At the Farm Carbon Toolkit, we’re excited to share news about our recent collaboration with Land App to support the development and launch of their new Soil Survey feature on Land App Mobile.
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.
Every five years, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)1 publishes a statutory report detailing the UK’s ‘carbon budget’ for a future five-year period. The 7th Carbon Budget covers the period 2038-2042. It is a stock-take of UK GHG emissions (current and future) and provides advice to the Government on how and where these emissions will need to be reduced (‘the pathway’) if the UK is to meet its legal obligations to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050.
Within the 7th Carbon Budget report, it is good to see that the role of land use change in removing carbon is now being linked to agricultural land which gives a truer picture than was previously the case, when land use change was in a separate silo.
It is clear that the carbon budget is very high level, focussing on climate impacts only, with little reference to the impacts of the proposed changes on biodiversity across the UK’s agricultural land. In reviewing this budget, FCT has taken a very practical viewpoint and has reflected on areas where the budget could have helpfully provided more detail and looked at how to fully engage with farmers and growers across the land who are on the delivery frontline.
As other sectors decarbonise, the proportion of total emissions arising from agriculture will increase, putting more pressure on the sector to make progress on emissions reduction and carbon removals. In 2022 the contribution of agriculture to overall UK emissions was 12%. By 2040 this is predicted to rise to 27%, after the activity to reduce emissions set out in the carbon budget and it will be the second highest emitter after aviation even with the target action outlined in this carbon budget.
The report proposes a pathway for agriculture to reach net zero by 2050. Not surprisingly woodland creation, peatland restoration and other land use changes are highlighted as mechanisms to sequester more carbon. There is significant reliance on carbon sequestration into land sinks through the 2040’s but little reliance on any level of carbon sequestration into soil itself.
There is a reliance on increased tree planting from the late 2020’s onwards as trees will only start to sequester larger volumes of carbon from 15 years of age onwards. According to the UK Woodland Carbon Code, sequestration rates for woodland increase dramatically during the “teenage years” of woodland establishment. In total, woodland creation has been modelled to contribute 15% to emissions reduction by 2050 . This will require an additional 1.1 million ha of woodland to be planted by 2050. In addition some 300,000 ha of lowland peat and 970,000 ha of upland peat will be returned to natural/ rewetted condition by the same time.
For agriculture the reduction in overall GHG emissions is targeted at 45% by 2050 compared to 2022, coming primarily from a reduction in livestock numbers (38% by 2050) with a relatively small contribution from the adoption of low carbon farming practices. These reductions are significant, reducing the breeding flock of sheep from 15 to 11 million ewes and the breeding cattle herd from 3 to 2 million head.
The reduction in grazing livestock numbers will release land for tree planting. The combined effect of the changes to farming practice and tree planting is to suggest that the sector will become a net sequesterer of carbon by 2048.
There are a number of important assumptions included within this budget which bear further scrutiny:
Crop yields will increase by 16% by 2050. Presumably this increase is deemed necessary to ensure adequate plant based foods to replace the current levels of meat in our diets. However it is questionable whether this will be achievable in practice, even if gene editing technologies are successful and fully deployed as more adverse weather events are already affecting yield levels in the UK and across the world. It is not clear how critical to successful achievement of the overall plan this is.
Stocking rates for grazing livestock on lowland will increase by around 10% with stocking rates in the upland reduced. Presumably the former is to allow for more land to be released to grow crops for human consumption and the latter to reflect the current over-grazing in parts of the upland and to reflect rewetting of upland peatlands and the proposals for tree planting. Targeting increased stocking rates for lowland livestock could require additional artificial fertiliser inputs which would seem counter intuitive, though the increased stocking rate could potentially be achieved through improvements in grassland utilisation efficiency.
Consumption of meat products (primarily beef and lamb) will fall by 35% by 2050 compared to 2019 levels. On first sight it would appear that changes in consumption are mirroring proposed reductions in livestock numbers, however, no mention is made of any changes in dairy cow numbers, but since the majority of beef produced in the UK comes from the dairy herd this will also impact milk production. Consideration is also given to replacing meat in ready meals with plant based alternatives which will negatively affect carcass balance, with lower value “cuts” often used for this purpose at the moment. This would put further pressure on sector profitability. The targeted reduction in ruminant livestock numbers would lead to a lower requirement of permanent grassland for grazing of a similar order to the reduction in livestock numbers. This would amount to around 3 million ha which could be diverted for other use, where this is possible. Tree planting would be a key use for poorer quality ground (topography and stoniness) with better quality grassland moving to arable cropping where this is possible. This would probably lead to loss of carbon from soils, especially when permanent grassland is first transitioned to arable cropping2. It is not clear whether this has been accounted for within the overall budget.
The carbon budget includes a very low value (0.5Mt CO2e per year for carbon removed by grassland soils). This appears to be low and seems to take little account of the ability for well-managed livestock systems to bring multiple benefits beyond reducing emissions including carbon removals into soils and enhanced biodiversity.
More research and data analysis is required urgently to inform us of the ability of the soil to permanently and reliably store more carbon and how best this can be done. We have some information as do others, but as yet this is not a body of evidence which the CCC can use as part of its carbon budget.
Returning around 300,000 ha lowland peat to a rewetted state will impinge upon its current use for growing vegetables, fruit and arable crops. The report does mention that some 10% of horticultural production will move indoors, which is likely to focus on leafy salad type crops. However for field scale vegetable production left to be grown outdoors the question remains as to where they will be grown. Moving vegetable growing to other parts of the UK will require careful site selection if current levels of margin (currently pretty low) are to be maintained and consideration of the infrastructure required, such as pack houses and cold stores.
There were also a number of notable omissions from the budget:
Whilst the pathway to reduce nitrous oxide emissions are recognised as coming primarily from agriculture, there is no mention of the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuel based N fertilisers. For arable cropping, up to 75% of total emissions arise from the production and use of artificial N fertiliser. Great work is being done to produce low carbon alternatives, but further information on the likely “winning technologies” in this space would have been helpful.
The level of efficiency of the UK to produce food at a lower GHG intensity than some other nations, utilising fewer arable resources (land and feed) and with lower supply chain discards through a circular feed system provides the nation with a competitive advantage in terms of overall emissions per unit of home grown food. This could be better recognised within the budget report.
There is no mention of any target to reduce numbers of pigs and poultry within this 7th Carbon Budget. Whilst the animals themselves do not emit methane, their manures do and their reliance on imported soya has a significant impact on overall UK agriculture emissions as well as the soil degradation associated with cereal production to grow the cereals they wholly rely on. We have estimated that reducing reliance on imported soya by 50% and moving to feeding UK grown beans and pulses will reduce the emissions from agriculture by 7% (primarily due to reduced reliance on artificial N fertiliser and to removing deforestation emissions on 50% soya supply).
Reliance on land use change to enable agriculture to reach net zero by 2050
In the period from 2043-2050 agriculture and land use are budgeted to contribute the largest share of net emissions reduction (35%) – see figure 2 below from the Carbon Budget report, and to reach net zero emissions by 2050 as a result of increases in carbon sequestration into land sinks (primarily increased areas of woodland and reduced emissions from peatland due to changed management) with emissions of around 25Mt CO2e and sequestration of around 26Mt CO2e per year. Current emissions from UK agriculture are around 48Mt CO2e per year.
At FCT, we are in agreement with the Agriculture Advisory Group of the UK Climate Change Committee and its report in calling for more nuanced targets which better reflect the benefits of UK livestock production, especially when it is primarily based on the consumption of forages. We also agree with their view that it is important to reflect on the impact of the different gases on warming aligned to the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Both GWP100 and GWP* metrics are important and could already be reported in concert to inform on both GHG accounting (CO2e) for national inventories and impact of different GHGs on climate warming (CO2e) important for the Paris Agreement.
We believe that the report could be much more positive about the contribution that resilient farming businesses, agricultural land and farmers can make to meeting the climate change challenge. Positive engagement and empowerment of farmers, growers and land managers are critical elements in building confidence and encouraging investment but is currently patchy, with beacons of good practice such as the Farm Net Zero project in Cornwall, which is delivering change on the ground and practically supporting farm businesses to transition towards net zero.
Footnotes
A body set up to hold the government to account on their progress towards net zero and reducing emissions
The UK GHG inventory suggests that the average change in non- organic soil carbon density (to 1M deep) from converting grassland to cropland in England is -24 tonnes C/ ha, in Scotland is -101 tC/ha, Wales -39 tC/ha and NI -68 tC/ha
The key areas of grassland management that are known to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions are fertiliser application and management of applications, grazing management, introduction of more diverse species into grassland including legumes and herbs, and correct use and application of farmyard manures and slurries
Effective, efficient use of artificial N fertilisers
Greenhouse gas emissions from synthetic fertilisers is a significant emissions source on grassland farms. 50% of emissions come from the production of the synthetic fertilisers and about 50% from the processes that take place in the soil after application. Estimates suggest that 10-30% of all applied nitrogen fertiliser is lost to the crop or grassland to which it is applied; use efficiency is influenced by application method and environmental conditions at the time of spreading. Make sure soil pH is above 6.5 if possible, soils are not compacted, that soil temperature is warm and rising and that soils are not not waterlogged. Do the basics well and you will get better yield response from your fertilisers and lower GHG emissions.
Reliance on Inorganic N fertiliser usage can be reduced through incorporating more legumes into swards. Establishing clover within temporary leys has additional benefits of higher protein forage and also a more diverse rooting system which can aid production in adverse climatic conditions. Typically grass clover swards containing around 30% clover by DM can fix around 120Kg – 180 Kg N /ha/ year. When they are in the sward, this is free nitrogen fertiliser!
As we are coming to appreciate that the nitrous oxide emissions associated with inorganic N fertilisers are a huge part of agriculture’s total emissions, improving N fertiliser use efficiency is critical. Saving 170kg N/ ha across 50ha will reduce emissions by around 58 tonnes CO2e which is more carbon than is sequestered annually in 10ha of broadleaf woodland.
Grazing Management
Grazing rotation is an excellent way to increase grass utilisation and reduce GHG emissions. Ensure there are adequate rest periods between grazing cycles to allow the sward to recover to optimise soil and plant health. Consider sub-dividing fields further to allow for more regular livestock movement. The long term effect of increasing rest periods and grazing taller grass is improved soil organic matter and soil structure. This will aid in reducing weed burden, lengthen the grazing season and improve resilience to flood and drought.
Including deeper rooting and more traditional species will increase above and below-ground biodiversity which may increase productivity alongside potential carbon capture and sequestration deeper into the soil profile. Ensure that grassland species composition supports production goals, soil type, soil pH and climatic conditions and consider overseeding where required.
Overseeding permanent pasture with improved diversity can provide a wide array of benefits. If 5 ha permanent pasture was over-seeded or re-seeded to create a herbal ley (consistent with SAM3 SFI) it could provide an additional -15.68 t CO2e of carbon removed per year. This will also build soil health and resilience by optimising the above ground canopy increasing the surface area of leaves for photosynthesis and supporting a greater below ground biodiversity responsible for cycling nutrients.
Accurate consideration of manures and slurries
Sampling and analysis of your farmyard manures and slurries will enable optimal accounting for the nutrients in them. Knowing what you are applying will enhance the accuracy of nutrient management planning and could reduce the requirement for synthetic N fertiliser. Consider the application method when applying organic manures to avoid nutrient losses and if possible cover muck heaps like silage heaps where possible to avoid dilution and runoff of nutrients.
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 Tim Dart / Project Manager, Farm Carbon Toolkit
This article reviews the mechanisms and inputs to ruminant diets which are known to impact greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It explores how these can be used by ruminant livestock farmers, alongside their limitations and the need for more research into more systems-based approaches to reduce methane emissions from ruminants.
Methane (CH4) is an important greenhouse gas in livestock-based agriculture as it is particularly potent. Over a 20-year period, methane is approximately 80 times more powerful at heating the earth than carbon dioxide (CO2), though it dissipates much more quickly (7-12 years) compared to CO2. Because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, anything that can be done to reduce those emissions cost-effectively and without negative impacts on animal health, welfare and productivity is beneficial.
Ruminant animals have diverse microbial populations in their stomachs and these form a natural ecosystem in their own right. Anaerobic fermentation is a key process in the digestion of natural forage-based diets. Methane is released by anaerobic microbial activity through a process called methanogenesis and is consequentially released into the atmosphere as a by-product of digestion. Methane production also results in a loss of gross ingested energy and reduces animal growth and development, so minimising methane production can in theory lead to an increase in animal growth and productivity.
All ruminants (cattle, but also sheep and goats) together, contribute 30% of global methane released into the earth’s atmosphere. While this briefing focuses on methane inhibitors in ruminant diets, there are also opportunities to reduce methane emissions post-digestion, such as through manure and slurry management, biodigesters and activity to increase dung beetle activity. This will be the focus of a forthcoming briefing. Strategies to reduce enteric methane production are a major focus of research, due to the significance of methane. Initiatives like the Global Methane Hub are leading work on increasing our understanding of the mechanisms for reducing methane production safely in ruminants. Feasible approaches include improved animal and feed management, such as diet formulation, which has shown potential for meaningful emissions reductions. This is an active area of interest for organisations such as the Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT) alongside our work on strategies to reduce enteric methane production post leaving the digestive system.
The commercial backdrop
FCT is aware of the significant ongoing efforts to develop products aimed at reducing methane emissions. Much of this work has focused on supplements that can be added to the animal’s diets, as these offer clear commercial opportunities for manufacturers. However, generating robust scientific data to support solutions based on practice changes, rather than commercially sold products, has been more challenging. As a result, these approaches and beneficial practices are underrepresented in discussions about methane reduction, due to the current lack of robust evidence demonstrating their effectiveness.
Adding supplements to ruminant diets becomes difficult to achieve when those animals are consuming a forage-based diet, grazing in the wider environment and consuming a variable and diverse range of plant species. In these situations, research into the makeup of these forages which can reduce emissions is taking place, but with no patentable product to promote, the investment in research and development is understandably less intense. As such, FCT as a farmer-led community interest company, may have a legitimate role in seeking to facilitate and advance the science in this area of research and development.
Feed supplements are now becoming commercially available in the UK. The most common supplement currently is 3-NOP (Bovaer®) which has drawn the attention of the media in recent weeks. There are thought to be other products in advanced development that are now close to market. There are other strategies and approaches where scientific data has established methane inhibitory activity which we discuss below.
Current understanding of Methane Inhibitors and their mode of action
Bovaer®
Bovaer is a synthetically manufactured enzyme inhibitor with an active ingredient called 3-Nitrooxypropanol (hence 3-NOP Bovaer). It is scientifically referred to as a Methyl co-enzyme or M reductase Inhibitor, meaning it blocks the activity of a combination of enzymes that breaks down organic compounds (under anaerobic conditions found in the rumen) and therefore prevents the final biochemical stage of methane release. It is called a reductase process (a reduction process) that would normally result in the breakdown of a glucose chain (a sugar) into CH4 (a methane compound). 3-NOP inhibits that activity.
Bovaer has undergone rigorous safety checks by the Food Standards Agency as part of its market authorisation process and is approved for use, and is considered safe for the consumers of milk and beef. It has been demonstrated to be safe for the animal, consumers, workers and the environment.
The dosage of Bovaer is recommended at 1 gram per 20 kg of feed (label recommendation). The manufacturer claims that a 45% reduction in methane emissions for dairy cows and 30% for beef cattle, is achievable, but only when the supplement is fed within a blended or total mixed ration.
Seaweed
Microalgae, commonly known as seaweed, are a large group of marine plants, made up of three relevant taxa: Rhodophyta (red), Chlorophyta (green) and Phaeophyceae (brown). Bromoform is found in the highest concentrations in red seaweed Aspargopsis, which is grown in subtropical regions around the world.Brormoform is also found in lower concentrations in the brown and green seaweed groups which are more ubiquitous and widespread in the world’s oceans. Feed additives derived from Asparagopsis have reduced methane emissions by 40+% and 90% respectively.
Bromoform (CHBR3) has proven to be highly effective at inhibiting methanogenesis along with other halogenated volatile organic compounds. These VOCs effectively bind to enzymes and reductases, reducing H2 and CO2 release and through archaeal organisms these produce CH4.
There are some studies and claims that Bromoform promotes increases in animal productivity, but other studies report modest reductions in milk yields (-6.5%) this appears to occur when reductions in animal intakes of feed are also observed. There has also been some evidence of abnormalities of the rumen walls of participating animals in such studies, with the loss of papillae and microscopic inflammation found in two studies, although the studies were not able to directly conclude that damage to the rumen was as a result of A.taxiformis supplementation. It is clear that there are discrepancies within the results of the various studies undertaken using Bromoform and that the energy in the H2 compounds resulting from the reductase reaction is not 100% possible to be re-diverted into volatile fatty acids and appears to require the expansion of H2 sinks within the rumen and is seen as an area of further developmental work.
There are numerous other bioactive compounds within the microalgae plants / seaweeds, and are known to produce other compounds that have anti-microbial function that could modify the rumen environment and reduce methane emissions in different ways. These include; phlorotannis, saponins, sulfonated glycans and other halocarbons and bacteriocins, these are the source of ongoing research and developmental work.
Condensed Tannins
Condensed Tannins (CT’s) are commonly found in high concentrations in various UK native flora, including Greater Birdsfoot Trefoil, Birdsfoot Trefoil and Sainfoin. These are all commonly found in herbal leys. CT’s are complex plant polymers of polyphenols found in legumes and other C3-type plants. CT’s are considered to reduce methane emissions through the following mechanisms:
Reducing fibre fermentation
Inhibiting the growth of methanogenic micro-organisms
Acting directly against hydrogen-producing microbes.
CT’s are able to bind to proteins, polysaccharides and metal ions and inhibit fibre digestion of longer-chain starch, cellulose and hemi-cellulose. As such CT’s consequently reduce the formation of hydrogen and acetate and inhibits the growth of methanogenic microorganisms, thus reducing enteric CH4.
Excessive inclusion of biologically active Condensed Tannins within ruminant diets have been found to be detrimental if it exceeds 6% of the overall animal diet in terms of dry matter intake (DMI). Elevated levels have been found to impact negatively on animal performance in terms of growth rate or milk yield. Target inclusion of CT’s are recommended to between 2 and 4% where improvements in animal performance can be achieved. The scientific quantification of the impact of CT’s on Methane emissions is not clear, with the research inconsistent with the work that has been published to date, but it is not considered inconsequential.
From other parts of the world, studies (predominantly Australia) are being undertaken on management practices and cattle browsing legumes known to hold high levels of Tannins, Desmanthus or Leucaena species. Leuceana is a tropical and sub-tropical legume fodder crop and Desmanthus is a tropical legume. The inclusion of both crops in ruminant diets has been shown to improve live weight gains and reduce methane emissions in cattle.
Diversity and grazing diets
By embracing the diversity of grazing diets, there is potential to reduce ruminant emissions through a whole-systems approach. This involves increasing the overall dietary content of tannins coming from multiple grazed forage species, such as herbal leys, willow and other silvopastoral feeds. This can achieve a measurable and meaningful reduction in enteric methane production. However, achieving this requires investment and expansion of knowledge and empirical quantification.
Other options
Other options for exploring enteric methane production, including but not exhaustively:
Genetic selection
Vaccination
Feeding of grape marc (which is high in Tannins)
Adding nitrate or biochar to feed
Conclusion
This is a dynamic area of development and knowledge exploration on GHG emissions, with many complex interconnections to broader environmental concerns. It is important to recognise these links, which include, but are not limited to, animal welfare, animal longevity, as well as other sustainability factors such as biodiversity, water quality, air quality. These, along with other far-reaching sustainability goals, must be carefully balanced to inform the best possible decisions.
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.
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.
In this series, we look at the changes in management that farmers and growers are taking in response to a changing climate. We’re looking at the tips, techniques and approaches that are borne out of the lived experience of farmers and growers, in response to a changing climate driven by global heating.
FCT exists to help food and farming businesses to reduce their carbon footprint, but increasingly every farming business also is having to adapt to the climate that we now have. It’s therefore vital that food and farming does both climate mitigation and adaptation at the same time.
Over recent years they have noticed a change in weather patterns, which has affected their farm in significant ways. Adam comments:
“The increasing frequency and intensity of high rainfall events coming with our changing climate are causing challenges in crop planning, and significant impacts on our soil. Soil erosion and water infiltration can be made much worse by heavy rainfall, especially in short amounts of time, as we’ve been experiencing.”
Indeed, research by EJP Soils shows that changes in rainfall patterns across Europe will be responsible for up to 23% more soil erosion by 2050. This could have very significant impacts on soil health, water quality and could lead to significant losses of soil carbon – the one major asset that farmers have to sequester carbon on their farmland.
The UK Met Office predict that rainfall will get more intense in both summer and winter over coming years and decades, in particular with very local variations; in other words, hard to predict and plan for.
Protecting the soil
Whilst we can’t influence the weather, we can respond to the weather patterns as we see them emerging. A good example is how we manage our soils, as this is so fundamental to food and farming. It is well known that leaving soil uncovered (in arable and horticultural systems) can lead to soil erosion, a decrease in soil organic matter, a loss of soil biodiversity, and other negative impacts on soil health and structure.
In turn, bare soil can have significant short and long term impacts on crop health, quality and yields. Water courses can end up being clogged up with soil and full of the nutrients that should be in our fields. Carbon can be oxidised and lost to the atmosphere, so that soils emit rather than sequester carbon.
Working out ways to change farming systems to be more resilient to these changes in climate will be critical for all farmers and growers. There are range of ways to build a more resilient soil, as Adam discusses:
“Over the last few years, we have changed our soil management practices. We’re working towards improving and maintaining soil health through regenerative principles. We’ve reduced tillage significantly, ploughing just one year in four now, and using pig tail tines as primary cultivation, with a power harrow. We’re also rotating some land with livestock and we’re very keen on keeping living roots in the soil as much as possible.
An example of standing water in tractor wheelings and a bed of carrots just harvested, with bare soil visible
Importantly we’ve really increased plant diversity and soil coverage. We’re constantly undersowing crops, so 80-90% of all fields have a green manure of some sort. This reduces exposure of soil to the weather, builds fertility and increases biodiversity.
There are three rotations across the market garden. Fertility building leys make up about 20-25% of land in any given year. Here we’re using 10-15 different varieties, including clovers, and annuals or biannuals – no long term grasses, we prefer cereals like rye oats and barley, plus winter wheat. We’re aiming to put in more deeper rooted species such as plantain, buckthorn, chicory, yarrow.
Deep rooting species can help improve soil structure and water infiltration
We also add manures (from our landlord’s organic farm), the amount being crop dependent. But with Soil Organic Matter levels at over 7%, we don’t need to add too much manure, and increasingly the green manures are performing that fertility building role.”
The impacts
Seeing is believing, and farmers and growers tend to learn a lot from looking at each other’s farms and understanding what others do differently. Knowing when something is working can be self-evident to farmers, not necessarily needing research to back it up.
At Pitney Farm Market Garden, Adam describes the impact of the changes they’ve made:
“Water infiltration rates on the areas covered by green manures are so much better; it’s obvious just to look at. There is no standing water on the green manures, even after heavy rain, whereas in the wheelings and a few bare beds there is standing water. This is evidence enough to me that we’re doing something right.
Kale with red and crimson clover undersown
Living plants cover the soil, reducing the speed and intensity that rain hits the soil. Roots help water sink into the ground, massively increasing infiltration rates and stopping the water running off the surface and carrying soil with it.
Soil improvements through Adam and Rita’s management have led to much improved water infiltration through better soil structure and aggregation
The healthier a soil is, with better aggregation, the faster the infiltration rate will be, meaning the larger amount of rainfall that the soil can deal with. We’re seeing good aggregation now in the top four inches of soil and lots of earthworms. We’re hoping that by introducing more deeper rooting species that aggregation will improve further down the soil profile.”
Bigger picture
When it comes to managing these issues of flooding and drought on a wider scale, Adam shares some thoughts:
“I’m coming to think that undersowing crops and ensuring the soil is covered, is actually an essential practice, not a nice add on. This is because of the increasing frequency and intensity of high rainfall events coming with our changing climate.
A lot of our agricultural soils in this country are in poor health. Many soils – particularly those under maize, are in very poor condition and have very little capacity to hold water. As the climate deteriorates, more and more farmers have to work harder and harder to produce crops, and do even more to protect our most precious resource, the soil, from harsher conditions.
Green manures and crops side by side, ensuring almost full soil cover at Pitney Farm Market Garden
Is the support, both technically and financially, in place to help farmers across the board to do this? Sadly, I really don’t think it is. The government doesn’t have a handle on it, and is not taking it seriously, which is really worrying. The climate crisis terrifies me on all sorts of levels. The impacts on global food supply chains and food security could be massive. We need to manage our soils better to both mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as recreating our food systems to build resilience in food and farming.”
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
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