedgerows to grow out, not only benefits birds, pollinators and other wildlife. This can also provide shade and shelter, important for livestock as our weather becomes more extreme, as well as additional fodder. Trees can also be coppiced to provide firewood or fencing materials, or could provide additional crops such as fruit or nuts.
Tree planting is often linked to something else that has spawned huge controversy – rewilding. Yet several farmers across Cornwall are involved in this to different degrees too, re-introducing extinct or struggling species from tiny harvest mice or water voles to larger and much more misunderstood ones, like beavers.
There’s alarm in some quarters about beavers eating fish (they’re vegetarian) or killing trees (most of the trees they fell regenerate). Concern about flooding of farmland may be more of a possibility. However, experience in countries like Germany, where beavers were reintroduced over 60 years ago, has shown these animals can be managed and relocated quite easily if problems arise.
In terms of benefits, beavers’ leaky dams help to clean up rivers and drastically reduce flash flooding, while the ponds behind them have been proven to kickstart an amazing return of other life, from insects and fish to bats and birds. Importantly for farmers in our changing climate, they can also provide a valuable reserve of water for potential use in times of drought.
Turning challenges to opportunities
We’ve met so many Cornish farmers who are grasping the climate challenge with great enthusiasm – from the Stoke Climsland cluster of small farmers working together to create wildlife corridors across their wider landscape, to huge businesses like Riviera Produce, which farms 8,000 acres across Cornwall, producing a significant amount of the UK’s cauliflowers, cabbage, courgettes and kale.
Riviera farm manager David Thomas looking at soil quality in a field of green manure
By adopting more techniques such as companion planting to encourage natural pest predators, Riviera have managed to massively reduce the amounts of pesticides and other chemicals they use. Worm counts in their soils have boomed, and by using cover crops after harvest instead of leaving bare earth there’s now far less run-off from their fields to cause flooding in nearby villages.
But…. there is one big elephant in the room around farming and climate action in Cornwall. Just a cursory glance shows that most of our farmland is dedicated to livestock – and the climate impact globally of the meat and dairy industry is huge.
Livestock farming may be a traditional part of Cornwall’s heritage and it’s true that we grow grass here very well. However, many animals today actually live in highly intensive systems dependent on imported feed and chemicals, with their waste contained in vast slurry lagoons that pump out planet-heating methane.
Innovative Cornish research is attempting to tackle these impacts – for example by capturing methane and turning it into a green fuel, or researching new feeds to replace damaging Amazonian soya.
These advances are important given that these mass-produced animal products are sadly much more affordable than milk or meat from higher welfare and more nature-friendly, pasture-fed animals.
However, it’s also important to recognise that nearly 10% of the UK population is now either vegetarian or vegan. Could this offer new diversification opportunities for Cornish farmers too?
We already have more Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) schemes, growing veg to organic principles, than anywhere else in the country – but there is potential for much more horticulture here too. A changing climate may increasingly also enable us to farm more and different crops, such as sweet potatoes, soya and grapes.
Holly Whitelaw testing (and tasting?!) soil at Boasvern CSA in West Cornwall
At least one Cornish livestock farmer is even considering growing oats to tap into the vegan oat milk market too!
Farmers have always been great at adapting to whatever is thrown at them – be that weather, government policies or changing public tastes.
However, as climate impacts worsen, adaptability is going to become key to their survival. We all depend on farmers three times a day, so supporting them in this changing world should be a priority for all of us too.
We’ve seen some tantalising glimpses all over Cornwall of many ways in which farming could become more resilient and much better for nature, people and the climate.
Making this a meaningful reality is clearly going to need much greater support from the government. However, we hope that, by showcasing the stories of so many passionate food producers around Cornwall, our films can help to enthuse more of the farming community to get on board with becoming part of the climate solution too.
The inaugural Dung Beetle Conference took place in June 2024 at Yeo Valley Holt Farm in Bristol – a collaboration that puts this tiny beast on the farm vet agenda.
Written by Rob Howe
It would have seemed a far-fetched idea a few years ago, a two-day conference about dung beetles attended by farmers, vets, policymakers and schoolchildren. Yet in June this year, we pulled it off, with huge thanks to Dr Hannah Jones (Farm Carbon Toolkit) and Rob Howe (BCVA, COWS, Vet Sustain), together with event sponsors, First Milk, Yeo Valley, Techion, Micron Agritech and Duggan Veterinary Supplies.
Hannah and Rob share mindsets around regenerative farming topics and how dung beetles should fit into all farmer’s thoughts and practices. Researchers have previously held Dung Fauna conferences, but these have been largely academic. This re-imagining of those events held by Richard Wall, Bryony Sands, Sarah Beynon and others, aimed to focus on biodiverse farming and integrated parasite management (IPM), which has been the focus of Rob’s work both in practice, in research and in his Nuffield Scholarship.
Conference Write-Up
The conference was opened by Sarah Beynon who spoke passionately about dung beetles and of her seminal work calculating their positive £367m of beneficial financial impact every year to UK cattle farms. Darren Mann, widely considered the gospel on dung beetles, wowed the audience with his own passion and bluntly hilarious style! We then heard of the impact parasiticides have in the environment and the degradation times of dung pats, as well as new research linking their abundance and diversity to soil health parameters from Bryony Sands, video-linked from the USA.
Organisers found it rewarding to see all the decades of superb work from so many inspiring people, brought together and shared with those that need to know it most – farmers and vets.
There is an impressive body of work now that led to my own efforts in proving there is an alternative approach – Integrated Parasite Management (IPM)
Rob Howe, BCVA, COWS, Vet Sustain
Rob Howe spoke on the importance of IPM, and the vital role of the vet, along with a vision for animal health tied in with this new approach. I then had the privilege of handing over to a wide array of experts in their fields to talk on the individual subjects and strategies that make up IPM, including species diversity, farming biodiverse, breeding for resilience, the role of trees, pasture management, soils and FEC testing. It was a ram-packed day punctuated at lunch by a dung safari led brilliantly by Darren Mann.
The conference also offered an opportunity to see demonstrations of key providers of in-house FEC testing by FECPAK, Micron, and Ovacyte who all attended and sponsored the event
Day Two started in the mature agroforestry system, and a dung beetle hunt was led by Claire Whittle, with input from many others including Sally-Ann Spence and Lindsay Whistance, whose work on the value of trees for livestock, needs much more airtime.
Over the two days we got to hear from so many great speakers all linking dung beetles to wider biodiversity including birds, a fantastic project on Dartmoor and how equine and small animal vets and owners are grasping the opportunity to have similar positive impact in their respective fields.
The responsible use of parasiticides
The conference ended with a workshop supported by BCVA, COWS and Vet Sustain. The workshop opened with a short “scene setting” presentation from the VMD with an overview of the current regulatory framework for veterinary medicines in the UK. The discussion groups focused on the issues around responsible prescribing and parasiticide use and identifying workable solutions and associated actions to drive much-needed positive change to promote the responsible use of parasiticides.
BCVA has been working hard behind the scenes for some years to influence progressive policy change in this area. BCVA’s policy on parasite control was launched by Sally Wilson in 2021, following Rob Howe’s IPM workshop and introduction to the power of dung beetles at Congress. BCVA has since been involved in wider collaborative discussions with the VMD and additional stakeholder organisations and recently worked with BVA on parallel activities to make progress on this important subject.
Key asks, actions & outcomes from the workshop
Farmers, farm advisors and farm vets all fed back in the workshops, offering a range of ideas, with the following common themes:
Education
To promote IPM as a more sustainable way to approach the use of parasiticides, all groups cited novel education and training as essential – specifically, for practising vets but also in vet schools and agricultural colleges.
A strong desire for everyone to get on board with a “new narrative” on display at the conference, reaching beyond IPM, producing food good for humans, the planet and of course animals.
Peer-to-peer learning opportunities were valued highly by everyone when it came to shifting farming practices, with many on display at the conference.
Funding
It was highlighted that opportunities for IPM to be funded within the SFI-type schemes, as it is in the arable sector, would be beneficial.
A general fund for (farms’) innovative ideas rather than prescriptive lists. Excellent examples might be EID/ Handling/Weighing facilities for DLWG and helping IPM & targeted selective treatments.
A cross-industry fund created to facilitate the rollout of IPM; training and tools for delivery and recording.
Monitoring
Collecting baseline figures on top-level use for the livestock sector would enable monitoring of progress, similar to those seen with antibiotics. The VMD were present, and we hope in time will help deliver this.
The same applies to the farm level where benchmarking could help drive change. This may be more likely to come from the industry itself.
Policy & Governance
Advertising of parasiticides should not be targeted at end users (across spp)
POM-V status could ensure this, but so could a legal change in advertising rules for parasiticides.
IPM should come into landscape recovery, and eventually as standard everywhere
A desire for support for vaccines such as louping ill to be available and others developed
More robust environmental assessments (small animals particularly) and enforcements of product advisory wording across species.
Communication
The need for improved communication between the entire farm team and advisors
Improved communication between vets and SQPs would be ideal. An app to facilitate IPM may be able to help achieve this.
Landscape approaches
Commons health plans and or landscape health plans (look outside the farm gate).
Industry support, facilitation & incentives
Milk buyers are already involved in a positive way. Great examples here at the conference with First Milk and Yeo Valley sponsoring and encouraging positive changes.
Others including M&S support farms to look at parasite control through an IPM lens and Muller leading the way in starting to measure usage.
Timeline for Change
Sentiment for action was positive, with 5 years set as a target, since this movement is already happening as evidenced at the conference, and people are aware, so major change could happen quite quickly.
Get in touch and join the movement
The conference concluded with a commitment to work across the sector to progress these key actions. We would like to hear from anyone keen to help achieve these aims and or be involved in the next one. Please contact Rob_ [email protected] or [email protected].
Conference Acknowledgements
This conference built on a brilliant legacy of research, and brought together farmers, vets, soil experts, entomologists, researchers, industry and public, to celebrate the great work that is going on, but also to shape future policy and regulation. In the interest of brevity, it hasn’t been possible to acknowledge every speaker, contributor or supporter of this event, but the organisers would like to thank everyone who helped make this happen and also show appreciation to all those who have worked for some time in this important area to advance our profession’s understanding. And finally, a huge thank you to all the event sponsors – Yeo Valley, First Milk, Techion, Micron Agritech and Duggan Veterinary Supplies – without whom we could not have made this day happen.
Conference Reflections from a Vet Andy Adler – Farm Carbon Toolkit – Vet Perspectives
As a vet who has been out of clinical work for a while, I turned up to the Dung Beetle Conference 2024 due to my role in one of the sponsoring companies, Farm Carbon Toolkit. I had been aware of dung beetles and integrated parasite management (IPM), but I had little knowledge and no experience discussing IPM with farmers.
I found a place with positive energy and a diversity of farmers, vets, and industry professionals united in the need to identify how to support ecology in farming while supporting food production. The mix of sponsors from First Milk, Yeo Valley and Farm Carbon Toolkit meant that the industry was well represented and led the conversation on how to get to a farming system with a positive impact on the environment and nature.
Shifting baselines (Masashi Soga, 2018) come to mind for me. Farmers there described how dung pats would disappear within 24 hours as multiple species of dung beetles eat, bury and process the dung. I still find this expectation ‘unbelievable’; however, I accept that this is due to my shifted baseline of expectation. I also realised that as vets, we must deal with the conflict of interest between animal needs and the owner’s ability. Now, we have to deal with disputes between animal needs, nature needs and the owner’s ability to understand how best they can balance off competing demands.
I left after two days of interactive talks and an exploratory field safari, identifying dung beetles and understanding their abundance within healthy pats. My mind was opened. I now look in cow pats and understand how few beetles are on some farms.
The following questions (and more!) have sat with me since.
– How can we understand our shifted baseline and rebalance it? – How do vets deal with an additional conflict of interest? – Can IPM become a veterinary campaign similar to the Mastitis Plan or Health Feet Program?
I would highly recommend that farm vets think about dung beetles and their moral and ethical responsibilities towards the environment, animal welfare, and owners’ needs.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes analytics cookies to understand website traffic and how users interact with our website. We do not use any advertising cookies.
You may accept or refuse our use of cookies, or learn more at the link provided.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Recent Comments