Category: Insights

The Land Sector Removals Standard (LSRS) has been released – what does that mean for farm footprints?

Posted on March 6, 2026 by - Calculator, Insights, News

Image credit: Version 1 – GHG protocol LSRS, World Resources Institute

The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) protocol provides standards and guidance for how carbon footprints should be constructed and calculated, to ensure that the results are comparable between businesses or projects. After many years of draft versions and public consultations, the GHG protocol has released a finalised ‘Land Sector and Removals Standard’ (LSRS).

This standard outlines how emissions from agricultural holdings should be reported and provides a framework for reporting carbon removals. It forms one of the many reporting standards that farm businesses are required to report to – Scope 2 standard, Scope 3 standard, relevant specific product footprint standards – and this may affect how carbon calculators (such as the Farm Carbon Calculator), will display your results on your reports. The LSRS aims to improve carbon footprint data transparency in supply chains, which is why there is a heavy focus on Scope 3.

The Farm Carbon Calculator has been working towards aligning with the draft versions of the LSRS (previously the LSRG) for the past few years – meaning we are in a great position to align with the new standard without significant change, should you need to produce LSRS-compliant reports. Below, we briefly discuss the key takeaways and explain how this may affect reporting.

Reporting emissions and removals separately is the new normal

Change: While your carbon ‘balance’ (the sum of emissions and removals) is important for understanding your farm’s impact, it is now mandatory to also present the data separately as total GHG emissions and total carbon removals from the atmosphere.

Solution: The calculator already does this! Your reports already show these separate values so no change is needed there! The advantage of separating emissions from removals is the ability to more closely examine the emissions reduction or mitigation possibilities, as well as maximising carbon removals from the atmosphere.

Including carbon removals from the atmosphere has been formalised

Change: This is the first reporting framework that includes removals accounting. Accounting for removals has been done in the past, but the GHG protocol is seen as the gold standard, and we now have guidance from the top down on how the brilliant sequestration work of farmers can be included in reports.

Solution: The removals that can be included in an LSRS-compliant report will need to be from ‘empirical data’ from lands within the farm’s boundary, so this includes direct soil samples – but don’t worry, this is easy to identify in the sequestration tab, where eligible options are labelled with ‘Direct Measurement’.

You will need to think about the history of your land

Change: It is now mandatory to include any land use change (LUC) that has occurred over the last 20 years on farm.

Solution: There is an area to log this on the calculator, but to be able to see the LUC calculator tab you need to answer ‘Yes’ to the question ‘Has there been any major change in land use on the farm in the past 20 years?’. Read more about the LUC tab here. 

This is referred to as direct or major LUC and is focused on significant changes in land types (i.e., woodlands into arable cropping, or grasslands into built environments) and not looking at the management changes (i.e., going from full to no tillage cropping, or from pastoral grazing to silvopastoral grazing). Sowing a rotational grassland in an arable rotation, does not count as major land use change. 

LUC emissions will be allocated based on when they occurred – so if it was 19 years ago you will only see a small section of emissions in your report, and this will be presented separately from your annual GHG emissions total and carbon removals total, in line with the new disaggregated reporting guidance.

An additional metric to report – land tracking

Change: A key part of the guidance is the need to better track land areas and how they are used – this is primarily because supply chains often lack traceability to individual farms. It is now mandatory to report a land tracking metric, meaning a product can be assessed on its land use efficiency and not just emissions. This also means that where supply chains reduce food production in one area, they must account for the ‘emissions leakage’ onto other lands (likely on different farms, causing LUC). Sometimes this effect is called accounting for “ghost acres”.

Solution: The calculator already asks you for land area at the farm and crop scale, with yield KPIs that have the land area included. Your land occupation for a given product is presented in the ‘Yield table’ on the results page, which shows the areas needed for the production of that crop or livestock product. The calculator currently prevents you from overrepresenting sequestration (i.e. on a land area bigger than your farm area), so there are no changes required here. 

Image: Yield and Land Occupation table on the Farm Carbon Calculator.

Changes to emissions accounting categories

The LSRS has defined certain categories in which emissions and removals need to be reported in. This becomes increasingly important moving up the supply chain. For example, it notes that ‘fossil fuel and industrial emissions’ should be reported separately from land emissions (in a similar way to SBTi FLAG). For farmers, your business’ fuel use would be reported under this category rather than land-based emissions.

However, further up the supply chain, the standard recognises that the category ‘land emissions’ may include fossil fuel burning – for example, if it’s already allocated in a product footprint. Therefore, for companies further down the supply chain, all emissions from farms can be accounted for in the land emissions category. The LSRS, like SBTi, notes that you just need to make sure not to double-count fossil fuel emissions across these categories. At this point in time, the FCC calculator categories can be mapped to the new LSRS categories, but future updates may include report summary changes. If you need a detailed breakdown of what emissions align to the LSRS categories, get in touch at calculator@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk.

Image credit: Alex Bebbington, Land at Trewen, Launceston. Farm Net Zero (2023)

It’s not perfect and we will continue to lobby for farmers

As with any new standard there are teething issues, and we have questions and grey areas that we would still like clarity on. For example, the team behind the LSRS and the independent standards body were unable to confirm how forestry and adjacent non-productive lands can be included in a farm footprint, and in the current guidance, including woodlands, forestry and hedgerows in LSRS-compliant reports is not possible. The LSRS team has put together a consultation, and aims to have forestry-specific guidance available in the near future – however, no timelines have been given. For now, we would recommend that fully LSRS-compliant reports should only include sampled soils data to evidence sequestration, however further clarity is needed from the standard. We are investigating this on your behalf to ensure your woodlands, hedgerows, and other sequestration are reflected in the future.

As a community interest company focused on supporting farmers, we’ll keep speaking up in the world of carbon accounting to make sure all the amazing work farmers do – especially around carbon sequestration and storage on your land – gets recognised.

If you have any specific questions or requirements, please reach out to us for help.

Email us at calculator@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk or use our Contact Form here

Turning the tables for UK pulses

Posted on February 23, 2026 by - Case Studies, Insights, News

by Liz Bowles, CEO, Farm Carbon Toolkit

image courtesy of NCS

Replacing half the soya bean meal in livestock feed with homegrown pulses has the potential to reduce agricultural emissions by 3.4m tonnes of CO2e p/a – a result of reduced deforestation and land use change, lower synthetic fertiliser use, and fuel savings. This is equivalent to more than 7% of agriculture’s total emissions in 2022.

We have long known the benefits of beans and pulses in supporting improved soil health within arable rotations, as well as their potential to replace soya bean meal and increase forage protein levels within livestock diets. Indeed, as many as 30 years ago, UK research money was being applied to the potential for UK lupin production as a feed for ruminants.

Since the mid-1970s, UK imports of soya bean meal have risen significantly – from 600,000 tonnes per year in 1979, to a peak of 2.3 million tonnes in 2020. Prior to this, imports sat fairly consistently at around 300,000 tonnes per year:

During much of this period, the increasing reliance on soya bean meal imports for UK livestock was met with scant concern – despite the environmental impact caused by the deforestation required to grow the crop, and the damage to the fragile soils across the areas where this crop increasingly has been grown (commonly South America). Now, it is a very different story, with many UK retail supply chains requiring their suppliers to feed alternative proteins to minimise reliance on soya bean meal from deforestation sources.

Started in 2023, the Nitrogen Climate Smart project (NCS) aims to support a transition toward increasing the UK’s pulse and legume cropping in arable rotations to 20% (it is currently at 5%). In turn, the farmer-led research project is looking to work toward replacing 50% of imported soya meal used in livestock feed rations with home-grown legumes.

Benefits of growing pulses in the UK

As these plants fix nitrogen into the soil, growing pulses like peas and beans reduces the reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilisers – both during the pulses’ cropping year and for subsequent crops.

In 2023 the UK applied an average of 125kg of artificial nitrogen per ha, totalling 546,266 tonnes of N across the UK and emitting 3.6Mt CO2e. By expanding pulse cultivation the UK could save 74,867 tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser annually, directly avoiding 494,925t CO2e emissions. Moreover, pulse residues can enhance nitrogen availability for subsequent crops, with the potential of up to 35–70kg N/ha depending on soil conditions. This could save an additional 20,963–41,926 tonnes of nitrogen annually across the UK, equating to the avoidance of a further 138,580-277,160t CO2e emissions.

Expanding the pulse cropping area will result in GHG emissions reductions in the following areas:

  • Reduced fuel usage
  • Direct fertiliser avoidance
  • Indirect fertiliser avoidance as a result of leguminous residues
  • Providing a low emission feed alternative to imported soya

In 2023, the UK imported 2.37 million tonnes of soya feed – 74% from South America – resulting in 7.3Mt 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 5.3Mt CO2e. However, 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 4.5Mt CO2e, saving 2.8Mt CO2e compared to current levels of soya imports.

Challenges to overcome

Before UK-grown proteins are the norm within UK livestock diets, there are challenges to come for both arable farmers and livestock producers. In turn, substituting faba beans for soya bean meal brings challenges for animal feed manufacturers – such as the need for more ingredient bins and accessing a sufficient scale of beans of similar quality and consistency. A secondary challenge for feed manufacturers is the higher inclusion rate required for faba beans compared to soya bean meal, as they are lower in protein.

Faba – image courtesy of Encyclopædia Britannica

For livestock producers the key challenge is around the performance of UK grown pulses compared to soya bean meal. To help provide confidence to producers, the NCS project is engaged in feeding trials with cattle and broilers to understand the impact – with the results being published in a series of case studies which will be available on the project website.

One feeding trial investigated the impact on broiler performance of partial soya bean meal replacement with faba beans. Prior to the trial, broiler feed accounted for close to 51% of total greenhouse gas emissions for the enterprise, with soya being the key driver.

Read more about the trial

The trial confirmed that raw faba beans can be incorporated into broiler diets without compromising bird health and welfare. However, higher inclusion levels resulted in wetter litter (requiring increased management attention); higher FCR; and increased cost of production. These findings point towards some form of processing (such as extrusion) as a likely route to unlocking greater nutritional value, through reducing the antinutritional factors and improving protein digestibility. However, the trial did result in an overall reduction of 12% of the emissions associated with broiler feed.

A second trial with beef cattle investigated the impact of roasting faba beans in comparison to feeding them raw. The results show that roasting the beans doubles rumen degradable protein, while protein digestibility in the small intestine increased by 4%. Roasting also increased bypass starch by up to 47% with no impact on digestibility. With the cattle on the trial diets for 126 days, the group fed on raw beans achieved an average daily liveweight gain of 1.44kg/day (corrected for one animal which had to be withdrawn from the trial due to illness) across this period, while the group fed on roasted beans achieved growth rates of 1.54kg/day. Although unit feed costs were higher for the roasted beans due to the cost of roasting, the feed cost and the emissions per kg liveweight produced were reduced by 5% and 7.5% respectively. 

Read about the trial here

Full details of all the feeding trials can be found on the NCS website.

For arable farmers, the challenge has been producing consistently good crops of faba beans alongside achieving a market price that makes them an attractive crop to grow within the rotation. The farmers of NCS’ “Pulse Pioneers” aim to improve the quality and consistency of faba bean crops through a range of on-farm trials. Unsurprisingly, pod development and pod fill are key to pulse yield – and as always, attention to detail through the crop life generally leads to better outcomes. However, there is a need for the whole chain to incentivise arable farmers through recognising the overall lower level of GHG emissions offered by UK grown pulses compared to imported soya bean meal, to make up for generally lower rotation level margins when beans make up 20% of the rotation area. This should result in an“emissions reduction premium”  underpinning the market price, commanded by its nutrient content and value within least cost ration formulations. To make this a reality supply chain intervention is vital, both to make this a requirement and support the additional costs in exchange for being able to report lowered chain emissions.

Livestock feed manufacturers are already responding to the requirements of some supply chains in requiring alternative feed to be included within livestock rations. An increased scale of production will be critical to improve these manufacturers’ ability to consistently include beans within livestock diet formulation, and to improve the consistency of quality.

Liz Bowles, CEO, Farm Carbon Toolkit

FCT is one of the partners within the NCS project. To find out more about the project findings, you can visit the NCS website or contact FCT through info@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk to find out how we can help your business on its journey towards more climate and nature-positive farming systems.

Herbal leys and dairy – reflections from the recent Innovative Farmers Field Labs trials

Posted on February 24, 2026 by - Case Studies, Insights, News

by Rob Purdew, Senior Farm Carbon and Soil Advisor

Two recent Innovative Farmers Field Labs trials have taken an in-depth look into different aspects of grazing within dairy systems – providing valuable insights on the relationship between herbal leys and milk yield, quality and composition, and the effect of extended pasture resting after grazing on soil health and microbiology.

A discussion of the results, recorded at a recent webinar and featuring FCT Farm Advisor Hannah Jones, is available to watch back above.

Do herbal leys affect milk yield and quality?

The first trial, run by dairy farmer Andrew Brewer as part of the Farm Net Zero project in Cornwall, monitored differences in milk yield and composition between cows grazing a conventional ryegrass sward and those grazing a herbal ley.

Drawing a comparison between cows grazed on perennial rye grass/white clover leys or multi-species swards, the trial found that there was no significant difference in milk yield and composition between the two swards – despite a difference in the nutritional analysis.

The results showed that:

  • Multi-species swards had lower dry matter, water-soluble carbohydrates and neutral detergent fibre.
  • Higher crude protein and ash was found in multi-species sward yields (largely reflecting the greater diversity of legumes and herbs in the mix).
  • On average, multi-species swards produced 40% more forage than the rye grass sward, and both pre and post grass sward heights were greater.

While the different leys produced similar milk yields, a significant positive from the study is that it demonstrates the ability to deliver the wide range of benefits of multi-species sward without having to compromise on yield – a commonly held belief. You can read and download the final report here.

Alongside their relationship to herbal leys, there are numerous additional benefits to growing herbal leys, as they:

  • Improve soil structure and health
  • Provide resilience in dry periods
  • Extend the grazing season
  • Benefit carbon sequestration
  • Nitrogen fixation from legume species – so requires little fertiliser
  • Improve livestock growth rates when rotationally grazed
  • Improve biodiversity of bird and insect species
  • Some species have anthelmintic properties – so less need for wormers
Andrew Brewer’s Ennis Barton farm

Does extended pasture resting after grazing improve soil microbiology and soil health?

A second field lab study has been investigating the impact of longer rest periods and resulting taller swards on soil health.

Tall grass grazing (often referred to as mob, holistic or adaptive multi-paddock grazing) has seen good uptake from beef and sheep farmers but less so in dairy systems, where concerns of a drop in forage quality has limited its use. Encouragingly, the trial was shown to have a good impact on soil health – with a much higher fungi-bacteria ratio in the trial plots after 3 years, and a higher-retained moisture content – something that was very important in a year of severe drought. Further observations from the study included:

  • Improved soil structure at depth was observed as roots reached deeper into the soil profile.
  • Forage quality remained largely consistent with the trial plots, having slightly higher sugars and dry matter and the controls higher ME, D value and crude protein.
  • Interestingly the tall grass plots had higher levels of beneficial macro and micro nutrients, and lower levels of antagonistic minerals – and cows were observed to be more settled and fuller. 
  • Milk yield was not affected by the taller sward heights but there were mixed results in terms of total forage grown.
  • Half the farms grew more forage in total than compared to the control plots; but half also saw diminished total forage. 

All the farmers have an appetite to continue the trial and see if the results are consistent over a longer time period.

—

Farm Net Zero is a major project from the farming community in Cornwall to show the contribution that agriculture can make to achieving Net Zero.

Alongside the farming community, organisations contributing to deliver of the project include the Duchy College Rural Business School, the Farm Carbon Toolkit, Westcountry Rivers Trust, Innovative Farmers, Innovation for Agriculture and Just Farmers. The project is managed by Cornwall College and funded by the National Lottery Community Fund from January 2021 for five years.

Top Tips to Optimise Manure Management On-Farm

Posted on February 24, 2026 by - Case Studies, Insights

Image credit: Kondor83

Manure is one of the most valuable resources produced on-farm. When managed well, it boosts soil health, cuts fertiliser bills, strengthens resilience and reduces environmental impact. The key is maximising the benefits while minimising the risks.

Treat manure as a valuable resource

Manure doesn’t just supply nutrients – it feeds soil biology, builds organic matter and improves soil structure, chemistry and resilience. Shift the mindset: manure is an asset, not a waste product.

Develop a nutrient management plan

Nutrient planning is a win-win for profitability and the environment. A good plan will:

  • Match nutrient inputs (fertiliser + manure) to crop demand
  • Identify high-risk areas (watercourses, slopes, compacted soils)
  • Reduce nutrient losses
  • Improve efficiency and lower costs

Most farm assurance schemes require a manure management plan — but even without certification, having one is invaluable.

Match nutrients to crop demand

Applying the right rate at the right time is the single most important factor in manure management. Correct timing:

  • Maximises nutrient uptake
  • Reduces losses to water and air
  • Improves yield potential
  • Lowers fertiliser requirement

Avoid spreading when soils are waterlogged, frozen, or when heavy rainfall is forecast.

Know the nutrient content of manures and slurries

To ensure that you can make the most of the nutrients within your manures and slurries, it’s important to know what is in them. You can use published values found in guidance such as RB209 to minimise the risk of over application, or you can send samples off to the lab to get a more precise understanding on what is in your manure and slurry.

Samples can be taken from the field at spreading by collecting material in containers and then sending them to the lab. Ensure that if you are going to the trouble of taking samples, that you integrate the results into your nutrient management plan.

Test and manage soil pH

Correct soil pH is the foundation of good nutrient management. If pH is suboptimal:

  • Nutrient losses increase
  • Nutrients become unavailable
  • Yields suffer

Monitoring and correcting soil pH ensures applied nutrients are actually used by the crop.

Improve storage to improve timing

Adequate slurry and manure storage gives flexibility to apply nutrients when:

  • Crops are actively growing
  • Soil conditions are suitable
  • Environmental risk is low

Insufficient storage often forces spreading in poor conditions — when losses are highest.

Simple storage improvements include:

  • Repairing gutters
  • Diverting clean water away from stores
  • Covering yards
  • Installing floating or fixed covers

Reducing rainfall entry maintains nutrient value and lowers spreading costs. Covers also reduce ammonia emissions, improving air quality.

Manage soil manures carefully

For farmyard manure (FYM):

  • Site field heaps carefully to reduce nitrate leaching
  • Consider composting to create a more stable material

Composted manure benefits soil biology but releases nitrogen more slowly than fresh manure.

Use low-emission spreading techniques

Application method affects how much nitrogen is retained for crop growth. To improve nutrient efficiency:

  • Use trailing shoe, band spreaders or injection systems
  • Avoid high-trajectory splash plates where possible
  • Incorporate manures quickly if cultivation is planned
  • Use rear discharge spreaders for more even solid manure application

Better technology = better nitrogen retention and lower ammonia losses.

Reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions

Agriculture contributes to climate change through nitrous oxide emissions, which arise from:

  • Soil microbial activity
  • Organic manure applications
  • Nitrogen fertiliser use

Careful nutrient management reduces these losses.

Planning also reduces ammonia emissions — improving air quality and protecting human health. Emissions are influenced by:

  • Manure type
  • Application timing
  • Soil pH
  • Soil moisture
  • Weather conditions
  • Storage method

Managing these factors makes a real difference.

Maximise benefits, minimise risk

When stored and applied correctly, manures:

  • Improve profitability
  • Build soil resilience
  • Cut artificial fertiliser use
  • Lower carbon footprint

But applied at the wrong time or in excessive quantities, they become an environmental liability.

The goal is simple:
Maximise nutrient value. Minimise losses. Plan ahead.

Optimising manure management strengthens both farm performance and environmental stewardship — delivering economic savings today while building resilience for tomorrow.

Connecting Constable and Gainsborough Country: Project Report

Posted on January 14, 2026 by - Case Studies, Insights

From June 2024 to August 2025, Farm Carbon Toolkit worked with the Suffolk Wildlife Trust on the ambitious and very exciting Connecting Constable and Gainsborough Country Landscape Recovery (CCGCLR) Project. The project is one of the largest of its kind in England, working with two farm clusters – the Wool Town Farms Cluster and the Stour Valley Farmer Cluster – and covering 18,500 hectares, starting from just below Bury St Edmunds at the top of  the landscape recovery area, to just west of Manningtree in North Essex at the bottom. With its productive soils and closeness to continental Europe, this ecologically rich landscape has drawn human settlement for thousands of years, resulting in a wealth of historical and cultural associations that continue to make it such an attractive place to live and work.

The conundrum of balancing sound ecological management and sound socio-economic management is at the heart of CCGCLR project, and is reflected in the goals of the project:

  • Supporting sustainable, productive farming – nature friendly practices, taking action for soil health, working towards Net Zero
  • Restoring Habitats – enhanced woodlands, grasslands and floodplains, collaborative solutions to deer management, long term nature based solutions to climate change
  • Connectivity – improving connectivity across the area through joined up habitat corridors

These goals highlight the fact that long term productivity and sustainability go hand on hand in a resilient landscape under threat.

Farm Carbon Toolkit’s work on the project has been in two stages. The first has been the carbon baselining of project farms, where we meet with the farmers, collect the relevant information for the footprint and discuss how a subsequent report should be tailored to support the goals of the farmer. From an early stage it became clear what a wide range of farms were on the project – each of them wanting to do the right thing for their local landscape, but within the confines of conflicting economic and practical pressures.

After the collected data was entered into our Farm Carbon Calculator, we used the output to produce baseline reports for each farm showing where the areas of emissions and sequestration were, and suggested actions for how to get closer to Net Zero – or in the case of farms that were already there, how to further solidify this position. 

One of the benefits of a carbon footprint is that it can often highlight areas which are both costly and high in emissions. When such patterns reveal themselves it often causes the farmer to evaluate whether the current way of doing things is actually benefitting the farm or whether there might be a better way to utilise resources.

In the second stage of our work on the project, each farm completing a footprint was offered an extra day of time and a set of options for things such as calculator training for future use, and advice on implementing sustainable farm strategies etc. There was a wide range of sessions that took place as a result, including the following:

  • Modelling future farm changes (such as bringing on livestock) to see the impact on the carbon footprint  
  • Advisory sessions based on foliar feeding, grazing management, crop nutrition, soil health and other sustainable farming strategies 
  • Creating follow-up footprints reports and then comparing the changes between the baseline and the new report
  • Calculator tutorials for farmers and land agents, showing in-depth use of our calculator, using modelling, scenario planning and report comparison to gain further insights

The discussions in the footprint report handbacks and the follow-up sessions revealed a large appetite for positive action and learning. One of the results of this was the organisation of our BASIS certificate in Greenhouse Gases, Carbon and Climate Change mitigation in November and December 2025 for the first time in the East of England. Supported by a grant from the Dedham Vale National Landscape team, this was held at the wonderful Tudor barn at The Hall, Milden, and drew a diverse group of participants from the project area including farmers, land agents and farm advisors. Our own Becky Wilson and Hannah Jones were the course tutors and the sessions were rich in discussion and sharing ideas. 

Lastly, all the data from our work has been amalgamated into a landscape report which highlights emissions, sequestration and areas of opportunity and will be included in the submission to DEFRA. This also enables the project team to forecast the carbon impacts of proposed habitats for phase two and compile monitoring and evaluation frameworks alongside providing the value to the individual farmers. There are further exciting developments to follow, so please watch this space.

Farm Carbon Toolkit is proud to have worked on the Connecting Constable and Gainsborough Landscape Recovery Project and work with a fantastic group of farmers. We hope for a positive outcome when the project plan is submitted to DEFRA in early 2026.

What does SBTi FLAG mean for farmers?

Posted on January 14, 2026 by - Calculator, Insights

What is SBTi FLAG?

The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) is a framework that offers a standardised way for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reach net zero by 2050 at the latest. The Forest, Land and Agriculture Guidance (FLAG) is specifically for land-intensive sectors like agriculture which guides us to reduce emissions, aligning with the 2015 Paris Agreement’s 1.5℃ global warming target. Participating in the SBTi is currently a voluntary process, but many larger corporations have committed to making these reductions to participate in climate action. 

As a farmer, you might have heard of SBTi FLAG targets through your biggest customers (e.g. supermarket buyers and food processors) and it’s likely this isn’t just another piece of corporate paperwork — it is now driving the demands of your supply chain. The world is now getting on board with this initiative, with ¼ of global revenue covered by a target and ~11,000 companies committed to setting them. You likely aren’t setting an SBTi target yourself, particularly if you are a small enterprise, but your operations are a vital part of your supply chains’ Scope 3 emissions. Here is how and why this framework may influence the way you operate.

How it Affects You: The Practical Shifts

The FLAG guidance requires food companies to account for land-based emissions and land-based carbon removals – if sufficient data is available. This may mean a more detailed request for information about your farm and how you operate:

  • Granular Data Requests: Your buyers may now be asking for more than just “average” carbon footprint data. They may ask for specific figures on your nitrogen fertiliser use, livestock practices including manure management or feed regimes as they are required to prove they are meeting their own 5- to 10-year reduction targets. You will already have a lot of the necessary data to hand. It’s just a case of keeping good records and collating the data where you can. Producing your farm’s carbon footprint is a good place to start!
  • The Rise of Carbon Sequestration: SBTi FLAG and the updated GHG protocol Land Sectors Removals Guidance (which it is heavily based on) is the first global standard that allows companies to count soil carbon sequestration and hedgerow/woodland growth toward their targets if the supply chains have direct traceability to your farm. This means your buyers will be increasingly interested in farms operating with practices that can maintain or build soil carbon (min-till, cover cropping, leaving stubble in the field, etc) and they’ll want robust evidence for it, such as soil test results. Getting your soils tested over time could unlock potential new customers for your business.
  • Land Use Change Accounting: Under FLAG, companies must commit to zero-deforestation and no land conversion by no later than 2025. In 2026, this means you must be able to prove that no high-nature-value land (like ancient woodland or permanent peatland) has been converted to arable use on your holding. It also requires you to know and log any previous changes in land use over the past 20 years as part of footprinting your farm. Our guide on land use change may help.
SBTi FLAG v1.1, Dec 2023

Why it Affects You: The Commercial Reality

The “why” is simple: the UK’s major retailers (Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s, etc.) and global processors (Nestlé, Arla) have signed up for these targets to keep investors and consumers happy. People want to know the products they’re buying are not harming the planet.

  • Market Access: In 2026, having a carbon audit for your farm is becoming a condition of trade. If you can’t provide the data or demonstrate progress, you may find yourself moved to the “high risk” list for certain premium contracts.
  • Supply Chain Incentives: Some processors are now offering sustainability premiums—small top-ups on the milk or grain price for farmers who can prove they are employing regenerative practices or using low-carbon fertilisers or maintaining high soil organic matter.
  • Value of Natural Capital: Because the FLAG guidance validates carbon removals on farms, your land’s ability to store carbon has a tangible financial value to your supply chain. This is shifting their perception of a farm from “food production” to a “climate solution.”

Joining the dots with other schemes

It is important to see the SBTi FLAG framework not in isolation, but alongside other public and private schemes in the UK, for example the Sustainable Farming Incentive in England (SFI; see the Table below), Whole Farm Plan in Scotland, Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS) in Wales and how they can compliment each other. Additionally, it’s important to be aware of the competing interests on your land and the restrictions on reporting with other opportunities from the Voluntary Carbon Market. The SBTi guidance has rules regarding the use of offsets in inventory accounting. To avoid carbon double-counting you need to make sure that the ownership of the carbon is clear, particularly when reporting for multiple different schemes. For example, if you sell the carbon credits from your woodland to a bank, your milk buyer (the supermarket) cannot count those same removals toward their Scope 3 FLAG target. You have to decide which “market” offers you the best long-term value.

Example FeatureHow FLAG and SFI Work Together
Soil HealthSFI pays you to test soil; SBTi FLAG gives that data a “home” in the supply chain to prove carbon storage.
Nutrient ManagementSFI pays for precision grazing/fertiliser plans; FLAG uses the resulting lower N2O emissions to hit supermarket emissions reductions targets.
Hedges & TreesSFI pays for the planting; SBTi FLAG reporting framework allows the sequestered carbon to be counted in the “FLAG inventory” of your buyer.

What’s next?

  • Start collecting and organising your farm data:
    • Many farm management softwares will hold a lot of your data already, getting all of this into one place by doing a carbon footprint can help with the process
  • When you get requests for data, don’t be afraid to ask your buyers questions as well:
    • Do they have incentive schemes that you can join?
    • What are the soil sampling requirements, e.g. 30 or 50cm depth? Multi-year data?

FCT at the Methane Connect Summit 2025

Posted on December 10, 2025 by - Calculator, Insights, News

Image courtesy of ClimaPannonia project

Last month our Calculator Development Officer Grace Wardell was at the Methane Connect Summit 2025 in Paris, France.

Bringing together dairy supply chains, researchers and farmer representatives, the conference looked toward the practical realities of reducing on-farm enteric methane (CH₄) emissions – with a lot of the talk around feed additives, good quality silage and the trend towards insetting within the dairy industry.

The science behind reducing enteric methane

With talks from leading researchers such as Dr. Andre Bannink (Senior Scientist on Ruminant Nutrition & Mathematical Modelling at Wageningen Livestock Research), a recurrent focus was the correlation between feed quality and methane reduction. The consensus is that by increasing the organic matter digestibility of the feed, you can tweak the rumen microbiome, which results in less enteric methane being produced.

  • Silage Quality: Good quality silage is key to reduction – an increased digestibility of silage and forage = reduced methane. Specifically, the “1st cut” of silage is noted for being the highest in omega-3s.
  • The Power of Fats: Fatty acids and omega-3s significantly affect the rumen microbiome. Research suggests that a 1% increase in fat in dietary dry matter (DM) can lead to a 4–5% reduction in methane.

Feed additives: beyond Bovaer

While there was some discussion regarding NOP-3 (Bovaer), the conversation was heavily dominated by other additives, particularly the role of using linseed/flax or other plant-based feed additives to reduce enteric methane. Danone, for example, is conducting trials to see if a 9% reduction in enteric CH4 can be achieved and integrated into their supply chains. Other research showed evidence of published studies that outlined ~9% reductions. Outlined below are two feed additives that were discussed on the day:

Product NameActive ingredientApplicationImpact (CH4 reduction)Notes
Agolin‘Blend of essential oils’1g/head/day mixed into mineral feedAlters rumen microbial activity reducing CH4 by 8.8%Used in Mooh’s offsetting carbon credit scheme for reducing enteric methane emissions. There may also be other health benefits.
TradilinPressure cooked Linseed~500g/head/dayLeads to a progressive release of omega-3 in the rumen of dairy cows, mimicking the behaviour of fresh grass. Reduces CH4 by 9%Other health benefits beyond CH4 reductions include:

• increased milk production (1.5-3 litres more milk per cow per day
• -10% ketosis and -3% metritis
• -10 days of calving interval
• 5 – 11 days earlier first calving for the heifers born from a cow fed Tradilin

Feed additive products that mitigate EM

Rewarding farmers – the financial benefits of insetting vs offsetting

One of the emerging trends at the conference was the dairy industry’s shift toward insetting emissions reductions within the dairy supply chain. However, there was also evidence of carbon credit offsetting schemes that had been set up by dairy supply chains to reward their farmers for undertaking measures to reduce methane. If you’re unsure about the distinction between these two financial avenues, check out our report on the Voluntary Carbon Market and the implications for farmers.

Outlined below are some key takeaways in the comparison between Arla’s insetting-based incentive model and Mooh Coop’s offsetting-based incentive model:

Arla insetting based incentive model

  • Arla’s sustainability roadmap is heavily based on SBTi targets – where 97% of their emissions are Scope 3
  • 10% of their emissions reduction targets for on-farm mitigation strategies are around feed additives 
  • They have their own Farm Ahead tool to measure carbon footprints and other sustainability measures on farms
  • They use a points based system across a range of farm metrics (not just carbon) to reward their farmers with payments, utilising 5 big KPIs to rate the farms

Mooh Coop offsetting based incentive model

  • Farmers who use the Agolin feed additive can monetise their emissions reductions by generating reductions carbon credits
  • Mooh use the Verra carbon standard methodology for enteric methane reductions, and liaise with South Pole to help help sell the credits
  • This can be a relatively long process process ~ e.g. 1 year
  • Mooh anticipates sales, so they pay farmers upfront and get paid back once the credits are sold
  • Farmers sign an agreement that states they can’t claim to have reduced their carbon emissions and milk that’s sold is not marketed as low carbon to avoid double counting
  • 500 active farms – total of 20,000 cows in scheme
  • Mooh acknowledged that the dairy industry is going more towards insetting

Data quality and trust in carbon tools

Dr Eleanor Durrant from Cool Farm Tool also did a short talk on the LUNZ project (Land Use for Net Zero), a multi-partner collaboration we’re proud to be part of with Agrecalc and researchers at Cranfield University and the University of Gloucestershire. This project aims to develop and evaluate a scalable, auditable farm and food-level GHG accounting framework for UK land use.

You can read more about our latest improvements to the FCT Calculator and how we are keeping it up to date with the latest science here.

Farm Net Zero: Five Years of Progress—and What Comes Next

Posted on November 26, 2025 by - Farm Net Zero, Insights, News

The final Farm Net Zero conference took place on 20th November 2025 at the Royal Cornwall Showground—under a blanket of unexpected snow!

Yet despite the weather, the room was full. Farmers, growers, advisors, researchers, community partners and supporters all gathered to reflect on five years of hard work, collaboration and learning. It felt less like the end of a project and more like the celebration of a community that has quietly reshaped what climate action looks like on real farms.

There was a striking range of delegates in the room. Young and older farmers and growers, a pretty even gender balance, and people representing every part of the agricultural community. But what really stood out was that every presenter brought a different perspective, a unique set of skills and lived experience, and together they created a strong thread of community that ran throughout the entire day. It was genuinely inspirational.

Farm Net Zero is a collaborative five-year project led by Duchy College Rural Business School, working in partnership with Farm Carbon Toolkit, Westcountry Rivers Trust, Soil Association, Innovative Farmers, Innovation for Agriculture, and Just Farmers. This ambitious initiative has been made possible thanks to funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. The final conference was organised by Duchy College with support from the FNZ project partners, to share some of the learnings, hear from participants, and to celebrate five years of the project.

A day rooted in practical progress

The day began with one of the FNZ Demonstration farmers, Mike Roberts of Blable Farm, who shared how he has changed farming practice to build greater business resilience. His reflections set the tone for the whole event: grounded, honest and focused on what works in the real world. Mike expressed heartfelt thanks to the project team at Duchy College, Farm Carbon Toolkit, Westcountry Rivers Trust, Innovative Farmers, Innovation for Agriculture and Just Farmers — a partnership that has been the backbone of Farm Net Zero since day one.

We then heard from Anthony Ellis of Pensipple Farm, who spoke about the trials he has been undertaking to reduce insecticide and fungicide use. By improving soil health, he has been able to cut fuel use for fieldwork by 10–15%—a meaningful saving both economically and environmentally. During this session, an important point was raised about the “elephant in the room”: who owns the carbon and wider natural capital benefits in a tenanted farming context? It’s an issue that will matter more and more as low-carbon farming evolves.

Malcolm Barrett of Tregooden Farm also reflected on the changes they have made on the farm. Through FNZ, the Barretts have reduced costs significantly by lowering inputs and outwintering cattle, with the biggest gains seen on arable fields—soil organic matter is up by around 3%, thanks to cover crops and min-till. Better soil health has reduced fuel use and enabled them to cut pesticide use, too.

Amelia Lake from the Real Food Garden offered a shout-out to FCT for helping them understand their soils and how best to improve them. Their focus on no-dig systems and continuous compost additions has boosted soil health, and they’ve seen improvements in veg nutrient content, something they believe is closely linked to better soil function.

Nicola and Chris from Heligan Gardens shared how transformational their compost-focused Farm Net Zero field lab has been for their waste management system. By learning how to optimise composting, combining three separate waste streams while ensuring pathogen kill, they have been able to reduce waste, improve soil health and close nutrient loops more effectively.

We also heard from Emma Restorick at the Prideaux Walled Garden, who has been trialling ways to tackle bindweed and reduce carbon footprints through optimised home-grown compost and other nature-friendly techniques. Her work highlights just how adaptable and innovative small horticultural enterprises can be when given structured support and the space to experiment.

Robust data from real farms

The results of the project speak for themselves.

Over the course of the project, the project team carried out an extraordinary amount of monitoring and testing, including digging over 1,935 holes (over 10,000 auger dibs), and soil sampling 215 fields in both 2021 and 2025. This has created one of the richest long-term datasets of any UK farming climate project.

Initial findings show that fields in herbal leys in 2021 and still in herbal leys today sequestered an average of 3.35 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. Across the project area, herbal ley coverage has increased by nearly 500 hectares, contributing significantly to soil carbon gains.

Habitat-based sequestration also shows clear gains: project farms collectively sequestered an additional 2,640 tCO₂e into on-farm habitats, supported by increases in both hedgerows and woodland. Hedgerow length increased from 607 km in Year 1 to 664 km in Year 5, with associated carbon sequestration rising from –2,338 tCO₂e to –2,854 tCO₂e. Farmers also planted 1,104 additional trees over the project period, reinforcing long-term carbon storage and biodiversity benefits.

Looking at changes in overall farm carbon footprints, every farming system involved in the project saw reductions:

  • Horticulture: 4.3 tCO₂e → –7.54 tCO₂e
  • Arable: 572.22 tCO₂e → 402.49 tCO₂e
  • Beef & Sheep: 508.37 tCO₂e → 489.09 tCO₂e
  • Dairy: 1.25 kg CO₂e/kg FPCM → 0.99

These improvements were largely driven by reductions in input use, particularly feed, fertiliser and fuel, supported by more diverse rotations, improved grazing management, better composting systems and healthier soils.

These were not theoretical models or one-off trials; these were whole-farm shifts, supported by careful measurement and farmer-led experimentation.

Last words

Finally, dairy farmer Andrew Brewer of Ennis Barton highlighted how evidence from Farm Net Zero had given him the confidence to encourage Arla to support farmers in growing herbal leys. As a member of Arla’s Sustainability Working Group his takeaway was powerful:

“The integrity and nutrient quality of food starts with farmers and growers.”

What came across loud and clear at the conference was the importance of steadfast and consistent activity, and the power of farmer-to-farmer learning. The project has built a community of farmers and advisers who have been willing to share their successes and failures openly, and this spirit of collaboration has been central to the project’s achievements.

What really made Farm Net Zero work

Beyond the numbers, what came through again and again was the strength of the community that has grown around the project. Demonstration farmers, monitor farms, advisers, researchers, gardeners, and local organisations, all willing to share what worked and what didn’t.

It powerfully demonstrates that progress doesn’t come from one-off interventions. It comes from steadfast, consistent activity—and from supporting farmers to try new things with confidence.

Farmers spoke freely about reducing inputs, changing rotations, experimenting with cover crops, improving composting systems, tackling weeds, integrating livestock, and rethinking their relationship with soil. The willingness to compare notes, challenges, successes and missteps has made this one of the most practical and trusted climate-action projects in UK farming.

So, what next?

This is the question many people asked during and after the conference. Farm Net Zero has clearly delivered:

  • measurable reductions in emissions
  • better soil health
  • stronger business resilience
  • increased biodiversity and more protective infrastructure (hedges, trees)
  • greater collaboration across Cornwall’s food and farming community
  • a five-year dataset that is rare at national level

The challenge now is to build on this success, not let it fade as the formal project period ends. Here are some priorities:

1. Share the learning more widely

The results, stories and practical guidance from Farm Net Zero need to reach a far larger audience — in Cornwall and beyond. Farmers elsewhere in the UK face similar challenges, and the FNZ experience can offer a roadmap: low-cost changes, peer-to-peer learning, and practical ways to reduce emissions while improving profitability. There’s a responsibility to translate these findings into accessible guidance, workshops, case studies and tools that any farmer can use.

2. Keep the community alive

The strength of FNZ was the trust between participants. Maintaining that network through events, field labs, farm walks, online spaces and continued collaboration will be vital. Farmers expressed a clear desire to keep learning from one another.

The good news is that some field labs and events will continue over the next few months, and the appetite for ongoing collaboration is strong.

3. Use the data to inform policy and practice

With more than 10,000 soil samples, detailed farm footprints and hundreds of farmer-led trials, FNZ now represents one of the richest real-world datasets on low-carbon farming in the UK.

That evidence can help shape better support schemes, more targeted advice, and more practical pathways for farmers transitioning towards net zero.

A beginning, not the end

Through the Farm Net Zero partnership, we’re committed to ensuring these insights don’t sit on a shelf. The findings from this project can play an important role in influencing how the sector and policymakers think about resilience, emissions reduction, soil health and resource efficiency.

As the conference was wrapped up, there felt a feeling of pride — not only in what’s been achieved, but in how it was achieved. Farmer-led, data-driven and grounded in real practice. Farm Net Zero has shown what’s possible when farmers are trusted, support experimentation, and commit to long-term learning rather than short-term initiatives.

The project will look forward to sharing the full results in early 2026 and helping ensure that the legacy of Farm Net Zero continues to grow. Cornwall has shown what can be done. Now the task is to help others follow.

We would like to extend our gratitude to the National Lottery Community Fund for their support throughout this five-year journey, and to all the farmers and partners who have made this work possible.

Farm Net Zero Logo

Alongside the farming community, organisations contributing to deliver of the project include the Duchy College Rural Business School, the Farm Carbon Toolkit, Westcountry Rivers Trust, Innovative Farmers, Innovation for Agriculture and Just Farmers. The project is managed by Cornwall College and funded by the National Lottery Community Fund from January 2021 for five years.

Exploring the Benefits of Foliar Fertiliser with Tow & Fert

Posted on November 6, 2025 by - Farm Net Zero, Insights

Demonstrating the Tow & Fert system in the field. This trailed sprayer, pulled by a quad bike , allows for precise application of liquid foliar fertiliser directly onto the crop leaves

Written by Alex Bebbington, Project Officer, Rural Business School, Duchy College

This is a write-up from a Farm Net Zero event on foliar fertilisers, hosted by Rob and Liz Priest at Scadghill Farm, Bude, on Thursday 9th October 2025.

Farm Net Zero Logo

Addressing the Risks of Conventional Fertiliser

The use of conventional nitrogen fertiliser is associated with several environmental risks. These risks include:

  • Leaching into watercourses
  • Acidification of soil
  • Poor nutrient use efficiency
  • Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from manufacture and volatilisation on ground contact

The Foliar Fertiliser Alternative

An alternative approach is to use foliar fertiliser—liquid fertiliser applied directly to plant leaves.

To better understand this method, the Farm Net Zero project hosted an event at Scadghill Farm in Bude, where farmers met to hear from TerraFarmer about the Tow & Fert system. This event was made possible thanks to the National Lottery Community Fund, which has generously funded the Farm Net Zero project.

Benefits of Foliar Application

Compared to solid, conventional fertilisers, applying liquid fertiliser directly onto the plant’s leaves reduces many of the associated risks.

Crucially, nutrient use efficiency can be improved. Because the fertiliser is applied directly to the leaves, it can be taken up quicker than soil-applied fertiliser. This improved efficiency means reduced quantities of fertiliser may be needed, which could result in saving input costs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

A Case Study: Scadghill Farm

Rob and Liz Priest run Scadghill Farm, a 220-acre suckler beef and sheep farm, as part of their larger organic farming business. When taking over the conventionally farmed land, Rob and Liz felt the soil performance and biology needed improvement, leading them to consult Tom Tolputt from TerraFarmer.

Tom worked with the Priests to assess their soil nutrient levels and created a bespoke foliar fertiliser mix to address deficiencies and boost soil biology. The mix included organically certified fish hydrolysate and molasses, aiming to provide a “balanced diet” for the soil microbiology.

Introducing the Tow & Fert System

Matt Vellacott, TerraFarmer’s field operative, demonstrated the Tow & Fert machine used for applying the foliar fertiliser.

The Tow & Fert machine used to apply the foliar fertiliser. These trailed machines come in different tank sizes with the example shown at this meeting the smallest option
  • Mobility: These are trailed machines that come in various tank sizes. The model shown at the event was the smallest option and comes with its own petrol engine, meaning it can be towed behind vehicles without a Power Take-Off (PTO).
  • Mixing: The tank is equipped with an agitator to allow mixing the fertiliser within the machine. However, for faster refilling, many farmers choose to mix in a separate tank and then decant into the sprayer.
  • Speed: The model demonstrated can cover up to 4 hectares in half an hour, depending on the application rates. While Matt and Tom concede that foliar applications are slower than conventional fertiliser spinners, they emphasise that the productivity benefits outweigh this difference.

Key Takeaways

  • Foliar fertiliser can improve the efficiency of nutrient uptake by plants.
  • Using foliar fertiliser instead of solid fertiliser can lead to emissions reductions.

Are Carbon Credits the UK’s Next Crop to Harvest?

Posted on October 30, 2025 by - Insights

Farm Carbon Toolkit release a new report for farmers and land owners which explains the Voluntary Carbon Market and additional climate-friendly farming income streams.

The voluntary carbon market (VCM) has grown in recent years, but many still find the route to accessing the markets unclear and shrouded in uncertainty. Recent research also suggests that conversations around the VCM are polarising and particularly hard for farmers to decode. The VCM is an actively developing market that requires weighing up the potential risks and benefits before participation to ensure reputational and financial risk to a farm business has been considered.

Download report

Click to download your copy of the report. © Farm Carbon Toolkit, 2025

In the report we provide information on various carbon credit types, discuss the differences between carbon insetting and carbon offsetting schemes and provide an overview of how to assess the quality of schemes. We also list relevant schemes operating in the UK agricultural sector and make recommendations. Download the report to read more.

Contents

  • What is the voluntary carbon market?
  • Why get involved with the sector?
  • The Risks of VCM Participation
  • Projects operating in the UK agricultural sector
  • Responsible reporting of carbon reductions, removals and credits
  • Other public and private finance options.

Authors

Dr Grace Wardell, Dr James Pitman, Dr Lizzy Parker, Becky Willson, Samuel Smith, Tim Dart, Liz Bowles

We are grateful to the Centre for High Carbon Capture Cropping (CHCx3) for supporting Farm Carbon Toolkit to produce this report. CHCx3 is a multi-partner research project helping UK farmers to increase carbon capture and farm resilience through diversified cropping, enabling new income sources and supporting enhanced value chains for industries.

CHCx3 is funded by Defra under the Farming Futures R&D Fund: Climate Smart Farming (project 10042535). It forms part of Defra’s Farming Innovation Programme, delivered in partnership with Innovate UK. www.carboncapturecropping.com

We would also like to thank the following for feedback on the first draft and contributions to the final report

  • Dr Lydia Smith – Project Lead of the Centre for High Carbon Capture Cropping (CHCx3), NIAB
  • Megan MacGillivray – 3Keel
  • Julian Gould – Farm Manager at Hendred Estate
  • Kitty Grubb – Previous roles at Regenified and Agreena
  • Dr Jonathan Scurlock – National Farmers Union of England and Wales (NFU)
  • Andrew Adler – Non-executive Director FCT, Veterinarian and Consultant
  • Andrew Rigg – Non-executive Director FCT and Arable Farmer.

For more information about carbon credits in farming check out our popular piece on getting paid for carbon.