The Minister was keen to learn more about innovations that can take place across the agricultural community that can simultaneously improve farm economics, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sequester carbon in the soil, boost biodiversity, and strengthen business resilience for today’s farmers and future generations. Emphasis was placed on the need to provide transition support for farmers through discussion groups and community networks, such as Lottery-funded Farm Net Zero project.

We discussed the vital role of well-managed integrated ruminant livestock, particularly in pasture-based systems, in building soil health with diverse cropping, alongside practices like minimum tillage, herbal leys, compost application, and grazing strategies such as paddock grazing. 

We also explored the urgent need for UK agriculture and horticulture to adapt to the growing impacts of climate change, alongside rising concerns around long-term food security in the face of environmental and geopolitical instability. We emphasised the importance of reliable public funding to support a fair and economically viable transition to planet-friendly farming, particularly in a market that too often fails to pay farmers a fair price.

The Minister was clearly engaged, asking thoughtful and challenging questions throughout. We’re grateful for the opportunity to speak openly with him and his team.

The post Farming, Nature and Resilience: Steve Reed MP Visits Blable Farm appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.

What’s changed?

Manure management options

Instead of selecting from just four options for livestock manure management, there are now 9 categories of manure storage with a variety of further amendments and actions associated that may reduce emissions on farm. Full details of the options and what these mean can be found on our Manure Storage Systems guide.

Diet type

Where you have the time and information available to provide detailed information about the type of diet your livestock consumes, it is now possible to use the Farm Carbon Calculator to gain a higher accuracy estimate of enteric methane emissions. This can have a particularly marked effect on the emissions resulting from e.g. a grass-fed vs compound-fed animal. The detailed methodology relies on dry-matter-intake (DMI) but if you don’t know this, we have a Guide to DMI to help you convert forage and “as-fed” weights to DMI.

If you don’t want to enter so much detail, the Farm Carbon Calculator will use the UK GHG inventory default assumptions for livestock diets and consumption.

How will the changes affect my report?

We know it’s important for year on year carbon reporting to maintain consistency. For this reason, legacy reports won’t be automatically transferred into the new livestock calculation. 

If you decide to use the new calculation method, this will improve the accuracy of your results. For the majority of reports it will also reduce emissions because most of the previous defaults were based on the highest emitting options in each category. The new options are considered “mitigation measures” allowing for a reduction in the assumed emissions of greenhouse gases compared to a conventional manure management method or livestock ration.

At the end of this blog, we have summarised a few examples of how a report might look with the simplified and more detailed methodologies.

Do I need to do anything?

If you are creating a new report, you will automatically be shown the new calculation methodology but if you don’t have enough information to hand, you can fall back to the simpler method. For existing reports, there a number of options available: you can either manually update each livestock entry or “Migrate” all entries within a report. We have a full guide to switching to the new calculation method:

Guide to updating your reports containing livestock

Manure and slurry applications (spreading)

The main change for livestock farms will be that you need to enter any manure or slurry spreading (whether imported or produced by your own animals) under the Crops > Organic Fertility Sources section of the Calculator (as pictured below).

What if I exported manure or slurry?

You need to account for any storage of manure and slurry on your own farm. So if it remains on farm for 1 month, you need to select the appropriate option for that livestock entry.

You do not need to account for the manure or slurry storage once it has left your farm. You do not need to account for the spreading of that manure on somebody else’s land.

What if I want to keep my report the same?

To ensure your original report remains unchanged, we would recommend locking it. You can do this by selecting your report from your dashboard and then selecting the “Lock” report button at the top right hand of the screen:

You can copy your report. Copying a report leaves the original report with the legacy data in the livestock section, but updates the copy of the report transferring the livestock into the new calculation method. To copy, find your report in your dashboard under “My Reports” and then click the copy icon for that report:

You could then directly compare these reports to see how emissions estimates have changed. We have aligned the old animal waste management options with the new manure storage options to allow this transfer, but some assumptions on systems have been made and we would encourage you to check the manure storage options to see if there is an option more relevant for your system.

Why does the Calculator keep changing?

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 our projects and harmonisation work).

Can I get help?

Contact Michael Brown at [email protected]

What kind of change in emissions can I expect?

The rest of this blog will dig into some comparisons of what might change for different types of livestock. 

We have focussed on the management practices that result in the biggest change in emissions compared to the simpler (old) methodology. The comparisons here include only enteric methane emissions and manure methane and nitrous oxide emissions; the areas that now have more detail in accounting for livestock. These comparisons do not include emissions embedded in the production of feedstuffs or bedding since these have not changed as a result of the recent methodology update.

Comparison 1 – dairy cattle, grass-based

In this example, emissions from 100 head of dairy cattle in each category in a 100% grass-based outdoor system are compared using the old and new methodology. Being able to take their detailed manure management and diet type into account with the new methodology would reduce livestock-related emission by 23.5% for dairy cows in this system.

Comparison 2 – sheep outdoor year round

Here we have used 100 head of each category of sheep, assuming 80kg mature weight and 30kg lamb average weight. Being able to take their detailed manure management and diet type into account with the new methodology slightly increases livestock-related emissions for ewes by 11.3% for example. Sheep are the only category of livestock for which the new detailed methodology shows an increase in emissions but it will not be the case for all sheep enterprises. The difference is dependent on manure management and diet of the flock in question.

Comparison 3 – 100% grass-fed beef

In this example, emissions from 100 head of each beef cattle category in a 100% grass-based outdoor system are compared using the old and new methodology. Being able to take detailed manure management and diet type into account with the new methodology would reduce livestock-related emission by 15.3% for beef suckler cows and 7.2% for beef finishing steers in this system, all else being equal.

Comparison 4 – beef cattle with different types of manure management

The following is a comparison of the same 100 beef cattle (all with the same liveweight of 450kg and assumed diet) but with 100% of their manure managed under the available options. This demonstrates the difference in emissions (for beef cattle) from the different manure management options. The magnitude of difference in emissions and management options available varies between different livestock types.

The post More detail in accounting for livestock management practices appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.

Perched between Orkney and Shetland, Fair Isle is Britain’s most remote inhabited island. A rugged, windswept strip of land where the Atlantic meets the North Sea, it stretches just three miles long and a mile and a half wide. This isolated outcrop is home to a small community of crofters who farm against a backdrop of salt-laced gales and long, stormy winters.

Fair Isle is where Daniel Stout grew up, on his family’s croft. The island’s 768 hectares are divided between communal hill ground to the north and seventeen working crofts to the south. Each croft holds an equal share in the island’s common grazing flock of 340 ewes, which graze across 430 hectares of hill land. Sheep are the lifeblood of the island with no cattle currently being run. All flocks are April lambing with lambs sold at September sales in Shetland’s capital Lerwick. Homegrown silage is also produced to keep croft flocks going through the winter months.

From Crofter to Livestock and Carbon Consultant

The rugged, practical farming environment of Fair Isle along with working for Innovis and SAC Consulting, has laid the foundation for Daniel’s future work. Since founding Stout Livestock Consulting Ltd in 2024, he has helped livestock farmers across Scotland better understand and reduce their carbon emissions.

“I started using carbon calculators in 2019, but it’s in the past couple of years that things have really shifted with audits now part of the Whole Farm Plan,” he says. “It doesn’t have to be just a box-ticking exercise, there’s a lot of value to be had in pulling together data required and reviewing how your enterprises have performed and on what inputs.”

In Scotland, a carbon audit is now one of the five requirements under the Whole Farm Plan, which farmers must complete to access Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) support for which two audits were required in 2025 with all five, if applicable, required in 2028. Funding is through the Preparing for Sustainable Farming (PSF) scheme, offering £500 towards an audit in 2025 meaning it is well worth getting sorted with a carbon audit whilst funding is available. 

Choosing the Right Tool for the Job

Since launching Stout Livestock Consulting Ltd, Daniel has used the Farm Carbon Calculator to carry out detailed carbon audits across a range of livestock systems. One of his most extensive applications of the tool has been on his very own home island of Fair Isle, where he completed 14 audits to help crofters meet the requirements of the Whole Farm Plan.

Flocks range in size with some businesses leasing out their in-bye land to other crofters. The audits revealed exceptionally low emissions from the common grazing flock, made up of hardy, low mature weight Shetland ewes, bred pure. These ewes lamb on the hill, are overwintered without supplementary feed, and rear at 90 percent. Two smaller common grazings on the island achieved a 100 percent rearing rate under the same low-input, hill-based system.

Croft flocks performed exceptionally well. Flocks made up of Texel, Cheviot or Highlander cross Shetland ewes, put to Texel or Suffolk rams, averaged a rearing rate of 164 percent from a total of 386 ewes to the tup (ranging from 154 to 171 percent). Crofts running mainly Shetland ewes put to Texel or Cheviot rams reared at an average of 139 percent from 135 ewes.

Turning Carbon Audits into Insights

“What stood out was the consistently strong productivity the island’s flocks are achieving,” Daniel says. “When you look at the high rearing rates and kg of lamb weaned per kilo of ewe, with low ewe and lamb mortality and low replacement rates, the carbon footprint per kilo of output is impressively low.”

Beyond the numbers, Daniel sees carbon audits as a tool for farm improvement. “It gets farmers thinking about where their inputs are going and how enterprises are performing, highlighting resource use efficiency and what changes could be made that make both environmental and business sense.” On Fair Isle, this helped identify practical mitigation options such as reducing concentrate use, improving grassland management, and even exploring peatland restoration on the common grazings.

The calculator itself also enables broader consultancy services. Its extensive list of building materials supports accurate modelling of embedded carbon in infrastructure like sheds and steadings. “I’ve used it to create full carbon statements for free range poultry shed planning applications by modelling the embedded carbon of the shed alongside the annual operational emissions of the poultry enterprise and carbon sequestration from tree planting on the unit” Daniel says. 

The tool’s scenario modelling capabilities are another strength. “The copy report function is a useful tool,” he continues. “You can take an existing audit and tweak it to test different scenario ideas—changing feed use, trying woodland creation, adjusting flock/herd structure and different enterprises. It gives clients a clearer sense of what each option means for their emissions.”

Small Island, Big Lessons

From one of the UK’s most remote and weather-beaten farming communities, Daniel Stout has brought a grounded, practical approach to carbon auditing that resonates with livestock producers across the country. His use of the Farm Carbon Toolkit Calculator has not only helped crofters on Fair Isle meet policy requirements but also uncovered the strengths of their traditional systems—highlighting impressive productivity and low emissions in a challenging environment.

Whether for policy compliance, management improvement, or strategic planning, Daniel’s work demonstrates how carbon audits can empower farmers to make smarter, more sustainable choices—even from the edge of the map.

Daniel Stout is an FBAASS accredited consultant and user of The Farm Carbon Calculator with a Professional Licence. Stout Livestock Consulting provides independent livestock and farm business consultancy to farmers and crofters throughout Scotland. To reach Daniel call +44 7833 226884 – [email protected]

If you want to hear about how our tool can help you deliver advice or projects in a similar way get in touch now or email us directly at [email protected]

Craig Blyth-Moore is a sustainability communications professional with over a decade of experience turning complex environmental issues into clear, compelling narratives. He has written extensively on energy efficiency, renewable energy, the energy transition and sustainable logistics, helping organisations communicate their sustainability strategies with credibility and impact. 

Craig holds an MSc in Environmental Sustainability and brings both subject matter expertise and strategic insight to his work. His writing has appeared on leading global platforms including Economist Impact and the World Economic Forum, helping to inform and inspire meaningful climate action.

The post Using the Farm Carbon Calculator on Britain’s Most Remote Inhabited Island appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.

Farm Carbon Toolkit is a project partner and actively involved in delivering the Nitrogen Climate Smart (NCS) project, providing a range of information services, including assessing the carbon footprint of goods and activities.

The feed trials are a key part of the project. This blog shares results from the first of several trials, which are being delivered across beef, dairy, and poultry enterprises. This first trial aimed to better understand the potential options of feeding home-grown proteins such as faba beans, as an alternative to soya bean meal.

Soya is commonly used in blended feeds, but it is often imported from areas of tropical rainforest that have been cleared for agriculture, carrying substantial carbon implications. Therefore, if we can demonstrate successful animal performance using home-grown proteins from legumes this can help develop local markets for products that can deliver substantial carbon savings for the UK. This trial examines the option of feeding rolled faba beans and roasted faba beans and the animal performance of two groups of similar groups.

The feed trial in question sought to look at the performance of beef cattle in the run-up to finishing. A herd of limousin cross cattle were split into two equal-sized groups and were housed in two halves of the same shed and fed the following diets:

Summary of outcomes from the feeding trial: 

The inclusion of roasted beans:

• Increased feed cost by 5%
• Increased feed emissions by 6%
• Increased daily live weight gain by 10%
• Reduced feed conversion ratio by 9% (a good thing!)
• Decreased cost per kg liveweight gain by 5%
• Decreased feed emissions per kg liveweight gain by 4%
• Decreased total emissions per kg liveweight gain by 8%

These early results are encouraging. They suggest that home-grown alternatives like roasted faba beans can deliver strong animal performance while reducing emissions and dependency on imported soya. 

What next?

This is just the beginning. As part of the Nitrogen Climate Smart project, further trials are underway to build a broader evidence base, with FCT involved in completing more carbon analysis. We’ll continue to share results and insights as they emerge – helping UK farmers explore practical, climate-smart feeding strategies that work for their business and the environment.

The post Home-Grown Protein for Low-Carbon Beef: Early Results from the Nitrogen Climate Smart Trials appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.

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!

The post 25 Years of Rethinking Soil with Simon Cowell appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.

Methane plays a crucial role in climate change, but accurately measuring its impact has long been a challenge. The most commonly used metric for measuring its impact is GWP100, which calculates its warming effect over a 100-year period. However, GWP100 does not fully reflect the gas’s short-lived nature in the atmosphere, potentially misrepresenting its impact compared to other greenhouse gases.

As a result, an alternative approach, known as GWP*, has been developed to address the challenges of measuring methane using GWP100, while offering a more dynamic picture of the gas’s real-time warming impact. At Farm Carbon Toolkit, we recognise the growing discussion around methane reporting and the potential benefits – as well as limitations – of using GWP*. This article explores the differences between GWP100 and GWP*, their implications for farmers, and how GWP* could be responsibly integrated into emissions reporting.

What is Global Warming Potential and How is it Measured?

Global Warming Potential is a measure used to compare the impact of different greenhouse gases on atmospheric warming over a specific period, relative to carbon dioxide. Since each greenhouse gas varies in how much heat it traps and how long it remains in the atmosphere, Global Warming Potential provides a standardised way to assess their contribution to climate change.

Carbon dioxide is used as the baseline because it is the most abundant greenhouse gas. GWP100 is the most widely used version of the Global Warming Potential metric, measuring the average warming potential of a gas over 100 years. This approach is the international standard used in greenhouse gas reporting, including in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines.

Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for the longest – up to a thousand years – but has the smallest warming impact of greenhouse gases and a GWP100 score of 1. However, as it is the most abundant and long-lasting GHG, this does not diminish its warming impact. In comparison, other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have significantly higher warming effects over shorter timeframes. The GWP100 for nitrous oxide is 265, meaning that one tonne of nitrous oxide causes the same amount of warming as 265 tonnes of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. This is calculated with consideration for nitrous oxide’s 100-150 year lifespan.

GWP100 Limitations

While GWP100 is a useful tool for measuring the impact of different greenhouse gases, it has limitations. For gases like nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, which persist in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years respectively, GWP100 works well, providing an accurate comparison of their long-term warming effects. However, for methane – a potent greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for only about 12 years – GWP100 fails to capture its true impact on climate change. Methane’s potency is not fully reflected when assessed over a 100-year period. While it persists for a short time, it traps heat much more effectively than carbon dioxide, significantly contributing to warming during that period.

As the science of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions evolves, it’s clear that alternative metrics will be necessary to provide a more accurate picture of methane’s role in climate change and to guide effective mitigation strategies.

GWP*: A New – but Incomplete – Approach

One such alternative metric is GWP*, which has been developed to better reflect methane’s global warming impact. Unlike standard GWP100, which assumes that emissions remain constant over time, GWP* accounts for methane’s faster breakdown in the atmosphere. As a result, GWP* can provide a clearer picture of how changes in methane emissions affect the climate in real-time, rather than assuming the gas has the same long-term impact as carbon dioxide.

Given the limitations of GWP100 in accurately reflecting methane’s warming impact, it may seem logical to switch entirely to GWP*. However, GWP* cannot be used to create a carbon footprint on its own.

One of the main reasons for this is that GWP* is not yet an internationally recognised reporting metric. While it is gaining traction in climate science discussions, it has not been formally adopted by key regulatory bodies such as the IPCC.

A further challenge of using GWP* alone is that it can cause confusion for emissions reduction efforts, especially at the farm level. GWP* measures the relative change in methane emissions over time, rather than just the total emissions. This means that small, natural variations in factors like herd size or crop activity can cause large fluctuations in carbon footprints from one year to the next. For example, a change in management practices can result in higher methane emissions, causing a spike in the carbon footprint. Conversely, a reduction in emissions, for example, from improving the efficiency of livestock production, has a greater immediate impact on reducing a farm’s reported warming contribution. These fluctuations can make emissions appear inconsistent, even if the farm’s overall environmental impact is improving. The danger is that such variability can make it harder to track long-term progress and could undermine efforts to reduce emissions.

Because of this, GWP* is most effective when applied over longer timescales and at larger scales, such as national-level carbon accounting over several decades. At this level, GWP* helps provide a more accurate picture of methane’s true warming potential, without the misleading volatility that occurs when used for annual farm-level reporting. 

For these reasons, while GWP* offers important insights into methane’s role in climate change, it should be used alongside existing GWP100 calculations rather than replacing them entirely. Employing GWP* in a way that accounts for long-term trends, rather than short-term variability, ensures that methane’s impact is assessed more accurately while still maintaining consistency in emissions reporting.

How Could GWP* be Applied to Farms?

In theory, GWP* could be used alongside GWP100 to provide a more accurate representation of a farm’s long-term methane emissions. However, applying GWP* in a practical and reliable way would require specific data and methodologies that are still under development.

To integrate GWP* into farm-level carbon footprinting, methane emissions would first need to be separated from other greenhouse gases in the emissions inventory and treated differently. Unlike GWP100, which applies a single factor to all emissions, GWP* relies on understanding the historical emissions data of methane — typically covering at least 20 years. This historical data is essential because GWP* calculates methane’s impact based on its rate of change over time, rather than treating all emissions as having an equal long-term effect. 

For an annual carbon report, the current year’s methane emissions would be adjusted based on the historical trend in emissions and a GWP* constant that scales the calculation to methane’s lifespan. However, this GWP* constant is still under development, with debates over the extent to which methane should be scaled, and, as such, has not yet been universally accepted. Once adjusted, the GWP* methane value would then be multiplied by the GWP100 emissions factor to integrate it into the overall farm footprint.

Essentially, this approach modifies a farm’s yearly methane emissions based on historical trends, scaling them to better reflect methane’s atmospheric lifespan before incorporating them into a GWP100-based report. While this suggests that GWP* could theoretically be applied in annual farm reports, it requires two critical components: comprehensive legacy data on methane emissions and an agreed-upon GWP calculation constant – both of which are still being refined by climate scientists.

The use of GWP* will show the most dramatic impact on the carbon footprint of extensive ruminant livestock farmers, where a high proportion of their emissions come from enteric methane emissions. Currently, for these types of systems, under the current footprint methodology, there remain limited management options for mitigation of emissions other than reducing stock numbers.

Until these foundational elements are fully developed and standardised, GWP* cannot yet be seamlessly implemented into farm carbon footprinting. However, as research continues and reporting frameworks evolve, there may be future opportunities for farms to integrate GWP* into their emissions assessments in a way that balances accuracy with practical usability.

Distinguishing Between Methane Sources

While GWP* offers a more nuanced way to assess the impact of short-lived greenhouse gases like methane, it is equally important to differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic methane sources when applying this metric.

Biogenic methane – produced naturally through biological processes such as enteric fermentation in livestock, wetlands, and peatlands – should be adjusted using GWP*. This is because biogenic methane is broken down in the atmosphere at roughly the same rate that it is produced, meaning that when emissions remain stable, there is no net increase in atmospheric methane levels. This natural balance is an essential factor in ensuring that methane’s impact is not overstated when using GWP100.

Anthropogenic methane, on the other hand, originates from human activities such as fossil fuel extraction, waste management, and slurry management. Unlike stable biogenic methane sources, anthropogenic sources add to the atmospheric methane stockpile, meaning these emissions accumulate over time rather than cycling naturally. Because of this, applying a GWP* adjustment to anthropogenic methane could underestimate its long-term climate impact, as it does not break down at the same rate that it is emitted. 

Another key consideration is that as anthropogenic methane breaks down, it eventually converts into carbon dioxide, contributing to the long-term stockpile in the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide persists for thousands of years, this means that anthropogenic methane has a dual impact – it plays a role in short-term warming as methane and then adds to long-term warming through its carbon dioxide byproduct.

These distinctions raise important questions about how GWP* should be applied. Should emissions from degraded peat bogs or residue burning be classified as natural or human-driven? Should increasing herd sizes in agriculture be considered an anthropogenic influence? The way these questions are answered will determine which methane emissions qualify for GWP* adjustments and which should be assessed using traditional GWP100 methods.

To ensure accurate and fair carbon footprint assessments, clear guidelines on how to apply GWP* in different contexts are essential. As the science behind methane accounting evolves, so too must the frameworks that determine when and how GWP* is used in emissions reporting.

Looking Ahead: The Role of GWP* in Farm Carbon Reporting

The debate around GWP* reflects its potential to improve how we account for methane emissions, particularly for livestock systems that feel misrepresented by GWP100. While it offers a more realistic view of methane’s short-term climate impact, its sensitivity to year-on-year changes can create volatility in farm-level reporting and complicate efforts to track progress reliably.

There is also a risk that GWP* could be misused, allowing businesses to claim emissions reductions without making genuine changes, or pressuring farmers into quick fixes like reducing herd sizes. To avoid these outcomes, any use of GWP* must be transparent, grounded in science, and applied fairly across all sectors. Done well, it could become a valuable tool – alongside GWP100 – for building a more accurate and trusted approach to agricultural carbon footprinting.

At Farm Carbon Toolkit, we remain committed to exploring how GWP* can be integrated responsibly into emissions reporting, ensuring that any changes reflect both scientific accuracy and practical fairness for farmers. We are exploring how GWP* can be appropriately implemented alongside the current GWP100 reports as part of a dual reporting system. With this in mind, we recommend continuing to produce reports using GWP100 now, as these will provide a valuable baseline to support dual reporting in the future. Given the significant impact of timespan on GWP* data, we are considering solutions based on multi-year reporting to improve accuracy and consistency. 

As research progresses and reporting frameworks evolve, clear guidance and safeguards will be essential in ensuring GWP* supports effective, fair and transparent carbon reporting across the farming sector.

Craig Blyth-Moore is a sustainability communications professional with over a decade of experience turning complex environmental issues into clear, compelling narratives. He has written extensively on energy efficiency, renewable energy, the energy transition and sustainable logistics, helping organisations communicate their sustainability strategies with credibility and impact. 

Craig holds an MSc in Environmental Sustainability and brings both subject matter expertise and strategic insight to his work. His writing has appeared on leading global platforms including Economist Impact and the World Economic Forum, helping to inform and inspire meaningful climate action.

The post Can GWP* Have a Role in Farm Carbon Reporting? appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.

Jayne Arnold is a grower who is really pushing the boundaries of soil health and management. Based on a 12-acre organic vegetable farm in Worcestershire, she is constantly striving to find ways to improve the diversity, depth, quality and carbon content of their soils. Growing for their own veg box scheme, the farm also has a few sheep, an orchard, agroforestry and makes plenty of compost.

In this new Case Study, we learn how Oxton Organics is balancing a productive farm, producing local food, whilst constantly improving soil health and quality through a voracious appetite for knowledge and an approach.

Click here to download this case study as a PDF.

Whilst the farm has been organic for a long time, it’s only in the last 7-8 years that this new approach to soil management started, producing some really impressive results. The approach is underpinned by applying high quality compost, biostimulants, and covering the soil as much as possible through mulches, compost and green manures.

The sheep play an important role, and the pastures they’re on have improved significantly since the species mix and stocking regime has changed. This has resulted in not just better pastures and better soil helath, but much more biodiversity too, as Jayne notes:

“In the years after sowing the pasture, it was predominantly grasses, white clover, and yarrow, with a little ribwort, burnet and yellow trefoil. Now there is much more diversity, there are flowers throughout summer and autumn, including dandelions, wild carrot, yarrow, knapweed, oxeye daisy and much more. A few bee orchids and pyramidal orchid appeared four years ago and returned every year since. We had never seen orchids on the farm before! Butterflies and other pollinating insects are also more abundant.”

Wildlife abounds above and below ground, from the tall hedges and lines of willow coppice to the flowers of the pastures and the cropland soil teeming with life. “There are so many worms in the soil, it’s hard to avoid them when transplanting crops!” Jayne says.

Soil Organic Matter levels are rising and distributed more evenly through the soil profile. Structure is improving, soil colouration is more even and deeper through the profile. The action of worms and perennial plants helps to draw carbon down in the soil profile – and that means it is also more stable. Carbon sequestered into the soil like this is a proper drawdown of atmospheric carbon; if it’s not released then it is stable and locked away.

Jayne notes that weather patterns have changed, with more frequent extreme rainfall events. “The up and downness of the weather has changed a lot“, she says. Building resilience in the stability of farm soils is essential in helping to mitigate such risks that all growers are experiencing from a changing climate. Soils that are higher in carbon, have a mulch or living cover, and have better structure will be much more resilient to the effects of both heavy rain and drought.

The farm’s focus on soil management underpins all the positive aspects outputs of the farm – quality food, flood resilience, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and indeed sheer enjoyment and intrigue that gets growers out of bed in the morning. A refreshing look at green manures, founded on experience and observation, demonstrates one example of this: “you won’t build a fungal dominant soil with legumes. Plants will reject mycorrhizal associations if there’s too much Nitrogen in the system. You need to build bacteria that naturally fix Nitrogen and be more balanced. You don’t see many legumes in the hedgerow – yet that’s all green” says Jayne. 

Managing carbon is also part of the business strategy, using an electric van for deliveries, minimising any cultivations, ensuring lots of carbon sequestration, and reducing inputs. With so much carbon being absorbed on the farm and being turned into soil organic matter, the farm is really demonstrating how to grow in a way that builds capital for the future, whilst producing great quality food and continuing to explore and push the boundaries.

With thanks to Jayne Arnold for the photos and the interview. Written by Jonathan Smith.

https://www.oxtonorganics.co.uk

The post Oxton Organics – pushing the boundaries of soil health appeared first on 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. 

Changes to the calculator

As explored above, an update like this one has introduced many changes, you will see these highlighted in full: 

• In our ‘What’s Changed’ document
• In our published corrections
• In our methodology

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. 

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. 

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

Further support

Contact Michael Brown at [email protected]

The post The Farm Carbon Calculator just got better! appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.

Download Guide (pdf)

Free Carbon Audits

There are around 51,000 farms in Scotland, and agricultural land makes up almost 80% of the area. Not all farms will want, or need a carbon audit, but we want to ensure as many as possible can get one for free if they want, or from a consultant, using The Farm Carbon Calculator.

In Scotland the receipt of future payments from the Scottish Government are dependent partly on the requirement that farms generate what they call a Carbon Audit – or what we term your farm’s carbon footprint. You can use several tools to complete this task – provided they meet criteria set out in the guidance and are compliant with PAS2050:

1. The Farm Carbon Calculator
2. Agrecalc 
3. Cool Farm Tool
4. Solagro (JRC) Carbon Calculator.

Useful to note, if you think you already have a carbon footprint it is likely that this will be accepted by the SGRPID. These might be delivered to you as part of a  UK supply chain contract (via the dairy, someone you supply, or supermarket agreements), by the Farm Advisory Service, as part of the Farm Business Survey, or from the Soil Association Exchange. Ask them for a copy – it’s your farm data after all and you will need this in case of inspection later.

We think there are many good reasons why you might want to do a carbon footprint but lets look first at what the benefits are as set out in the Whole Farm Plan.

What is the Whole Farm Plan?

Carbon Audits are part of Whole Farm Plan (WFP) guidance. Most farmers in Scotland are by now familiar with the WFP. It is designed encourage a comprehensive view of your farm or croft which should allow you to assess current performance, identify growth opportunities, and align practices with Scotland’s climate and nature goals.

Looking towards 15 May 2028, farmers seeking to claim Basic Payment Scheme payments will be required to implement the following key activities and plans:

1. Animal Health and Welfare Plan – reviewed annually
2. Biodiversity Audit – reviewed every 5 years
3. Carbon Audit – reviewed every 5 years
4. Integrated Pest Management Plan – reviewed annually
5. Soil Sampling of Region 1 land – every sampled field reviewed once every 5 years.

By 15 May 2025 all farms and crofts would need to have completed 2 out of the 5 audits. For all farms, one of these must be a carbon audit. We are working to ensure your carbon audit is one of the easier tasks to complete. Check the eligibility criteria in the guidance carefully to ensure you only complete audits which are required for you, and bear in mind the guidance can change. Read more

At the time of this article in March 2025 we understand that the audits required for 2026 (presumed to be required by 15 May 2026) will be made known in summer 2025 and announced as part of the Agricultural Reform Programme route map to give you time to prepare. We will revise this information as we learn more.

What we know so far is that by 2028 at the latest, all businesses will need to have all plans and audits that are applicable to their business in place.

There is lots here to take in in the above, especially if you have not undertaken any of the above activities yet. We are here to help so make sure you ask us questions if you have any.

Useful links – Whole Farm Plan

Whole Farm Plan guidance can change, or be amended in the annexes and ‘guidance updates’. We recommend you also read and become familiar with the available guidance at the following links:

• Whole Farm Plan full guidance – start here, click ‘Carbon Audits’ to read more
• Annex L: Carbon Audits including seasonal land – more specific guidance about what areas to include in your audit. Follow this note as it may differ from information you read within our Calculator guidance elsewhere
• Whole Farm Plan – Frequently Asked Questions – this regularly updated document is a great source for more detailed information.

Find a leading free tool to help

We know navigating these requirements can be challenging, but that’s where our team steps in. The Farm Carbon Calculator is free for farmers and we’re here to provide dedicated support to farmers and crofters whilst you complete your report. You can therefore get started with the tool yourself – and take control of this part of the process. 

The benefits of a carbon footprint

If you have read this far, it is likely that you already want to get to grips with a carbon footprint on your farm. However, we understand it can be frustrating to spend more time at the computer. Here are the benefits we have hear from farmers using our tool over the past 15 years – 

You will start to benefit as soon as you begin working with our tool. The calculator is used for all sorts of reasons:

• Boost your interest in carbon – people want to understand greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and how they might be reduced. Combining 10 hectares once for example produces emissions of: 0.52 tCO2e, and this kind of information is readily available to you whilst you work on your report
• Gain a unique view of your farm – often a fresh look at any business is a valuable exercise but you can also potentially make even more informed decisions
• Create a baseline now for the future – it is likely that the earlier you footprint, the better prepared you will be for any future changes to guidance or otherwise
• Be part of a positive narrative – more and more people are getting involved, and you can too. We think agriculture is ahead of the curve here.
• Improve your business resilience – you may pinpoint cost-saving opportunities through resource efficiency
• Someone asked you to – for example Meeting Carbon Audit standards as we have set out above. The Calculator is designed to be a problem solver!

Funding and support available

You will receive great advice from the Farm Advisory Service on their website, via email [email protected] or telephone 0300 323 0161 to support your journey.

But you may also want assistance with the carbon audit particularly if your farm is complex, you don’t have time, or you just want someone to take care of it for you. 

There are a number of farm advisors we also support in Scotland who can help guide you through your footprint, or offer you recommendations based on your carbon audit. Check with us, or ask that your advisor uses The Farm Carbon Calculator and check their fees and the total cost to you. Email [email protected] to check.

If they are not sure about what tool might work best, put them in touch with us so we can offer them support. We have a range of plans available for farm consultants to use our software and give you great footprints at a low cost.

In order to receive funding for support it is usually a requirement that the advisors you contract should be Farm Business Advisory Service Scotland (FBAASS) accredited – so why not search the list available on the LANTRA website to find one near you: see list.

Receive funding for your Carbon Audit – Preparing for Sustainable Farming

We are pleased to see that funding is again available to help you under the Preparing for Sustainable Farming (PSF) programme as of February 2025. Previously it was understood that funding would be closed at this point to new applicants. 

Funding in this programme is expected to close in February 2026 and you will be able to claim for footprints completed in the 2025 calendar year. If you can claim, don’t delay in doing so. Read more

Check carefully the eligibility criteria for this funding which we have simplified slightly here:

• £500 is available to fund eligible Carbon Audits
• A new carbon audit can be funded every 3 years – which sits within the 5 years required for the whole farm plan
• If you have a carbon audit but it is not of the required standard, or your farm has changed materially you should be able to make a new claim
• Carbon audits can be claimed for that were completed in the 2025 calendar year. With claims being made by February 2026
• When you use the Farm Carbon Calculator – either yourself, or you have a consultant prepare your audit – this should be reviewed by an FBAASS advisor and they should  give you recommendations to accompany your report that will help you reduce emissions.
• If other funding becomes available you should not double claim.

Get started – checklist

Your Carbon Audit doesn’t have to be overwhelming use this checklist to help guide your decisions prior to getting started.

• Get familiar with the Whole Farm Plan > read guidance
• Check which audits are required, and by what dates > check up to date guidance. Carbon Audits are for all farms, but there may be others you would like to tackle first.
• Check if you already have a valid Carbon Audit > if yes, you can stop here. 
• See if you can receive funding > check eligibility
• Decide if you want to complete the Carbon Audit yourself, or pay for help > why not create an account and login to check. You may be able to receive funded and paid for assistance either way.
• Complete the Carbon Audit
  • Complete your own Carbon Audit > the rest of this guide will help
    • you can still send this to an advisor for recommendations 
  • Find an advisor who can help > Contact us or use LANTRA’s list.
    • check they use The Farm Carbon Calculator
    • check the cost to you.
• Keep a copy of your Carbon Audit on file, or in our system. Should SGRPID inspect your audits you may need this to hand.
• Ask, what next? Completing your Carbon Audit frees you up to look at other audits, but also may allow you to undertake funded soil analysis. 
  • Soil Analysis is a requirement on Region 1 farmland, and should include carbon. These results can be inputted into your report to make your footprint even more accurate. Read the WFP guidance on Soil Analysis, the PSF guidance around funding, and our very own Monitoring Soil Carbon guide too.

General suggestions

• Most guidance suggests you should use the same carbon footprinting tool over time for consistent tracking. We’d agree – though don’t forget you can replicate, or complete a previous year in any calculator. Talk to us if you need help with this
• Whichever tool you use, keep a good record of changes made based on your report
• At the very least, keep a copy of your report for your records, as it is your hard work, and your data. Your Farm Carbon Calculator dashboard is a great place to keep your reports secure over time
• Once you have a carbon audit look for or ask an advisor for actionable recommendations. You might like to start on our Farm Carbon Toolkit – a great place for guidance and case studies!

Any questions? We’re here to help, contact Michael Brown, Customer Service Officer

Contact

The post Carbon Audits in Scotland – using The Farm Carbon Calculator appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.

As part of the Agri-Carbon Kernow project in Cornwall, our team played a role in helping develop and test this tool, which is designed to help farmers and land managers record, report, and review both lab and in-field soil measurements. 

A Collaborative Effort

Working closely with the Land App team, we brought together our expertise in soil health and carbon to create a digital soil sampling solution that meets real-world needs. 

By integrating the robust soil survey methodologies we advocate in our projects into Land App’s platform, we’ve enabled farmers to gain deeper insights into soil health and carbon sequestration potential. The new feature not only helps users assess soil conditions with greater accuracy but also supports more informed decision-making for sustainable land management, as well as the evidence required for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI).

The new Soil Survey feature enhances Land App Mobile’s suite of data collection tools—joining the General Data Collection survey and PTES’ Healthy Hedgerows—to provide reliable insights into soil health, which are essential for informed land management and funding applications.

Why It Matters

• Digital Efficiency: Easily record and review soil sample data on the go, including the ability to support evidence required for SFI.
• Sustainable Impact: Empowering better land management decisions through accurate, real-time data.
• Collaborative Innovation: A tangible outcome of our work in the Agri-Carbon Kernow project, highlighting the benefits of cross-sector collaboration.

We’re proud to have supported Land App in bringing this feature to life and look forward to further innovations and collaborations. This includes using the Land App API to help users seamlessly manage their soil data within each platform.

Thank you to the team at Land App for their partnership—and for the opportunity to help shape tools that support sustainable land management!

Find out more

For further details and to see the Soil Survey feature in action, please refer to the Land App’s guidance.

The post Supporting Innovation in Soil Health: Our Collaboration with LandApp appeared first on Farm Carbon Toolkit.