Embracing differences between carbon tools builds a more robust agricultural future.
A senior industry figure recently voiced their frustration to me regarding the variation in results between different farm carbon calculators. It is human nature to fixate on criticisms, they always seem to occupy more brain space than praise.
However, the availability of three quality carbon calculation tools to model farm emissions should not be viewed as a failure or a barrier. In fact, it is a vital mechanism for accuracy.
Checks and Balances
The most reliable systems in the world rely on friction and debate to find the truth. In science, the most trusted biological research relies entirely on peer review, where rigorous auditing and constant critique ensure that results are accurate and uncertainties are clearly defined. In politics, democratic systems use a multi-party structure to intentionally slow down decision-making. This friction prevents extreme actions and ensures agreement from the majority. The world of agricultural carbon accounting functions exactly the same way.
Collaboration Over Competition
Rather than working in isolation, the team behind the Farm Carbon Calculator actively collaborates with two other internationally renowned platforms: Agrecalc and the Cool Farm Tool. This relationship creates both an opportunity to digitally implement checks and balances and a human opportunity for the scientists, practitioners and farmers who contribute to the tools’ development to debate, discuss and collaborate to find collective routes forward.
Our transparency is our greatest asset. We explicitly show the confidence levels of our data, highlight the scientific literature it originates from, and clearly state when figures are modelled (such as in agri-environment sequestration). We openly define what is highly reliable and what remains a best estimate.
The Wisdom of Estimation
The philosopher Socrates famously noted that true wisdom is recognising the limits of your own knowledge. In modern agricultural data, admitting “we don’t know for certain, but let us estimate this for you” is not a weakness: it is a profound scientific strength.
By working together and embracing these transparent differences, our carbon calculator teams are building a more honest, reliable, and resilient foundation for sustainable farming.
A case study of first generation farmer Sam Morgan
by Joe Jones, Farm Carbon and Soils Project Assistant
Sam’s Journey: from Disillusionment to Agency
Sam Morgan is a first generation livestock farmer, living and farming in the Stour Valley in Suffolk. His journey into farming looked pretty straightforward as he grew up: obsessed with tractors and cows as a child, and then going off to work on a farm as soon as he could drive. However, after completing a degree in agriculture, he found he had lost much of his enthusiasm for farming. Instead he was left with a despondent feeling at the challenges, a sentiment shared with many potential new entrants:
”I came out [of the course] feeling like there’s no chance I’m going to get into farming. The capital, the land prices… I came out more aware of the barriers than ever.”
This disappointment would lead Sam away from farming, travelling and working in different industries for a few years until his enthusiasm was rekindled in some of the books he was reading, especially in the field of agroecology and the vision of farming that could benefit humans and the environment. Eventually he went to study at the Centre for Agrocology, Water and Resilience in Coventry, in his words ‘the most inspiring place I’ve been a part of’. Exposed to a variety of ideas and sent off to events such as Groundswell and Oxford Real Farming Conference to speakers like Allan Savoury and Charles Massey, Sam rediscovered a new drive for wanting to farm positively and, after an inspiring talk about local ecological knowledge, thinking of the older farmers he had worked alongside, he decided that the Stour Valley was the place he felt most at home to really get to work on his farming dream. ‘I thought I have to come home’.
Building the herd and becoming a tenant
After returning home from Coventry, Sam decided to make the leap, he had built up a wide range of experience working on local farms, carrying out volunteer conservation work and working as a ranger for the commons ground around Sudbury. Whilst working for local farmers, Brigid and Mark Cracknell, he became aware of an opportunity for a tenancy on a 35ha of floodplain meadow owned by a local land trust, just over the river from the farm. He was delighted when he applied and was successful in getting it. The Cracknells kindly worked out an agreeable arrangement and sold him 10 store calves and Sam finally had his first herd.
Since 2022, after starting with 10 dairy crosses, Sam now has a herd of 16 Red Polls, an East Anglian breed that he is proud to have. The reason for his choice was a mixture of picking a local breed that was well adapted to the heat due to its coat’s colour and a breed that does really well on the grass fed system Sam manages. Alongside his tenanted land, Sam also grazes his herd on a local arable farm on a herbal ley. On both systems he paddock grazes, with high intensity grazing and long rest periods. This system is key to maximising forage and protecting soil health especially during periods of drought. As Sam says:
”Grazing done well is a net positive for animals, people, soil health and resilience to drought. Grazing done badly is disastrous”.
Alongside grazing, hay cutting is key, especially as another product for Sam’s business and for maintaining the biodiversity of Shalford Meadow by removing excess nutrients . Not only does the biodiversity of the land enrich the resilience of the local landscape but he believes it gives the beef he produces its flavour and nutrition for his customers. Another key part of Sam’s system is reducing chemical inputs. Since he acquired his herd he has only used wormers once in 4 years, which has not only saved money but has also benefited the invertebrates where he grazes his cattle and he doesn’t apply any fertiliser.
Farming with Nature and Selling his Produce
One of Sam’s proudest moments, a year after taking over the tenancy, was the surprise find of the Narrow Leaved Water Dropwort (Oenanthe silaifolia), a floodplain meadow species, last recorded in 1972 in Suffolk and believed extinct in the county. His find was officially confirmed and logged by the Suffolk Biodiversity Information Centre and alongside other positive signs such as breeding lapwing returning to the site has helped to encourage Sam that he is managing the site successfully for both farming and biodiversity.
In tandem with the sustainable agriculture that Sam implements, importance of providing his product through local food networks in South Suffolk, to another key pillar of the fulfilment he gets from farming. Through his business, Stour Valley Farming and Conservation, he sells his beef directly either through meat boxes or direct at local farmer markets. Knowing his customers and fellow producers is really important for Sam.
“It feels good to talk with other local producers and to know the people I sell to. I know when I sell my product it’s going to be cooked in the same town or nearby.’
Face to face interactions and Sam being questioned on how he produces his meat is something he really enjoys because he is proud of what he is producing, “it’s the kind of traceability I think people should have”. He is keen to share with customers the benefits of the livestock on the local environment (increasing soil health with their manure) and the nutritious diet they have access to. Although he did give his original dairy crosses some winter fed barley, his Red Poll cattle are fed exclusively on grass, wild plants and herbal leys.
Present work and future opportunities
At current Sam sells his beef and hay produced on Shalford whilst also offering consultancy and working on farm. Sometimes the balance can be tricky, he says, but it’s clear that Sam thrives off the mixture of different work and people and he is able to develop new relationships in the local area as a result. What’s in the future? Sam would like to get GPS collars for his cattle next, not only to reduce the labour but also to track and understand his cattle’s movements and behaviour better. Through baselining and monitoring the changes at Shalford he is also building an evidence case for his farming system, showing improvements in biodiversity, soil health, water management whilst producing nutritious food. As his tenancy is for a fixed period he hopes when it comes to an end, he will have all the evidence to show he is ready for the next step.
Conclusion: Sam’s advice for new entrants
As Sam’s case demonstrates, a big part of the solution of creating healthier farming systems and tackling societal challenges is tapping into local networks, bringing people closer to their food, farming for the climate and biodiversity and people taking pride into their local landscape. A big part of this will be those coming as new entrant with energy and passion and we’ve asked Sam to share some tips from his own journey:
“Get started and get stuck in”, Farming can have a very steep learning curve but the importance of jumping in even if you feel a little unsure is often valuable
“Find the right people to work for.” – Having one or a few valuable mentors can be huge in learning the important aspects and setting you up for opportunities in the future
Loving your landscape – Sometimes there will be points where its hard and difficult to continue but having passion for your local environment is very powerful
Talking to people and listening – This is actually my observation of Sam. He is great at talking to anyone and I think this has been key to the success and network he has built
In this series, our aim is to bring more positive stories of farming bringing benefits to the land and the community. If you want to follow more of Sam’s work, you can do so though his website or his Instagram. If you yourself are a farmer or grower who would like to learn more about sustainable farming and regenerative agriculture practices, you can contact us here.
At the height of midsummer, Groundswell is a chance for all of our team to get together with those farmers, growers and industry professionals leading the way within regenerative agriculture. With the festival about to kick off next week, we spoke to Anthony and Lizzy from our Advisory and Calculator teams about what the festival means for them – and what they’re looking forward to this year.
Groundswell – An FCT Advisor’s Perspective
Anthony Ellis, Senior Farm Carbon and Soil Advisor
For ten years – or is it 11? – Groundswell has been the epicentre of knowledge exchange on Regenerative topics in the UK. I’m grateful to have attended 7 of those years, and had the privilege of speaking at three.
As a farmer, it gives me the opportunity to expose myself and my system to the challenge of new ideas and practices. As an advisor, it allows me to sharpen my skills and ensure I am abreast of the latest science and understanding. It places us all before a range of inspirational speakers, Gabe Brown and John Kempf to name but two. And arguably most important of all, it gives us the chance to socialise and let our hair down amongst likeminded people… with the help of some very fine ales and ciders courtesy of the Earthworm Arms!
For us at FCT, it affords us the opportunity to meet our current and future partners and customers face to face, explain the work we do with farmers to improve on-farm resilience and effect meaningful, positive change in our food systems. This year we will have much to share. From the successful conclusion of a number of important projects like Farm Net Zero and Agri Carbon Kernow, to the start of new advisory project such as NutriWise and SoilSync. And also, not forgetting the continuation of our valuable work with the Duchy of Cornwall Estate.
We look forward to welcoming you to our “new look” stand at Groundswell this year to share knowledge and experiences of a changing industry.
The Calculator Team at Groundswell
Lizzy Parker, Carbon Calculator Manager
For the team behind the Farm Carbon Calculator, the collective energy of Groundswell is a massive battery recharge. When you are deep in the day-to-day grind of software, data, or policy, it can feel like you are pushing a boulder uphill in isolation. But for two days at Groundswell, so many interesting people are willing to share their experiences and curiosity can take over.
One of my absolute favourite memories captures this beautifully. It was my second Groundswell; my head was spinning with all the new concepts I was learning, and I’d spent the day getting “gently” interrogated by farmers about the nuances of carbon footprinting. As the sun set, I finally met up with my FCT colleagues over dinner.
I was bursting with questions. I remember grilling our Advisors about the mechanics of calf-at-foot dairy systems: Why did agriculture move away from this? What are the practical challenges today? How does it impact milk yield? To have a team of brilliant colleagues who could lay it all out for me over a beer was incredible. Often, the answer in regenerative agriculture is: “We might not have all the peer-reviewed research yet, but here is the anecdotal data from a farmer I spoke to last week who is making it work.”
That willingness to openly share stories, the hard data alongside the lived experience, is the true magic of Groundswell. It highlights exactly what we try to do at FCT. Measuring a carbon footprint isn’t a box-ticking exercise; it is a powerful lens for understanding your whole farm ecosystem, reducing inputs, and backing up farmer intuition with field-scale data.
Bulk density is a soil property commonly measured when soil testing, particularly in relation to measuring soil carbon. An important component of measuring soil health, it can provide farmers and growers guidance on what to focus on following testing.
What is Bulk Density?
Bulk density measures the mass of a known volume of soil, including the pore space – i.e. how tightly or loosely it is packed together – which has a huge impact on important soil processes. For example, if a soil is unusually tight it can affect porosity, which in turn affects water infiltration and soil aeration. Consequently, when these processes are inhibited it can negatively impact soil and plant health, reducing farm productivity. This is why compaction issues are a key focus of soil health discussions.
Soil Texture and Bulk Density
In order to understand what the bulk densities of our soils should look like, we also need to understand how soil texture plays an important role in determining the natural range of bulk densities.
Peat generally has a very low bulk density (as low as 0.2 g/cm3) due to its high organic matter content, allowing for a high amount of porosity. Cultivated fine textured soils, such as clays and silt loams, often have bulk densities in the middle of the range (between 0.9g/cm3–1.5g/cm3), whilst cultivated sandy soils tend to have higher bulk densities (1.25g/cm3–1.75g/cm3). To give you an idea of what an extremely high bulk density looks and feels like, concrete has a value of 2.5g/cm3.
The key part to remember is that each soil type has an inherent bulk density range, and while occupying a lower or middle part of the range is generally desirable, this is heavily context dependent.
Bulk Density and Management
Although bulk density is determined by soil texture, how soil is managed will also contribute to the final figure. Heavy equipment, cultivation or grazing in unsuitable conditions and unsuitable nutrient management can all drive up bulk densities into ranges that will cause problems later on. Avoiding these practices – whilst increasing soil organic matter (SOM) and optimising soil health – will help to keep bulk densities in a range suitable for optimal productivity. If in doubt about what your range should be on farm, finding and examining the soil in undisturbed areas that share the same soil texture as your main cropping or grassland areas (such as in hedge bottoms) can help to give a baseline.
Bulk density and carbon
Although bulk density can reveal insights into soil structure and health, it is most commonly measured in order to quantify carbon stocks. When carbon samples are taken and analysed they are expressed as a carbon concentration (C%) of the soil sample, but in order to quantify the amount of carbon in the specific field we must know the mass of soil within a given volume. If soil carbon is being measured at different depths, then a measurement of bulk density must also be taken at those depths.
How do we take it?
There are different approaches to taking bulk densities. The most common method used is the intact core approach, which is what we use at FCT. For each depth being sampled, we use a core of a known volume, insert it into the soil at the depth and then carefully remove it to be sent away for lab analysis. When we receive the data back we can then use a simple formula to calculate the carbon stock.
SOC stock (tC/ha) = Bulk Density g/cm³ x Depth (cm) x OC(%) x 10
Conclusion: Key points about bulk density
On farm sampling is a balance between scientific rigour, cost and practicality. In order to help farmers with this, we offer the following guidance on bulk density sampling:
Measuring Carbon Stocks – When sampling for carbon, bulk density should also be taken to enable carbon stocks to be quantified
Accounting For Depth – Bulk density will change at different depths, so taking at least a sample per depth per field is necessary in combination with the sampling for carbon at different depths
Choosing Location – The location for a bulk density sample should be representative of the primary field conditions. As with sampling for other soil properties, atypical areas such as gateways and headlands should be avoided
Stony Soils – If you have stony soils, you may be required to take multiple bulk density measurement as stones can introduce variability that requires more data to overcome
If you’ve read this article and still feel overwhelmed by the information about soil sampling, please feel free to contact us with your questions. As the science evolves and new technologies develop, more user friendly and practical approaches are emerging for farmers and growers to use.
By Becky Willson, Business Development & Technical Director
Attend any soil-related farm event, and you will be recommended to go home and take samples for analysis to give you a baseline. When I am giving talks myself, I have a slide that says – the best time to start testing soil organic matter (or carbon) was 20 years ago; the second best time is now – so data and baselining is really important. With the rise of regenerative agriculture and the focus on agriculture’s ability to provide climate solutions, having data and evidence to quantify the impact of activities is crucial.
However, within agriculture anything to do with delivering climate solutions is not linear and predictable; we are dealing with complex biological systems inherently dependent on the weather and huge variability in soil type, farming systems and management. This is where sampling can provide insights – sampling (as long as it is representative and taken following best practice) over time can provide insights into the impact of practices on individual farms and give confidence that things are moving in the right direction. But this takes time, and can prove challenging when results from the lab don’t show what we would like.
There can be many reasons why samples show a reduction in organic matter (or carbon) when results are received. This can seem disheartening and lead to a lack of confidence in practices or management change. Through extensive resampling we have done as part of various projects; we have seen a real mix of fields that have increased, dropped and maintained carbon, which can often beg the question – what is happening?
Consistency matters
If you are re-sampling fields that have been previously sampled, then the golden rule is consistency. It’s imperative that samples are taken at the same time of year, sent for analysis to the same lab, and using the same analytical technique. This is because in order to have confidence that the change in organic carbon is down to management, all other variables need to be controlled for.
One of the key challenges that often occurs is that historically, any samples may well have been analysed for organic matter (using Loss on Ignition analysis) and now recommendations (and requirements for carbon markets) are to analyse organic carbon content (using DUMAS analysis).
The conundrum is therefore: do you maintain consistency and use LOI to be able to show progress over time, or start using DUMAS analysis and thus negate your ability to compare to previous samples? For new fields that haven’t been sampled before – and for accuracy and to give yourself the best chance of accessing funding in the future – analyse for carbon using DUMAS. However, for fields that have been previously analysed using LOI, then consistency is required. Because loss on ignition analysis is more variable it is even more important to ensure that sampling locations, seasonality and the lab are consistent, otherwise results that you get back may not be truly reflective of what’s actually happening in the field.
For best practice in sampling for carbon, why not read our guidance document.
Sample location in the field should also be marked to allow for resampling to be taken in the same locations. Fields that are in perennial cropping or are managed using a direct drill or min till system will tend to be more variable than fields which are cultivated regularly, and so sample location is even more important in these fields.
Depth of sampling
Sample depth is very important when sampling for carbon. Ultimately the agronomic benefits of increasing soil organic carbon lie in improving soil function, nutrient cycling, water infiltration and resilience. If we are able to manage fields in a way which allows for deeper rooting, limited disturbance and diverse rotations, carbon is more likely to be sequestered in the lower soil horizons. The highest concentration of carbon is in the top soil, however this carbon is the most likely to be released due to biological activity; as you go deeper into the soil, there is a lower concentration of organic carbon, but it is more stable.
Ensuring that you are sampling to a consistent depth is important, for example – if you have sampled in year 1 to a depth of 10cm, and then you sample a bit deeper when you resample, it may well be that the carbon percentage declines; not because you have lost carbon, but because the sample is from lower in the soil profile. The FAO recommendation for carbon sampling is to sample to 30cm, and sampling for carbon markets often takes several samples from the same pit down to 1m to be able to quantify the total carbon stock and concentration at different depths.
There are also some thoughts that, as soils are managed in a way that builds carbon, the total volume of soil increases; thus you may be sampling to the same depth but the horizons have moved, and previously you were sampling top soil and now you are sampling sub soil. More research into being able to take account of total soil volume and identifying horizons will allow for a deeper understanding of key practices that are building soil.
Weather and sampling frequency
Weather plays a major role in shaping soil carbon levels, influencing both how much carbon is stored in the soil and how quickly it is lost. Warm temperatures tend to accelerate microbial activity, which can increase the breakdown of organic matter and release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. In contrast, cooler conditions slow this process, helping soils retain carbon for longer periods. Rainfall is equally important: adequate moisture supports plant growth and the return of crop residues to the soil, boosting carbon inputs, while excessive rainfall can lead to waterlogging and carbon loss through runoff or erosion. Drought conditions reduce plant productivity and limit organic matter inputs, gradually depleting soil carbon stocks.
As such, understanding these weather-driven patterns is key to managing practices – such as cover cropping, reduced tillage, and residue management – that help protect and build soil carbon despite changing climate conditions. This is why sampling frequency is important; don’t sample too often as results may well be showing fluctuations in microbial activity rather than stable carbon. Recommendations are to sample no more frequently than every 5 years (ideally every 10 years), but this is often difficult to balance alongside the need to have data to ‘prove’ the impact of farming systems.
Anecdotally, we are seeing some farms – especially during extended hot periods like last summer – managing to maintain performance (either forage quantity or crop growth), despite a loss of soil carbon. This may well be that these farms are utilising the carbon within the soils to drive production (almost like withdrawing funds from your bank account), as part of the carbon cycle in the extractive phase, which will then be rebuilt over time. As we are seeing more and more extreme weather, the link between soil carbon and resilience is crucial for maintaining in-field performance.
Is it all just about carbon?
One of the challenges that we have, especially with the development of the carbon marketplaces, is that soil metrics become solely about carbon. Carbon is one metric and one option for soil analysis but it isn’t the only metric. Something that has been incredibly valuable for us while completing numerous soil samples across projects is completing soil health observations to be able to complement the lab analysis. When we therefore get a result that doesn’t go the way that we want from a soil carbon perspective, we then have other data to correlate it with; as such, can we see that the field is compacted, or that the biological activity is lower than we would like.
Conversely, it can also be really encouraging for farmers who are changing their practices to see that while carbon levels may be not increasing at as fast a rate as they would like; other measures of soil health and performance are, which gives confidence that it is the right thing to do.
We should not only be focusing on increasing soil carbon but increased soil health and functionality, which allows us to be more resilient and profitable.
We have too often in the past seen the impact of only focussing on one metric, especially on a metric which is still very early in development. If you can go and dig a hole at the same time as taking your samples for lab analysis and note down how the soil is structured, what the plant roots are doing and the number of worms you find, it will allow for much more detailed understanding of management and engage you so much more in your soil than merely receiving a report back from the lab.
Carbon is important, yes, but in isolation can lead to mistrust and confusion. So as we move into the spring, let’s go and assess our most cherished resource on the farm and ensure that it is functioning well across all parameters which provides a solid foundation for a resilient business.
The core mission of a farm carbon calculator is to provide a comprehensive view of the emissions and sequestration your farm is responsible for, both directly and indirectly. As footprinting standards evolve, our ability to calculate this complexity is becoming more complete, but we are not perfect, and there is a gap in embedded emissions that the current standards and guidance overlook.
Footprinting recap: what are Embedded Emissions?
Indirect emissions (often called embedded emissions) are those generated by the goods or services your farm purchases. This includes the emissions from manufacturing the fertilisers being spread or the emissions from the mill rolling barley and trucking it from a merchant to your gate.
Accounting for these embedded emissions is no longer optional; it is critical for supply chain reporting and meeting rigorous standards like the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for dairy or the World Resources Institute (WRI) Corporate Value Chain Standard, so it is essential that we capture the embedded emissions in ALL farm purchases.
The “Gap” in Farm Footprinting
While calculators have long tracked emissions for fuels, feed and fertiliser, one area has historically been overlooked: the embedded emissions in purchased livestock.
Whether you are buying replacement dairy heifers, or store calves or point-of-lay hens, those animals arrive on your farm with a “carbon debt” from their previous life stages. Excluding this data leads to:
Underestimated footprints for finishing farms or flying herds.
Inconsistent comparisons between farms that breed replacements versus those that buy them.
Missed opportunities for supply chain mitigation.
A Harmonised Approach
Rather than waiting for international bodies to catch up, we have collaborated with Agrecalc, Cool Farm Platform, and Eggbase to create a standardised, globally applicable methodology for embedded livestock emissions. As key players in the UK farm carbon footprinting field, it is important that we not only hold each other to a high standard, but we make sure that all tools are improved and present farmer data in the fairest and most consistent manner possible.
As a collective, we have created a three-tiered approach to accounting for embedded livestock emissions using publicly available data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). We are leading the charge on implementing these methods, and in our April 2026 update, we are introducing our baseline approach for accounting for livestock embedded emissions in the calculator.
The embedded emissions update
From April 1st, you will see a new option in the Farm Carbon Calculator’s livestock section, where you can add embedded emissions from livestock based on the number of purchased animals and their average liveweight at the time of purchase. Then using the FAO’s Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) data set we attribute emissions intensity values based on the average energy required and emissions produced to rear the livestock to the point of sale. This is a highly reliable and repeatable starting point for all users, and is the base implementation we would expect from all carbon calculators. Two higher tiers of implementation are outlined in the upcoming whitepaper, and we will be aiming to add these to the Farm Carbon Calculator in due course.
How Will This Change Your Footprint?
If you operate a closed flock or herd and do not purchase livestock, your footprint will not change.
However, if you purchase animals for fattening, finishing, or as replacements, you will see an increase in your total emissions to reflect the carbon cost of rearing those animals before they reach your farm, below are some examples of the footprint changes:
Enterprise Overview
Purchased animals
Farm emissions without embedded emissions (current)
Farm emissions with embedded emissions (proposed)
Finishing farm, purchasing low weight beef youngstock for fattening, and ewe lambs for expanding breeding flock.
Soil is the most important resource that we have on the farm – and as those soils start to warm up and the grass starts to grow in the Spring, it’s a really good time to start thinking about soil analysis.
With volatile fertiliser prices and an increasingly extreme weather system, sampling can put you on the front foot. By providing us with insights into how our soils are performing, understanding the nutrient content of what you’ve got in the field is a great business benefit – allowing you to adjust your inputs accordingly.
Where do you need to start?
If you’re going to spend the money sending samples off for analysis, it’s really important to take a good sample. So, make sure that you are taking a representative sample of your field by:
Walking the field in a W.
Avoiding tram lines and gateways, to really make sure that the sample is a representative of that field – and so you can have confidence when making management decisions.
Making sure that when you send samples off you understanding the test that you’re doing:
Are you just looking at pH and those macronutrients?;
Do you also want to think about organic matter?;
Is carbon an aspect you may want to consider?
And while you’re out, it’s a really good opportunity for you to use your spade to really start to look at the impact of the winter on your soil health. Because if you can get that soil working well, not only are you going to have a resilient farm, but you’re really going to set yourself up to have a really good season moving forward.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent Comments