I’m Calum, the Calculator Data Assistant for the Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT). I can imagine if you don’t work for FCT, you may not know who I am. I tend to work in the background, assisting the passionate and driven people who do great work in helping farmers to meet their low carbon and sustainability goals.
Day to day, my activities and tasks can vary widely, depending on the needs of the Calculator team as well as Izzy, our Data Scientist with whom I also work closely.
I primarily work with the Calculator team which can involve a variety of tasks. One of my main responsibilities is the rigorous testing of the Calculator after every update, and following the addition of new items to the calculator. Flagging errors and helping to resolve issues (if indeed there are any!) ensures a reliable tool and the efficient running of the calculator that farmers and landowners can use seamlessly. Another major part of my role is information-finding. Regularly, the Calculator team receives requests for additional products/items/data entries to be added to the calculator. Personally, I was surprised by how many crop protection products (insecticides/herbicides etc.) that are available to farmers, upwards of 30,000 different products available in the UK alone. So you can imagine, with changing trends and needs of farmers to protect their crops in various ways, we as a Calculator team need to keep up with adding additional products to the calculator.
Outwith helping the smooth running of the calculator, my responsibilities include assisting Izzy, our Data Scientist, with her work. Recently, I’ve been assisting her in updating and maintaining soil sampling datasets using QGIS (a spatial data software) that have been collected by the advisory team. I also assist Izzy by testing apps that she designed herself! One of which is a soil sampling app for use by the FCT Advisory team to record soil sampling points more efficiently. I’m particularly grateful for this piece of work as it takes me away from my desk and gets me walking around, albeit on the streets of Edinburgh rather than the fields.
My day to day can vary depending on the tasks that are required or whether I’m working out of my flat, a cafe or the Melting Pot, the co-working space I go to. I’m kept on my toes with the diversity of work to do. Through this type of work, it might seem easy to disassociate from the real-world challenges faced by farmers in a changing climate when you’re spending your days hidden behind a screen, focused on numbers and code. However, this is what I feel FCT does very well, in connecting us to the issues we are all helping to solve. Between the numbers and spreadsheets, we do well to have numerous meetings, whether it be online, hearing about the projects FCT are involved in such as Farm Net Zero, or in person days where we celebrate the farmers that are doing the most to demonstrate low-carbon, sustainable agriculture.
My first in-person day was last September at our annual field day, where FCT presented the Carbon Farmer of the Year. An opportunity to hear first-hand what farmers are implementing to produce our food in a sustainable and low-carbon manner with the help of our carbon calculator. I always come back from these days feeling invigorated to tackle the next challenge knowing that farmers are using the calculator to benefit their farms and the environment.
Written by Alex Bebbington, Project Officer, Rural Business School, Duchy College
In November 2024, a farm walk was hosted by Andrew and Claire Brewer, winners of the Carbon Farmers of the Year 2024, as well as being a Farm Net Zero Demo Farm.
The Farm Net Zero (FNZ) project was very proud of Demo Farmers Andrew and Claire Brewer of Ennis Barton for winning the 2024 Carbon Farmer of the Year competition. Carbon Farmer of the Year is run by the Farm Carbon Toolkit and is sponsored by HSBC Agriculture UK. It aims to support farmers on their transition to low-carbon farming by championing farmers who are successfully on that transition and creating a network to learn from.
On Friday 8th November 2024, Andrew Brewer hosted a farm walk to explain some of the practices that led to him winning this year’s Carbon Farmer of the Year competition.
Andrew and Claire farm 1,000 acres at Fraddon, near Newquay, milking 450 autumn-calving Jersey cross cows to supply Arla. Cows calve in late summer and are milked twice a day, sometimes in a 10 milkings in 7 days system. Land is let for field vegetables and potatoes as part of the rotation. Andrew is a Demo Farm for the Farm Net Zero project and carbon footprinting from this has shown that the farm is emitting 0.67kg CO₂e per kg of Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM). Andrew puts this down to maximising milk from forage, feeding little concentrate, and farming without any fertiliser on grass for the last four years. As well as working to reduce emissions, Andrew is optimising sequestration in hedges and soils.
Grazing management and herbal leys
The dairy herd grazes for as much of the year as possible, where conditions allow. Sometimes this may only be for a few hours a day, but Andrew feels this is an important part of his farming practices. Grass is the cheapest feed available and if the cows can harvest it themselves (aiming for 90% of the cow’s feed intake from grazed grass) then this not only reduces costs, but also reduces emissions from tractor diesel. Similarly, letting the cows out to pasture means that they can “spread their own slurry”, further reducing costs and emissions (both from diesel use and from slurry storage).
Herbal leys are used extensively across the grazing platform. Their deep, diverse roots help to improve soil health, potentially capturing carbon into the soil, and access minerals and nutrients deep in the soil profile, allowing for good growth without artificial fertiliser. The impact of the herbal ley on milk yield and quality is being assessed through a Farm Net Zero Field Lab, comparing cow performance on herbal leys and ryegrass/white clover swards. The results of this study will be available soon.
Calving
Cows calve outside in late summer, with the calves then reared in batches in a woodchip bedded shed. The woodchip creates a very clean environment, eliminating the need for bought-in straw. All calves are taken through to finish, with beef bulls kept entire and finished at 12 months and beef heifers finished at 17 months. Youngstock are grazed on a mix of pasture, cover crops and the leftover vegetable crops after the human-grade plants are harvested. This integration of farm enterprises helps to fully utilise nutrients across the farm, reducing the need for buying inputs in.
Soil health: the basis of the farm business
Andrew did a Nuffield Scholarship in 2015 and attributes this to changing his views on soil health as the basis of the farm business. Through the Farm Net Zero project, soil carbon has been monitored over a number of years and the carbon sequestered into these fields has halved the farm’s carbon footprint. Andrew acknowledged that the carbon sequestration is variable, with not all fields capturing carbon, but will continue to monitor soil carbon in the future to identify the long-term trends.
Farm trails
As part of the FNZ Demo Farm work, Dr Hannah Jones of Farm Carbon Toolkit has assisted in the development of a variety of soil-focused trials. When fields are let for vegetables and potatoes, the soil can require assistance back to optimum status. Trials to reduce the negative impacts of these practices have included intercropping between cabbages to reduce bare soil and the risk of runoff. Another trial has followed methods to restore soil health after potatoes. Different mixes were planted after potatoes to assess the improvements to soil structure, stability and worm content. Results from this suggested that Westerwolds ryegrass had the greatest positive impact on soil health, possibly because of its rapid growth creating a large root mass, so Andrew now grows Westerwolds following veg crops. This fits well with the dairy as the Westerwolds produces excellent feed for strip-grazing dry cows before calving, another example of how the whole farm system is integrated to minimise the need for emissions-intensive inputs.
In all, Andrew and Claire focus on running a simple system well, integrating enterprises across the farm. This allows them to minimise emissions from inputs, as well as maximising sequestration into soils and hedgerows.
Agricultural emissions could potentially be reduced by 3.4Mt CO2e by replacing half of soyabean meal in livestock feed with homegrown pulses as a result of reduced deforestation and land use change, lower synthetic fertiliser use and fuel savings. We are delighted to share more detail with you here.
In 2023, only 6.3% of the UK’s 4.3 million hectares of cropping land grew beans or pulses. These crops have significant agricultural potential; offering soil health benefits, livestock feed options, and alternatives to currently stressed rotations. The NCS project hopes to harness this potential by expanding the pulse cropping to 20% of the total arable area in the UK. This would involve increasing the annual area of beans and pulses grown from 275,090 ha’s (6.3%) to 874,026 ha’s (20%).
The impact of expanding pulse cropping
Expanding the pulse cropping area will result in GHG emissions reductions in the areas highlighted below:
Reduced fuel usage
Direct fertiliser avoidance
Indirect fertiliser avoidance as a result of leguminous residues
Providing a low emission feed alternative to imported soya
Reducing fuel usage
Growing and harvesting pulses requires less fuel than growing cereal crops. FCT modelling on the operations needed to grow cereals indicates that 91 litres of diesel/ha is required, compared to 84 litres/ha to grow beans and pulses. This reduces emissions by 37,524.09 tCO2e when scaled out across the UK arable area.
Reducing fertiliser reliance
Growing pulses like peas and beans reduces reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilisers both during the pulses cropping year and for subsequent crops, as these plants fix nitrogen into the soil. In 2023, the UK applied an average of 125 kg N/ha of fertiliser, totalling 546,266 tonnes and emitting 3.6 MT CO2e. By expanding pulse cultivation, the UK could save 74,867 tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser annually, directly avoiding 494,925 tCO2e emissions. Moreover, pulse residues can enhance nitrogen availability for subsequent crops, amounting to 35–70 kg N/ha (depending on soil conditions etc.). This could save an additional 20,963–41,926 tonnes of nitrogen annually across the UK, equating to 138,580-277,160 tCO2e.
Substitution of imported soya feed
In 2023, the UK imported 2.37 million tonnes of soya feed, 74% from South America, resulting in 7.3 MT CO2e emissions. UK grown beans could replace some of this soya, substantially reducing the footprint of animal feed. If all UK grown beans within the scenario proposed by NCS were used within compound feeds and straights, they could replace 96% of soya imports, avoiding 5.3 MT CO2e.
A more realistic scenario is replacing 50% of imported soya with 1.95 million tonnes of UK beans, requiring 454,468 hectares (52% of beans/peas cropping area). This would cut feed emissions to 4.5 MT CO2e, saving 2.8 MT CO2e compared to current levels of soya imports.
Conclusion
The expansion of beans and pulses to cover 20% of the UK cropping area could save 3.4 MT CO2e (equivalent to 7% of UK agriculture’s total emissions). This would increase if more of the beans and pulses grown could displace imported soyabean meal.
Sources:
Fertiliser data from the British Survey of Fertiliser Practice, 2023
Land use data from DEFRA land use and crop areas 2023
Fuel usage based on FCT modelling of the field operations
Soya imports from EFECA and UK soya manifesto, 2024 progress report
Protein content: Johnston et al, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. livsci.2018.12.015
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/
Guest blog by Claire Wallerstein, Cornwall Climate Care
Food systems under threat from climate change
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.
Written by Becky Willson, Business Development & Technical Director
On a sunny day in September, farmers gathered at Rotmell Farm to take part in a farm walk with our Soil Farmer of the Year Winner from 2020. Thanks to funding from the AFN+ network, we have been able to revisit two farms this year to understand how their farm and management system has evolved since being awarded.
Rotmell Farm is 1000 ha, 800ha of which is unimproved pasture – encompassing heather, bracken and wet areas. The farm sits in the middle of the Tay Valley, and watching how water was moving through the landscape formed a key part of the decision to adapt the management of the farm to focus on soil health and water holding capacity. In order to achieve this the grazing management system was adapted in 2015/6 to include subdividing paddocks and starting to move stock. Since this time the farm has continued to evolve its management style until now where the primary driver for the farm is to use the stock to maximise carbon and nutrient cycling across the farm.
Alex explained:
I had thought that the moment that we started putting in fencing, subdividing, moving stock and going into taller covers and rotational grazing that we could balance saturations of key nutrients and achieve a system where no inputs were required. We’ve built organic matter and are growing pasture, but the system needs to be continuously managed and adapted to try and achieve that balance. I now regard grazing as an art form.
The event started with a session in the barn to understand the evolution of the system and the key principles that the farm uses to drive performance. A key driver over the last couple of years for Alex has been understanding total nutrition and the ability to balance nutrients to enable optimal soil and biological health. This has involved implementing in depth soil analysis to understand the balance of key nutrients within the soil and intensive observation of plant and animal performance to start to understand how they are working together. This has included a focus on calcium as the driver for improving structure, oxygen levels in the soil, grass production and carbon cycling.
The whole farm is set up for total nutrition. We are trying to get the biology working to grow high Brix grazing grass to feed to stock, to sell nutrient dense meats and other products into the local market.
The farm sells honey, eggs, and beef locally where the ability to connect the farm with the produce is valuable and helps to cement the farm as part of the local community and allowing them to identify with the produce and where it comes from.
Alex has adapted his grazing system to encourage more diversity in the leys and to graze taller residuals. He sees far greater value in the hoof impact through trampling than the grazing; when the animals are put into taller covers, they graze the plants higher up and don’t graze the base of the plant, which leads to the carbon rich material being returned to the soil, cycling that carbon to feed the biology. The intensiveness of movement of the stock helps to get the carbon back down into the soil. The tightness of grazing takes away selection of grass.
The first field that we went to see has been used as an experimental field to look at species mixes. Alex researched different grass mixes and has returned to a mix that was common in the 1880s which can be used to improve poorer land. The field had been forage rape previously with lambs grazing the aftermath. The field was then disced and the new ley was broadcast, rolled in and then left. It has just had its third grazing, having been grazed with sheep 8 weeks after sowing to encourage it to tiller in late July. It was then grazed with a mob of about 65-70 cattle to break the parasite window and then had a group of 200 ewes with twin lambs. Every time seeds are sown they are mixed with vermicast, humates and fine lime which encourages biological activity around the seeds and ensures the seed has everything it needs to get going.
Alex really sees the importance of a high seed rate which allows for a thick and vigorous sward but also helps to maximise the value of trampling. He is aiming for 285 plants per m2 and has seen this work well higher up the farm where it is increasing the density of grass and reducing coverage of moss.
The animals have adapted well to the changing system. All the stock are out all year round, there is no housing. Bales are put out for the winter, with the aim being to set up blocks to shift the cattle every two to three days on a self feed basis. The type of cow has changed as the system has evolved; the animals that cope better in this system are slightly smaller framed and carry flesh. The cows need to be at 350kg at 15 months in order to allow them to calve at 2 years old at around 450kg in the middle of April outside. Cattle are weighed and recorded regularly to monitor live weight gain and body condition and FEC tested every 90-100 days to monitor worm burdens. The sheep are also weighed regularly to provide insight into which animals and genetics are coping with the system. The sheep are supplemented with rock salt and minerals depending on the pasture and soil analysis.
It wouldn’t be a soil farmer walk without a group of farmers standing over a soil pit and looking at the impact of the management changes on the soil. Alex has seen changes in soil health, since making the early transition to rotational grazing, however over the last couple of years has been focussing on enabling the biology to thrive and optimising nutrient cycling and the interaction between the soil and the plant roots. As such, two key assessment methods have been useful to show progress which have been the penetrometer and Brix assessments.
I started to get really excited about Brix readings a few years ago, and then really clocked onto it last year. I realised that the taller the plant got the Brix reading grew and grew, we started with 3’s and 4’s, as the covers got to boot stage readings got to 9’s and 10’s which was really exciting. This year, the penetrometer has been a useful tool, the pressure readings had been 250’s and 300 PSI and now we are down to 150, and I think that once we have psi’s of 150 then we are getting oxygen into the soil. We can send soil off to the lab for analysis, but how the soil is structured is a reflection of our management.
If we find fields that are compacted, I’ll skip them and give them 120 days rest rather than 60 days. We have stopped treating the whole farm as one block and looked at what the field needs and how we can optimise root architecture and plant diversity. Its important to us that every grazing experience is positive. We want to get to the point where we don’t need to apply anything, although we aren’t there yet. I’m not totally against applying anything, we need energy in the system and if the soils are tight, then we aren’t at optimal soil function, but the aim is to get to the point where we can target nutrition based on soil and plant need
Due to the nature of the farm and that 85% of the farm is hill areas, a key challenge for Alex has been to manage these areas in a way which can control the bracken ingress. He has been managing these areas in order to build capacity higher up, so that the in bye ground can be managed in a way to provide longer recovery periods.
If I don’t keep enough stock to get on top of the bracken, I will lose the whole farm to it. We only have 8-10 weeks to influence on that plant when it is above the ground, the other part of the year it is below the ground. We have implemented a grazing system which is intensively extensive, really hard hitting when we are there – in the summertime we are moving cattle 4 times per day, but then really long recovery periods. Which allows us to knock the top cover of the plant back but not doing enough to impact the biology and chemistry of the plant – which is why we have just brought pigs onto the farm.
Where this has been implemented, the results have been remarkable. Where the bracken has been managed in this way, the pasture regrowth has been diverse – clovers, vetches and grasses alongside yarrow and red clover are now starting to emerge due to the management system. Although bracken in a challenge, Alex also sees the benefits of it when it is controlled as it is mobilising a lot of potassium around the system which can then be used to support the pasture regrowth. The management of these areas is crucial, where extensive management is leading to the development of these bracken areas,
The base geology between our unimproved and improved land is exactly the same, so the potential to increase output on that land is vast. The more I think about it, the more I think that soils don’t want to be extensively managed, they want to be intensively managed with long recovery periods. We produce a lot of disturbance and then get off it to let it recover.
The group then went to look at the pigs, the new tool in the bracken control strategy! The aim with the pigs is that their rooting activity will help to chew the roots of the bracken up and add manure to aid nutrient cycling. Following the pigs activity the area will then have seed broadcast to increase forage production. The pigs will also be moved into higher areas to help with the bracken control.
The final stop on the walk was at some slightly higher country. The field had been soil sampled and the results had shown good levels of organic matter but suppressed levels of biological activity. As such, Alex is conducting some trials looking at the efficacy of spreading fine lime as a way to improve the calcium content of the soil and enhance the biological activity. Analysis shows that there is most compaction on the farm in the in bye fields, higher up there is less compaction but lower pH’s and less biological activity; as such if we can grow more feed higher up then less forage is required. The farm is using half as much feed as they used to since transitioning to the system. The grass used to be very thatch dominated but there is now an increase in clovers and plantains starting to appear.
Alex explained his change in thinking to manage for what you want rather than what you want to control.
I was so transfixed about managing bracken, I forgot to manage the grass. So by managing the grass, I build the quality nutrition and manage the soils to get the system working, then the pastoral density comes and will deal with the bracken.
To finish the walk questions turned to what next? Alex has spent the last 6 years gathering data, digging holes and persisting to pull it all together. So for the future, he thinks that the big changes have been done, its more about being observational and tweaking the system to optimise biology.
Grass is the most undervalued crop and so we are starting to put it in through the introduction of the new leys. We aren’t carrying more livestock but we are spending a lot less money. Its taken me 10 years to understand how to manage this ground. The failures have been too high- to learn about this we have to get some of it wrong, I’ve never had a year yet where we have got everything right but that is how we learn. Now its time to deliver what we know will work and to drive that system we need nutrition. We’ve been funded to experiment and now the system has to deliver.
Our sincere thanks to the Alex and the team at Rotmell for a fascinating afternoon that gave everyone plenty to think about.
Written by Grace Wardell/Calculator Development Officer
Due to an increasing awareness of climate change, more people than ever are interested in the environmental impact of the products they’re buying. But how many of the claims around carbon are true and how can we trust them? The UK Green Claims Code suggests that 40% of green claims made online could be misleading1. As a farm business, it is particularly important to ensure that claims made around carbon or greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and removals are truthful and transparent. Whether you’re being offered ‘low carbon’ fertilisers or want to promote your GHG reductions, navigating green claims can be tricky.
We know this can feel scary, no one wants to be accused of greenwashing. If you’re looking to make positive environmental claims about your farm, we would advise keeping a record of your working with evidence to back it up. We’ve laid out some key terminology to help get you started with carbon accounting, how you can market it and how you can evaluate the green claims of products you buy.
What are green claims?
Green claims (also sometimes called ‘environmental claims’ or ‘eco-friendly claims’) are often made by a product or business that claims a benefit to, or a reduced impact on the environment.
Some examples of green claims include:
“This product will reduce the carbon footprint of your farm”
“Company’s environmental footprint reduced by 20% since 2015”
“CO2 emissions linked to this product halved as compared to 2020”
How can carbon footprinting help?
Carbon footprinting is the first step to making green claims about your business or a product you’re selling. In order to reliably report changes in GHG emissions, you first have to estimate them. Conducting a carbon footprint can highlight ‘hot spot’ areas in your business which might be emitting more GHGs than you thought. Addressing these ‘hot spot’ areas and reducing emissions associated with them is often an easy first win in the journey to lower emissions, net zero and even financial savings. You can try out our carbon calculator tool, which is free for farmers and growers. You will then need to record your GHG emissions estimate in subsequent years. Once you have evidence of reduced emissions over time, you may want to promote this, for example on a product you sell or as a business. Here are some key terms to get familiar with.
Key terms
Reduced emissions refers to the direct lowering of GHG emissions by adopting more sustainable agricultural practices, technologies, and management strategies. These reductions involve minimising the release of GHGs that occur during conventional farming activities. Looking at ways to reduce GHG emissions is the first recommended step before you seek to make any “green claims”.
Example: A farmer adopts precision agriculture techniques to apply fertilisers more efficiently (e.g., using soil sensors, variable rate application, or slow-release fertilisers).
Impact: By optimising fertiliser use, the farm reduces the amount of nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions, which are released when excess nitrogen is applied to the soil. Improving nitrogen use efficiency can directly reduce N2O emissions.
Avoided emissions refer to GHG emissions that would have been released into the atmosphere under business-as-usual practices but are prevented through changes in farming methods, land use, or supply chain activities. These emissions reductions do not remove carbon from the atmosphere directly, but rather prevent emissions from occurring in the first place. It’s very similar to “reduced emissions” but it is more hypothetical.
Example: A distributor uses biofuel from used cooking oil to transport their products (renewable energy source) instead of using diesel.
Impact: High emissions that would have been released from burning diesel or during transport are avoided. This distributor may have lower GHG emissions from transporting the same quantity of goods the same distance as compared to a distributor using diesel. However they may require more biofuel to transport the same quantity of goods the same distance so the avoidance of emissions is not guaranteed.
Carbon Removals is the process of actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it for a long time, using either technology or nature-based solutions. In a farming context, this is mostly done by natural sequestration of carbon into soils, trees and other biomass. These removals can help offset GHG emissions, making them a critical component of climate change mitigation efforts in agriculture.
Example: A farm establishes hedgerows along field boundaries, which serve as natural windbreaks and biodiversity corridors.
Carbon Removal Mechanism: Hedgerows sequester carbon in plant biomass and enhance soil carbon storage along the boundaries of agricultural fields.
Impact: In addition to carbon removal, hedgerows provide habitat for wildlife, improve soil health, and protect crops from wind and erosion.
Carbon insetting refers to reducing GHG emissions – or increasing carbon storage – within a company’s own supply chain, focusing on sustainability improvements that benefit the company’s own production processes and stakeholders. Whereas carbon offsetting involves reducing GHG emissions – or increasing carbon storage – outside of the companies supply chain, often by purchasing carbon credits from environmental projects, such as tree planting. With carbon offsetting, the reduced emissions, or enhanced carbon storage, occurs elsewhere and is therefore harder to track. Read our detailed explanation of carbon insetting and offsetting on our getting paid for carbon page.
When entering into any carbon insetting or offsetting agreement, try to ensure there is a clear definition of the project, who is responsible for claiming the GHG reductions and where those reductions are taking place. These principles can ensure there is clear evidence of where GHG reductions are coming from and can help prevent the double counting of emissions reductions.
Assessing green claims on products you buy
You might have come across “Low Carbon” products, one example of this is low carbon fertilisers. Traditional nitrogen-based fertilisers (e.g., ammonia, urea) are energy-intensive to produce, mainly due to the reliance on fossil fuels for the Haber-Bosch process, which converts nitrogen from the air into ammonia. Improvements in technology have now produced Green ammonia, manufactured using renewable energy (solar, wind, hydropower) to generate hydrogen through water electrolysis, instead of using fossil fuels. This significantly reduces the carbon emissions from fertiliser production. Alternatively, Blue ammonia is ammonia still being produced using fossil fuels, but incorporates carbon capture and storage methods to remove CO2 produced during the process. Blue ammonia still relies on the heavy use of fossil fuels, whereas green ammonia reduces this demand.
Urease inhibitors are an example of a GHG mitigation product that can reduce ammonia emissions associated with urea fertilisers. Urease enzymes are naturally present in soil and are involved in the process of changing urea into ammonia and carbon dioxide. This means that when urea is applied to soils, a significant loss of nitrogen occurs as ammonia is released into the atmosphere, resulting in air pollution. Urease inhibitors are added to urea-based fertilisers (sometimes known as protected urea) to slow down the enzymatic process, keeping more nitrogen in the form of plant-available ammonium for longer and increasing the fertiliser efficiency. New rules in England (2024) have outlined when unprotected/uninhibited urea can be applied, check out this AHDB article to see how it may affect you.
Another example of a GHG Mitigation product are methane inhibitors for ruminant animals. Methane inhibitors are feed additives designed to reduce methane emissions produced during digestion, specifically in the process known as enteric fermentation. The goal is to prevent or slow down the final step in the fermentation process where methane is produced without harming the animal’s digestion or productivity. A methane inhibitor feed additive (Bovaer by DSM-Firmenich) has been approved for use in the UK that on average claims a 30% reduction in methane emissions for dairy cattle and 45% reduction for beef cattle2. It is worth noting that the efficacy of these products can vary across different feeding systems and therefore may not always be a ‘silver bullet’ to reducing methane emissions.
Provenance
“Farm washing” by big UK supermarkets often leads people to believe that they’re buying products grown on small family farms within the UK, however a lot of this produce originates overseas or from big industrial scale farms.
Riverfords recent ‘Farmers against Farmwashing’ Campaign showed that 74% of shoppers want supermarkets to be transparent about produce and meat that is not British and sourced from abroad. When shoppers were shown a photo of produce in a UK supermarket under a Union Jack flag, 68% of people expected more than half of it to come from a British farm, when in fact, none of it did.
Supermarkets have been called out beforefor marketing these fake farm brands that sell imported produce under a fictitious farm name and even a Union Jack flag. As a consumer, you can always check the fine print on produce packaging to see where it originates and don’t just rely on branding.
Case Study: I’ve got a Life Cycle Assessment for a product I buy in, can I use it in my carbon footprint?
For inputs on your farm, you may be buying products that come with their own associated carbon footprint and want to know if you can incorporate this into your business’s carbon footprint. Let’s work through an example.
The feed you buy your dairy cows has a life cycle assessment (LCA) carbon footprint that has been passed onto you by the company selling this product.
Always check that the product LCA you have is for exactly the item you have purchased. The functional unit in this example would most likely be for 1 kg feed wheat and not a derivative of that, for example 1kg of white flour. Different products will have different processes involved that generate emissions, we can’t always assume that just because the products are similar, they will have a similar carbon footprint.
Check the methodology of the LCA to understand how it has been generated and what the uncertainties around it are.
For example, the feed wheat claims that it has a negative emissions factor (-1.2 kgCO2e/ kg wheat), i.e. the production of it has sequestered more carbon than it has generated. The LCA claims that this is due to using regenerative practices to grow the wheat which has enhanced soil carbon stocks. However, when you look at the methodology, it lists that carbon sequestration was not measured by direct soil measurements, but was instead modelled with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) methodology Tier 1 approaches (see Box 1).
If the product you are buying claims to have a negative emissions value, then the methodology needs to be based on direct soil carbon or GHG measurements on that farm. If a direct measurement of sequestered carbon can be provided, this increases the reliability of the claim and can be passed on to a company which could include it as part of its scope 3 emissions inventory.
The choice of methodology will impact the reliability of the results. For example, there are three IPCC tiers to the recommended approaches (see Box 1). If direct soil measurements are taken, this would be a tier 3 approach and is the most reliable method, however the methodology uses a tier 1 (global) approach with estimated carbon stocks.
Check how the carbon footprint is reported.
Ensure the carbon emissions are reported separately to any carbon removals the company claims – not just the carbon balance (i.e. emissions – removals). There is a requirement by carbon reporting guidance to separate these two values. It is mandatory to report emissions, but not removals, due to the uncertainty around them.
Check the units that it is reported in (usually kg CO2e / kg product) and ensure that this makes sense for the way you will use the product.
Has the footprint been validated externally by third party verification? Although this is not absolutely necessary to have a reliable product footprint, it can help add confidence that the methodology has been checked by others.
If you are satisfied that the LCA has supplied a clear methodology on how the carbon footprint has been calculated, you may wish to include it as part of your scope 3 emissions report.
Box 1. IPCC Methodologies for Calculating GHG Emissions
Tier 1: This is the most basic approach, using default emission factors and generalised activity data provided by the IPCC for different sectors. It mostly uses global data and is intended for broad estimates with low accuracy.
Tier 2: This approach uses country- or region-specific emission factors and more detailed activity data, such as local energy usage. It improves accuracy compared to Tier 1 by incorporating factors that are more relevant to the specific conditions of the region.
Tier 3: The most advanced method, using detailed modelling or direct measurements and highly specific data for the particular circumstances of the country or sector. Tier 3 provides the highest level of accuracy by incorporating real-time data, complex models, and system-specific emission factors.
Each tier increases in complexity, accuracy, and the level of data required.
Pointers on how to sense check and provide robust environmental claims
The competition and markets authority has set out six principles for businesses to follow when making green claims and provided examples to help you assess green claims3. Here we have summarised the principles with examples:
Is the claim truthful and accurate?
Check the facts: Verify that the environmental benefit being claimed is backed by credible evidence. Look for data, scientific studies, or certifications that support the claim.
Avoid exaggeration: Ensure that the claim reflects the actual impact of the product or service and is not overstating the environmental benefits.
Is the claim clear and unambiguous?
Does it go beyond using generic phrases like ‘green’ and ‘eco-friendly’ and list the specifics of how it is an improved product?
Does the claim omit or hide important relevant information?
This may be hard to know and would probably involve doing a little bit of research around the product and its production methods.
For example, a product with ‘save our seas – these are microbead free’ makes you believe that similar products may contain microbeads – however microbeads are banned in the UK, and therefore shouldn’t be in any of the products!
Does the claim make fair and meaningful comparisons?
If a product is claiming to be better than others on the market, how has this been assessed? Has the comparison included a wide range of alternative products?
Does the claim consider the full life cycle of the product or service?
Life cycle assessments show the overall impact of a product from cradle to grave.
Is the claim substantiated?
An example of a substantiated claim might be: “Our product packaging is made from 100% recycled materials and is fully recyclable. By using recycled materials, we have reduced our packaging-related carbon footprint by 40% compared to virgin plastic packaging. This reduction has been verified through a third-party Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in compliance with ISO 14040 standards.”
Now in its second year, the annual Carbon Farmer of the Year competition is organised by the Farm Carbon Toolkit and generously sponsored by HSBC Agriculture UK. The competition aims to find farmers and growers who are engaged with–and passionate about–reducing their business’s climate impact through changing management practices to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Andrew Brewer was awarded the Carbon Farmer of the Year Award for 2024, presented by Steve Dunkley, our sponsor from HSBC Agriculture (seen in the picture below).
Andrew Brewer, Winner of the Carbon Farmer of the Year Award for 2024 presented by Steve Dunkley, HSBC Agriculture UK
Andrew is part of the Farm Net Zero project and low GHG farming has been a top priority for him and his farm for a number of years. He manages 500 Jersey X dairy cows across his 400 Ha farm in Fraddon, Cornwall. He stood out to the judges for his understanding and application of a range of practices to enable his pasture-based dairy farm to remove atmospheric carbon into soil, trees, and hedges, while simultaneously minimising farm GHG emissions by focusing on maximising forage intake for his dairy cows and minimising inclusion of supplementary concentrate feeds. Andrew also selectively breeds his cows to work well within his pasture-based system. There is an opportunity to tour his farm during a farm walk he is hosting on November 8th.
The other two finalists, Tom Burge and Jason Mitchell were praised for their continued efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in their businesses. The finalists awards were presented by David Cope, Head of Sustainability at the Duchy of Cornwall who was also on the panel of judges (seen below). Tom Burge, who featured in the mob grazing workshop has done fantastic work cultivating a low input grazing system which has seen vast improvements in his grass quality and sequestration potential.
Similarly, Jason Mitchell is a Director of Greenville Dairies Ltd based in Newton Stewart, Northern Ireland. He has also been recognised for his continued effort to farm in a low carbon management system. At Greenville Dairies they have reduced emissions from their 850 strong dairy herd, largely through the application of genomics leading to greater feed efficiency alongside the development of a significant Anaerobic Digestion facility which sees them now taking in food waste alongside utilisation of cow manure to produce electricity, liquid natural gas (LNG) and digestate. Electricity and LNG are sold to the grid and to Companies such as Lakeland Dairies (their customer for their milk).
Tom Burge and Greenville Dairies, Carbon Farmer of the Year 2024 finalists, with David Cope, Head of Sustainability at the Duchy of Cornwall
Competition judges, Steve Dunkley (HSBC UK), David Cope (Head of Sustainability at Duchy of Cornwall), and Liz Bowles (CEO Farm Carbon Toolkit) were very impressed with the commitment and innovation shown by all the finalists in identifying sources of GHG emissions on their farms and developing strategies to both reduce emissions and increase the rate of carbon removal into soils and non-crop biomass.
Liz Bowles, Chief Executive Officer at Farm Carbon Toolkit, says:
Once again, the Carbon Farmer of the Year competition has identified some truly inspirational farmers. All our finalists have made great strides in reducing business reliance on fossil fuels through changes to their farming practices and careful soil management to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon.
It was particularly positive to see a dairy farm winning this year’s competition, given that dairy farming is often in the media spotlight for its adverse environmental impact. We are looking forward to showcasing the many effective ways that our finalists are reducing on-farm emissions and increasing carbon storage for others to see at free farm walks over the coming months. Watch this space!
Steve Dunkley, HSBC UK Agriculture, says:
HSBC UK Agriculture is pleased to support the 2024 Carbon Farmer of the Year competition. The quality of entries has been superb and hugely inspiring. As a business, we’re very keen to support the agriculture industry in transitioning towards net zero. While that will take many forms, we have the ambition to help farmers fund investment in the new practices and technologies needed to evolve.
The Carbon Farmer of the Year competition is a great way of showcasing how farmers are already achieving these changes and encouraging others to follow their lead
Groundswell this year was as exciting as ever, with so many excellent sessions and people to catch up with and meet for the first time.
There was much interest in how farmers and growers can benefit from the new markets for carbon, biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality to name but three, but to my mind, there was far less attention on how the sector can actually reduce the emissions associated with producing food itself.
For me, this is critical as we have to find a way to reduce the greenhouse gases we push into our atmosphere, as well as removing some of the historical emissions already there, if we are to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.
There is, however, a central question for our food system which is: What level of emissions are inevitable from the production of food which is essential for humanity? The Climate Change Committee has come up with a view on this in their 2020 UK agricultural policy for net zero report, which suggests a road map for saving 64% in the annual emissions from agriculture compared to 2017 levels when UK agriculture was responsible for around 58 MtCO2e (12% of total UK emissions). On closer inspection of the figures though, the actual savings in emissions from agriculture are set at around 21 MtCO2e / year, with the remaining savings to come from forestry, changes to our diet and the production of energy crops instead of food.
This is set out below:
The specific actions suggested for each of these areas are set out below:
Tree planting on 30,000 hectares per year
Use 10% of UK farmland for agroforestry (no distinction made between agroforestry and hedgerows)
Restore at least 55% of peatland area by 2050. (For lowland peat lands this means rewetting or paludiculture to reduce emissions and for uplands this means rewetting).
Increases in low-carbon farming practices for soils and livestock (no detail provided)
Increase the area of farmland devoted to energy crops to 23,000 ha per year
From this list, the low carbon farming practices interest me in terms of how their adoption will enable an annual reduction of 10MtCO2e per year to occur (~25% of 2022 UK agricultural emissions). At Farm Carbon Toolkit we work directly with farmers and growers to adopt these practices and changes to current management processes. Typically the areas to focus on include:
Planting cover crops
Changing crop rotation
Transitioning to no/min till where possible
Growing new crops
Integrated pest management
Adopting rotational grazing
Planting herbal leys
Across all these practices, there should be a focus on reducing the use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers and purchased livestock feed (especially those including imported ingredients) as both these inputs carry a high level of associated emissions.
Many of these practices can also be considered to be part of the suite of “regenerative farming principles”. Adoption of more regenerative farming practices is growing steadily, but for many farmers, the key question surrounds the financial viability of their adoption when margins are so tight. A recent report commissioned by the Farming for Carbon and Nature Group and funded by the Natural England Environment Investment Readiness Fund (NEIRF) sets out the financial and climate impact of adoption of more regenerative farming practices and systems and includes partial budget information on the financial impact of adoption in England with support from SFI where relevant.
This chart clearly shows that with the inclusion of SFI support, many of the practices generally considered to be regenerative are likely to deliver a similar margin than more conventional practices in these areas. The area where more support is needed is in the adoption of more complex arable rotations including pulses and fertility building leys, where even with appropriate SFI payments, the margins from shorter more degenerative rotations are likely to be more profitable. We are a member of the Nitrogen Climate Smart Consortium which is supporting the increased production of pulses and legumes in the UK together with their use as animal feeds to address the need to reduce the use of artificial fertilisers and imported animal feedstuffs. This project will support farmers to do this through farmer field trials as well as the introduction of new technology for on-farm pulses processing. You can find out more about this project and get involved by following this link.
In summary, I am fairly confident that UK agriculture can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 10% through the adoption of low-carbon farming practices. Indeed through some of the practical work with farmers in which FCT is involved, we are seeing higher levels of emission reductions being achieved within businesses with little or no change in farm output and in many cases increased profitability and business resilience. The element which is mostly missing is the confidence and knowledge to make the necessary changes and knowing where to start.
At FCT we provide a (free for farmers and growers) Farm Carbon Calculator to allow businesses to understand their starting point, a set of tools within our Toolkit to assist businesses to make those chances and a team of expert advisors to talk to.
You can always make contact with us by email [email protected] or by calling us on 07541 453413. We look forward to hearing from you.
Dairy is often in the spotlight in terms of its environmental impact. Whether it be focussed on slurry management, methane emissions from animals, or soil loss and run off from maize crops, dairy is often an easy target. However, there are numerous farmers and projects who are showcasing that this doesn’t need to be the case, and there are positive steps that can be taken.
When approaching Groundswell this year, it was one of the things that we wanted to highlight. We are very lucky to work with some really forward-thinking organisations and farmers that we wanted to highlight at this national event. So we submitted our session “Can Milk be green?” to try and understand some key questions.
These were:
How do we quantify the importance of regenerative dairy systems when the current metrics are solely focused on reducing emissions intensity/litre?
How do we accurately represent the contribution that regenerative dairy systems are providing to carbon sequestration, biodiversity and resilient landscapes?
How do we do this in a cost-effective way which provides reassurance to processors and consumers that milk can be green?
How do we support farmers in that transition?
We had a fantastic panel of speakers which included farmers who were making changes and processors who were supporting both data collection, evidence building and industry communication.
Tom White from Yeo Valley introduced the session and highlighted the ability for grass-based dairy systems to deliver on a wide range of environmental benefits. The key areas of importance were around how we gather good data, collaborate and support our farmers to be able to deliver the changes on-farm. Tom focussed on the importance of diversity, including diversity in our pastures, rotations and management systems to deliver on a range of environmental impacts.
Andrew Brewer from Ennis Barton farm in Cornwall provided some insights into the trials that he has been involved with on his farm as part of the Farm Net Zero project. Trialling herbal leys and their impact on cow health and rumination, soil recovery after potatoes and cover crops have all provided useful tools to build soil heath and reduce emissions.
Will Mayor from Yeo Valley farms spoke about how by using their experiences with the beef animals they have adapted a system that works for their dairy cows. Implementing next-level grazing has allowed them to increase covers, remove the topper from the system and maintain milk quality and pasture utilisation, alongside soil health and carbon sequestration.
Lucy Noad from Woodhouse Farms shared her story in terms of her transition from a more conventional dairy farm over the last few years. Lucy spoke about the need to support farmers in the transition and also to ensure that the way we communicate engages farmers to understand the relevance of practical solutions for them.
Mark Brooking from First Milk concluded the session highlighting some of the ways that First Milk are supporting their farmers to make the transition to more regenerative practices. Farmers are supported through incentives to implement rotational grazing, species diversity and minimal cultivation in order to demonstrate an uplift in soil health, sequestration, biodiversity and water quality. Data is being collected on the impact of these changes to provide confidence in the potential for their members to deliver solutions.
It was an inspiring session which provided real life examples that show the positive steps that are taking place to provide data, collaborate and support farmers. Although our soil project with Yeo Valley is in the interim years before we retest soils, it was great to hear some of the practices taking place and the production and resilience benefits that the farmers are seeing now irrespective of soil carbon sequestration.
So can milk be green? The answer was a resounding yes!
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