Category: Insights

Methane Inhibitors in Ruminant Diets and their impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Posted on January 28, 2025 by - Insights

Written by Tim Dart / Project Manager, Farm Carbon Toolkit

This article reviews the mechanisms and inputs to ruminant diets which are known to impact greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It explores how these can be used by ruminant livestock farmers, alongside their limitations and the need for more research into more systems-based approaches to reduce methane emissions from ruminants.

Download this article as a PDF

Background

Methane (CH4) is an important greenhouse gas in livestock-based agriculture as it is particularly potent. Over a 20-year period, methane is approximately 80 times more powerful at heating the earth than carbon dioxide (CO2), though it dissipates much more quickly (7-12 years) compared to CO2.  Because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, anything that can be done to reduce those emissions cost-effectively and without negative impacts on animal health, welfare and productivity is beneficial. 

Ruminant animals have diverse microbial populations in their stomachs and these form a natural ecosystem in their own right. Anaerobic fermentation is a key process in the digestion of natural forage-based diets. Methane is released by anaerobic microbial activity through a process called methanogenesis and is consequentially released into the atmosphere as a by-product of digestion. Methane production also results in a loss of gross ingested energy and reduces animal growth and development, so minimising methane production can in theory lead to an increase in animal growth and productivity. 

All ruminants (cattle, but also sheep and goats) together, contribute 30% of global methane released into the earth’s atmosphere. While this briefing focuses on methane inhibitors in ruminant diets, there are also opportunities to reduce methane emissions post-digestion, such as through manure and slurry management, biodigesters and activity to increase dung beetle activity. This will be the focus of a forthcoming briefing. Strategies to reduce enteric methane production are a major focus of research, due to the significance of methane. Initiatives like the Global Methane Hub are leading work on increasing our understanding of the mechanisms for reducing methane production safely in ruminants. Feasible approaches include improved animal and feed management, such as diet formulation, which has shown potential for meaningful emissions reductions. This is an active area of interest for organisations such as the Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT) alongside our work on strategies to reduce enteric methane production post leaving the digestive system.

The commercial backdrop

FCT is aware of the significant ongoing efforts to develop products aimed at reducing methane emissions. Much of this work has focused on supplements that can be added to the animal’s diets, as these offer clear commercial opportunities for manufacturers. However, generating robust scientific data to support solutions based on practice changes, rather than commercially sold products, has been more challenging. As a result, these approaches and beneficial practices are underrepresented in discussions about methane reduction, due to the current lack of robust evidence demonstrating their effectiveness. 

Adding supplements to ruminant diets becomes difficult to achieve when those animals are consuming a forage-based diet, grazing in the wider environment and consuming a variable and diverse range of plant species. In these situations, research into the makeup of these forages which can reduce emissions is taking place, but with no patentable product to promote, the investment in research and development is understandably less intense. As such, FCT as a farmer-led community interest company, may have a legitimate role in seeking to facilitate and advance the science in this area of research and development.

Feed supplements are now becoming commercially available in the UK. The most common supplement currently is 3-NOP (Bovaer®) which has drawn the attention of the media in recent weeks. There are thought to be other products in advanced development that are now close to market. There are other strategies and approaches where scientific data has established methane inhibitory activity which we discuss below.

Current understanding of Methane Inhibitors and their mode of action

Bovaer®

Bovaer is a synthetically manufactured enzyme inhibitor with an active ingredient called 3-Nitrooxypropanol (hence 3-NOP Bovaer). It is scientifically referred to as a Methyl co-enzyme or M reductase Inhibitor, meaning it blocks the activity of a combination of enzymes that breaks down organic compounds (under anaerobic conditions found in the rumen) and therefore prevents the final biochemical stage of methane release. It is called a reductase process (a reduction process) that would normally result in the breakdown of a glucose chain (a sugar) into CH4 (a methane compound). 3-NOP inhibits that activity.

The Food Standards Agency Website states:

Bovaer has undergone rigorous safety checks by the Food Standards Agency as part of its market authorisation process and is approved for use, and is considered safe for the consumers of milk and beef. It has been demonstrated to be safe for the animal, consumers, workers and the environment.

The dosage of Bovaer is recommended at 1 gram per 20 kg of feed (label recommendation). The manufacturer claims that a 45% reduction in methane emissions for dairy cows and 30% for beef cattle, is achievable, but only when the supplement is fed within a blended or total mixed ration.

Seaweed

Microalgae, commonly known as seaweed, are a large group of marine plants, made up of three relevant taxa: Rhodophyta (red), Chlorophyta (green) and Phaeophyceae (brown). Bromoform is found in the highest concentrations in red seaweed Aspargopsis, which is grown in subtropical regions around the world. Brormoform is also found in lower concentrations in the brown and green seaweed groups which are more ubiquitous and widespread in the world’s oceans. Feed additives derived from Asparagopsis have reduced methane emissions by 40+% and 90% respectively.

Bromoform (CHBR3) has proven to be highly effective at inhibiting methanogenesis along with other halogenated volatile organic compounds. These VOCs effectively bind to enzymes and reductases, reducing H2 and CO2 release and through archaeal organisms these produce CH4. 

There are some studies and claims that Bromoform promotes increases in animal productivity, but other studies report modest reductions in milk yields (-6.5%) this appears to occur when reductions in animal intakes of feed are also observed. There has also been some evidence of abnormalities of the rumen walls of participating animals in such studies, with the loss of papillae and microscopic inflammation found in two studies, although the studies were not able to directly conclude that damage to the rumen was as a result of A.taxiformis supplementation. It is clear that there are discrepancies within the results of the various studies undertaken using Bromoform and that the energy in the H2 compounds resulting from the reductase reaction is not 100% possible to be re-diverted into volatile fatty acids and appears to require the expansion of H2 sinks within the rumen and is seen as an area of further developmental work.

There are numerous other bioactive compounds within the microalgae plants / seaweeds, and are known to produce other compounds that have anti-microbial function that could modify the rumen environment and reduce methane emissions in different ways. These include; phlorotannis, saponins, sulfonated glycans and other halocarbons and bacteriocins, these are the source of ongoing research and developmental work.

Condensed Tannins

Condensed Tannins (CT’s) are commonly found in high concentrations in various UK native flora, including Greater Birdsfoot Trefoil, Birdsfoot Trefoil and Sainfoin. These are all commonly found in herbal leys. CT’s are complex plant polymers of polyphenols found in legumes and other C3-type plants. CT’s are considered to reduce methane emissions through the following mechanisms:

  • Reducing fibre fermentation
  • Inhibiting the growth of methanogenic micro-organisms
  • Acting directly against hydrogen-producing microbes.

CT’s are able to bind to proteins, polysaccharides and metal ions and inhibit fibre digestion of longer-chain starch, cellulose and hemi-cellulose. As such CT’s consequently reduce the formation of hydrogen and acetate and inhibits the growth of methanogenic microorganisms, thus reducing enteric CH4.

Excessive inclusion of biologically active Condensed Tannins within ruminant diets have been found to be detrimental if it exceeds 6% of the overall animal diet in terms of dry matter intake (DMI). Elevated levels have been found to impact negatively on animal performance in terms of growth rate or milk yield. Target inclusion of CT’s are recommended to between 2 and 4% where improvements in animal performance can be achieved. The scientific quantification of the impact of CT’s on Methane emissions is not clear, with the research inconsistent with the work that has been published to date, but it is not considered inconsequential.

From other parts of the world, studies (predominantly Australia) are being undertaken on management practices and cattle browsing legumes known to hold high levels of Tannins, Desmanthus or Leucaena species. Leuceana is a tropical and sub-tropical legume fodder crop and Desmanthus is a tropical legume. The inclusion of both crops in ruminant diets has been shown to improve live weight gains and reduce methane emissions in cattle.

Diversity and grazing diets

By embracing the diversity of grazing diets, there is potential to reduce ruminant emissions through a whole-systems approach. This involves increasing the overall dietary content of tannins coming from multiple grazed forage species, such as herbal leys, willow and other silvopastoral feeds. This can achieve a measurable and meaningful reduction in enteric methane production. However, achieving this requires investment and expansion of knowledge and empirical quantification.

Other options

Other options for exploring enteric methane production, including but not exhaustively:

  • Genetic selection 
  • Vaccination
  • Feeding of grape marc (which is high in Tannins)
  • Adding nitrate or biochar to feed

Conclusion

This is a dynamic area of development and knowledge exploration on GHG emissions, with many complex interconnections to broader environmental concerns. It is important to recognise these links, which include, but are not limited to, animal welfare, animal longevity, as well as other sustainability factors such as biodiversity, water quality, air quality. These, along with other far-reaching sustainability goals, must be carefully balanced to inform the best possible decisions.

How Introducing Pulses into UK Arable Crop Rotations Could Reduce Emissions

Posted on January 22, 2025 by - Insights

Agricultural emissions could potentially be reduced by 3.4Mt CO2e by replacing half of soyabean meal in livestock feed with homegrown pulses as a result of reduced deforestation and land use change, lower synthetic fertiliser use and fuel savings. We are delighted to share more detail with you here.

Download this post as a PDF here.

In 2023, only 6.3% of the UK’s 4.3 million hectares of cropping land grew beans or pulses. These crops have significant agricultural potential; offering soil health benefits, livestock feed options, and alternatives to currently stressed rotations. The NCS project hopes to harness this potential by expanding the pulse cropping to 20% of the total arable area in the UK. This would involve increasing the annual area of beans and pulses grown from 275,090 ha’s (6.3%) to 874,026 ha’s (20%).

The impact of expanding pulse cropping

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

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

Reducing fuel usage

Growing and harvesting pulses requires less fuel than growing cereal crops. FCT modelling on the operations needed to grow cereals indicates that 91 litres of diesel/ha is required, compared to 84 litres/ha to grow beans and pulses. This reduces emissions by 37,524.09 tCO2e when scaled out across the UK arable area.

Reducing fertiliser reliance

Growing pulses like peas and beans reduces reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilisers both during the pulses cropping year and for subsequent crops, as these plants fix nitrogen into the soil. In 2023, the UK applied an average of 125 kg N/ha of fertiliser, totalling 546,266 tonnes and emitting 3.6 MT CO2e. By expanding pulse cultivation, the UK could save 74,867 tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser annually, directly avoiding 494,925 tCO2e emissions. Moreover, pulse residues can enhance nitrogen availability for subsequent crops, amounting to 35–70 kg N/ha (depending on soil conditions etc.). This could save an additional 20,963–41,926 tonnes of nitrogen annually across the UK, equating to 138,580-277,160 tCO2e.

Substitution of imported soya feed

In 2023, the UK imported 2.37 million tonnes of soya feed, 74% from South America, resulting in 7.3 MT CO2e emissions. UK grown beans could replace some of this soya, substantially reducing the footprint of animal feed. If all UK grown beans within the scenario proposed by NCS were used within compound feeds and straights, they could replace 96% of soya imports, avoiding 5.3 MT CO2e.

A more realistic scenario is replacing 50% of imported soya with 1.95 million tonnes of UK
beans, requiring 454,468 hectares (52% of beans/peas cropping area). This would cut
feed emissions to 4.5 MT CO2e, saving 2.8 MT CO2e compared to current levels of soya imports.

Conclusion

The expansion of beans and pulses to cover 20% of the UK cropping area could save 3.4
MT CO2e (equivalent to 7% of UK agriculture’s total emissions). This would increase if more
of the beans and pulses grown could displace imported soyabean meal.

Sources:

  • Fertiliser data from the British Survey of Fertiliser Practice, 2023
  • Land use data from DEFRA land use and crop areas 2023
  • Fuel usage based on FCT modelling of the field operations
  • Soya imports from EFECA and UK soya manifesto, 2024 progress
    report
  • Protein content: Johnston et al, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
    livsci.2018.12.015

Bringing new and novel fertilisers into Calculators: a call for further collaboration 

Posted on January 16, 2025 by - Insights, News

This month marks a year since the publication of the ‘Harmonisation of Carbon Accounting Tools for Agriculture’ report commissioned by Defra and produced by ADAS. 

The collaborative efforts of the three leading carbon calculators resulted in significant progress being made, especially in the area of harmonisation on methods to bring new and novel fertilisers into our Calculators.

An opportunity for harmonisation

Commissioned by Defra in 2022, the independent ADAS report sought to explore the level of divergence in carbon assessments between carbon calculators and provide recommendations for harmonisation, with the ultimate goal of ensuring comparability of results between the different providers. As the report states:

It is not about identification of which calculator is better or worse than others. It is intended that the insights from this analysis will help inform a potential approach that will enable providers to develop their calculators in a way that creates increased comparability of results while still allowing innovation.

Successful collaboration

In response to the publication of the report, three of the UK’s major carbon calculators – Agrecalc, Cool Farm Tool, and the Farm Carbon Calculator – agreed to work together in June 2024 to harmonise their calculator methodologies, on the understanding that such work would ultimately benefit all their end users. 

Since that initial meeting, we are pleased to report significant progress on one area of divergence identified by ADAS between the different calculators reviewed, namely fertiliser embedded emissions.  In addition, we are working on Calculator interoperability to enable data transfer between Calculators.

We have recently established an Industry Fertiliser Steering Group to explore how new and novel fertilisers with lower carbon footprints should be incorporated into all carbon calculators. This work is being kindly supported by the Agriculture Industries Confederation (AIC). With a range of new and novel fertilisers being developed and introduced into the UK, it is important that any emissions reductions brought about by these products can be accurately accounted for by the calculator tools. 

Join us

Following the successful collaboration between Agrecalc, Cool Farm Tool, and the Farm Carbon Calculator, we are keen to invite other calculator providers who also publicly provide transparency in their calculator methodologies to join us on this harmonisation activity.  Liz Bowles, CEO of Farm Carbon Toolkit said:

We are keen to support all Calculators who wish to work together for the benefit of the agricultural sector.

Our mutual goal is collaboration with industry, trade bodies, and fellow calculator providers in the UK and internationally, so that we can actively contribute to the development of more consistent approaches to on-farm carbon calculation, for the ultimate benefit of our varied customers. We look forward to hearing from you.

Additional Information

This positive, collaborative work has come about as a direct result of the ADAS report commissioned by Defra. Further information on the report is set out below, together with some key aspects to assist everyone in the agri-food sector to understand more about how farm-based greenhouse gas emissions are estimated.

The purpose of the ADAS work

This project was developed to quantify the level of divergence in the calculation of farm-level emissions between a selection of the main carbon calculators on the market, understand the causes of this divergence, and determine how those differences might impact the user. By its nature, the report focuses on the differences between calculators and the challenges of providing robust estimations while making the process accessible to non-expert users. 

However, as the report states:

It is important to recognise that despite these challenges the calculators are all able to provide the farmer with a baseline understanding of emissions and can facilitate the start, and ongoing development, of a decarbonisation process.

Fundamentals of all Farm Carbon Calculators

As the report states:

all carbon calculators are models; there is no single correct answer as they are aiming to simplify a complex biological system

However, it is important to understand why there are differences in results between calculators and identify ways to minimise these differences. 

Harmonisation of calculators aims to ensure greater levels of precision of outputs, while recognising the need to simplify data entry to support the use by non-expert users (e.g., farmers), in order to facilitate the provision of consistent guidance to farmers to support their decarbonisation efforts.

Findings of the work

The report did not recommend any one calculator as being superior to the other calculators investigated. Indeed, what has become clear is that different calculators ask different questions and there is currently no one standard question. 

It is important for farmers and growers to look at how individual calculators work for them in providing results at a product, enterprise or whole farm level and seek one which meets their specific needs. The report set out the main areas where ADAS found differences between how the calculators dealt with different types of emissions and how the boundaries for such measurements were set.

Conclusions

It is clear that there is still much work to be done by all calculators to ensure they remain aligned with emerging guidance as this science develops and matures. The good news is that data standards harmonisation is underway, driven by the tool owners themselves. 

While there continues to be a range of different user and supply chain requirements for a farm carbon footprint (from corporate scope 3 reporting and risk management planning to product footprinting and on-farm resilience planning) there will be an ecosystem of different tools and providers to meet this range of needs. One size does not fit all in this space!

To identify which Calculator might suit you best, AHDB has set out a useful set of questions to guide you: Carbon footprint calculators – what to ask to help you choose | AHDB

Notes to Editors

As the UK agricultural supply industry’s leading trade association, the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) represents businesses in key sectors within the supply chains that feed the nation.

Its Member businesses supply UK farmers and growers with animal feed, fertiliser, seed, crop protection products, trusted advice and quality services that are essential to producing food, as well as trading crops and commodities across the globe.

Formed in October 2003 by a merger of three trade associations, today AIC has over 230 Members in the agri-supply trade and represents £17.8 billion* turnover at farmgate.

AIC works on behalf of its Members by lobbying policymakers and stakeholders, delivering information, providing trade assurance schemes, and offering technical support.

www.agindustries.org.uk

*According to a 2023 survey of AIC Members.

Farm Carbon Toolkit is an independent, farmer-led Community Interest Company, supporting farmers to measure, understand and act on their greenhouse gas emissions while improving their business resilience for the future.

The Farm Carbon Calculator uses the IPCC 2019 and UK GHG Inventory methodologies and is aligned with the GHG protocol agricultural guidance.  Recent developments have allowed us to provide greater interoperability with other data platforms through our Report Export API and Carbon Calculation Engine API. This represents a step-change in the industry’s ability to provide trustworthy carbon footprints with transparent methodologies on platforms where farmers already collect data, thus reducing the data inputting onus on farmers. This new functionality has been warmly welcomed by supply chain businesses who are now using our Calculation Engine to support their customers without the need for further data entry.

The Farm Carbon Calculator is used across the UK and on four continents with global usage growing at around 20% per year.

For over a decade, Farm Carbon Toolkit has delivered a range of practical projects, tools and services that have inspired real action on the ground. Organisations they work with include the Duchy of Cornwall, First Milk, Tesco, Yeo Valley and WWF. The Farm Carbon Calculator is a leading on-farm carbon audit tool, used by over 8,000 farmers in the UK and beyond. To find out more visit www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk  

Media contact: Rachel Hucker (rachel.hucker@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk 07541 453413)

Agrecalc, a carbon footprint tool developed by combining practical expertise with world-class agricultural science, is a precise instrument that offers both breadth and depth of on-farm and through-the-supply-chain calculations of GHG gas emissions.

Agrecalc is the largest source of collated farm benchmark data from thousands of farms, having been used as the designated tool to deliver carbon audits under various schemes since 2016. It is recognised as the preferred carbon calculator in many of the emerging government programmes.

With a mission to increase efficiency and business viability of food production, the scientists, consultants, and developers who work on Agrecalc, strive to constantly upgrade the calculator according to the most up-to-date available research results and recommendations.

Media contact: Aleksandra Stevanovic, Head of Marketing; (aleksandra.stevanovic@agrecalc.com; 07551 263 407)

Cool Farm Alliance is a science-led, not-for-profit membership organisation (community interest company) that owns, manages, and improves the Cool Farm Tool and cultivates the leadership network to advance regenerative agriculture at scale.

For over fifteen years, the Cool Farm Alliance has worked to put knowledge in the hands of farmers and empower the full supply chain to understand and support agro-ecological restoration by providing a respected, standardised calculation engine to measure and report on agriculture’s impact on the environment. The Cool Farm Tool has established widely endorsed, science-based metrics for water, climate, and biodiversity, supported in 17 languages and used in more than 150 countries around the world.

Cool Farm Alliance members share the need for a respected, consistent, standardised, independent calculation engine and have joined the Alliance to ensure the Cool Farm Tool meets this need, now and in the future.  To find out more visit https://coolfarm.org/

Media contact: Kandia Appadoo (comms@coolfarmtool.org)

Why protecting the soil from changing weather matters

Posted on December 14, 2024 by - Insights

In this series, we look at the changes in management that farmers and growers are taking in response to a changing climate. We’re looking at the tips, techniques and approaches that are borne out of the lived experience of farmers and growers, in response to a changing climate driven by global heating. 

FCT exists to help food and farming businesses to reduce their carbon footprint, but increasingly every farming business also is having to adapt to the climate that we now have. It’s therefore vital that food and farming does both climate mitigation and adaptation at the same time.

Pitney Farm Market Garden

Adam Beer and Rita Oldenberg run Pitney Farm Market Garden in Somerset, with 4.5 acres of organic vegetables, sold locally. They have been recognised as the 2024 Young Organic Growers of the Year https://www.organicresearchcentre.com/news-events/news/yofgy-winners2024/  and are very active in the organic growing movement. 

Adam and Rita, with their daughter

Over recent years they have noticed a change in weather patterns, which has affected their farm in significant ways. Adam comments:

“The increasing frequency and intensity of high rainfall events coming with our changing climate are causing challenges in crop planning, and significant impacts on our soil. Soil erosion and water infiltration can be made much worse by heavy rainfall, especially in short amounts of time, as we’ve been experiencing.”

Indeed, research by EJP Soils shows that changes in rainfall patterns across Europe will be responsible for up to 23% more soil erosion by 2050. This could have very significant impacts on soil health, water quality and could lead to significant losses of soil carbon – the one major asset that farmers have to sequester carbon on their farmland.

The UK Met Office predict that rainfall will get more intense in both summer and winter over coming years and decades, in particular with very local variations; in other words, hard to predict and plan for.

Protecting the soil

Whilst we can’t influence the weather, we can respond to the weather patterns as we see them emerging. A good example is how we manage our soils, as this is so fundamental to food and farming. It is well known that leaving soil uncovered (in arable and horticultural systems) can lead to soil erosion, a decrease in soil organic matter, a loss of soil biodiversity, and other negative impacts on soil health and structure. 

In turn, bare soil can have significant short and long term impacts on crop health, quality and yields. Water courses can end up being clogged up with soil and full of the nutrients that should be in our fields. Carbon can be oxidised and lost to the atmosphere, so that soils emit rather than sequester carbon.

Working out ways to change farming systems to be more resilient to these changes in climate will be critical for all farmers and growers. There are range of ways to build a more resilient soil, as Adam discusses:

“Over the last few years, we have changed our soil management practices. We’re working towards improving and maintaining soil health through regenerative principles. We’ve reduced tillage significantly, ploughing just one year in four now, and using pig tail tines as primary cultivation, with a power harrow. We’re also rotating some land with livestock and we’re very keen on keeping living roots in the soil as much as possible.

An example of standing water in tractor wheelings and a bed of carrots just harvested, with bare soil visible

Importantly we’ve really increased plant diversity and soil coverage. We’re constantly undersowing crops, so 80-90% of all fields have a green manure of some sort. This reduces exposure of soil to the weather, builds fertility and increases biodiversity.

There are three rotations across the market garden. Fertility building leys make up about 20-25% of land in any given year. Here we’re using 10-15 different varieties, including clovers, and annuals or biannuals – no long term grasses, we prefer cereals like rye oats and barley, plus winter wheat. We’re aiming to put in more deeper rooted species such as plantain, buckthorn, chicory, yarrow. 

Deep rooting species can help improve soil structure and water infiltration

We also add manures (from our landlord’s organic farm), the amount being crop dependent. But with Soil Organic Matter levels at over 7%, we don’t need to add too much manure, and increasingly the green manures are performing that fertility building role.”

The impacts

Seeing is believing, and farmers and growers tend to learn a lot from looking at each other’s farms and understanding what others do differently. Knowing when something is working can be self-evident to farmers, not necessarily needing research to back it up. 

At Pitney Farm Market Garden, Adam describes the impact of the changes they’ve made:

“Water infiltration rates on the areas covered by green manures are so much better; it’s obvious just to look at. There is no standing water on the green manures, even after heavy rain, whereas in the wheelings and a few bare beds there is standing water. This is evidence enough to me that we’re doing something right.

Kale with red and crimson clover undersown

Living plants cover the soil, reducing the speed and intensity that rain hits the soil. Roots help water sink into the ground, massively increasing infiltration rates and stopping the water running off the surface and carrying soil with it.

Soil improvements through Adam and Rita’s management have led to much improved water infiltration through better soil structure and aggregation

The healthier a soil is, with better aggregation, the faster the infiltration rate will be, meaning the larger amount of rainfall that the soil can deal with. We’re seeing good aggregation now in the top four inches of soil and lots of earthworms. We’re hoping that by introducing more deeper rooting species that aggregation will improve further down the soil profile.”

Bigger picture

When it comes to managing these issues of flooding and drought on a wider scale, Adam shares some thoughts:

“I’m coming to think that undersowing crops and ensuring the soil is covered, is actually an essential practice, not a nice add on. This is because of the increasing frequency and intensity of high rainfall events coming with our changing climate.

A lot of our agricultural soils in this country are in poor health. Many soils – particularly those under maize, are in very poor condition and have very little capacity to hold water.  As the climate deteriorates, more and more farmers have to work harder and harder to produce crops, and do even more to protect our most precious resource, the soil, from harsher conditions.

Green manures and crops side by side, ensuring almost full soil cover at Pitney Farm Market Garden

Is the support, both technically and financially, in place to help farmers across the board to do this? Sadly, I really don’t think it is. The government doesn’t have a handle on it, and is not taking it seriously, which is really worrying. The climate crisis terrifies me on all sorts of levels. The impacts on global food supply chains and food security could be massive. We need to manage our soils better to both mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as recreating our food systems to build resilience in food and farming.”

Photo credits: Adam Beer

Author: Jonathan Smith

Revisiting Rotmell Farm (Perthshire), Soil Farmer of the Year Winner 2020

Posted on December 2, 2024 by - Case Studies, Insights, Soil Farmer of the Year

Written by Becky Willson, Business Development & Technical Director

On a sunny day in September, farmers gathered at Rotmell Farm to take part in a farm walk with our Soil Farmer of the Year Winner from 2020. Thanks to funding from the AFN+ network, we have been able to revisit two farms this year to understand how their farm and management system has evolved since being awarded. 

Rotmell Farm is 1000 ha, 800ha of which is unimproved pasture – encompassing heather, bracken and wet areas.  The farm sits in the middle of the Tay Valley, and watching how water was moving through the landscape formed a key part of the decision to adapt the management of the farm to focus on soil health and water holding capacity. In order to achieve this the grazing management system was adapted in 2015/6 to include subdividing paddocks and starting to move stock. Since this time the farm has continued to evolve its management style until now where the primary driver for the farm is to use the stock to maximise carbon and nutrient cycling across the farm.  

Alex explained:

I had thought that the moment that we started putting in fencing, subdividing, moving stock and going into taller covers and rotational grazing that we could balance saturations of key nutrients and achieve a system where no inputs were required. We’ve built organic matter and are growing pasture, but the system needs to be continuously managed and adapted to try and achieve that balance. I now regard grazing as an art form.

The event started with a session in the barn to understand the evolution of the system and the key principles that the farm uses to drive performance. A key driver over the last couple of years for Alex has been understanding total nutrition and the ability to balance nutrients to enable optimal soil and biological health. This has involved implementing in depth soil analysis to understand the balance of key nutrients within the soil and intensive observation of plant and animal performance to start to understand how they are working together. This has included a focus on calcium as the driver for improving structure, oxygen levels in the soil, grass production and carbon cycling. 

The whole farm is set up for total nutrition. We are trying to get the biology working to grow high Brix grazing grass to feed to stock, to sell nutrient dense meats and other products into the local market.

The farm sells honey, eggs, and beef locally where the ability to connect the farm with the produce is valuable and helps to cement the farm as part of the local community and allowing them to identify with the produce and where it comes from. 

Alex has adapted his grazing system to encourage more diversity in the leys and to graze taller residuals. He sees far greater value in the hoof impact through trampling than the grazing; when the animals are put into taller covers, they graze the plants higher up and don’t graze the base of the plant, which leads to the carbon rich material being returned to the soil, cycling that carbon to feed the biology.  The intensiveness of movement of the stock helps to get the carbon back down into the soil. The tightness of grazing takes away selection of grass. 

The first field that we went to see has been used as an experimental field to look at species mixes. Alex researched different grass mixes and has returned to a mix that was common in the 1880s which can be used to improve poorer land. The field had been forage rape previously with lambs grazing the aftermath. The field was then disced and the new ley was broadcast, rolled in and then left. It has just had its third grazing, having been grazed with sheep 8 weeks after sowing to encourage it to tiller in late July. It was then grazed with a mob of about 65-70 cattle to break the parasite window and then had a group of 200 ewes with twin lambs. Every time seeds are sown they are mixed with vermicast, humates and fine lime which encourages biological activity around the seeds and ensures the seed has everything it needs to get going. 

Alex really sees the importance of a high seed rate which allows for a thick and vigorous sward but also helps to maximise the value of trampling. He is aiming for 285 plants per m2 and has seen this work well higher up the farm where it is increasing the density of grass and reducing coverage of moss.  

The animals have adapted well to the changing system. All the stock are out all year round, there is no housing. Bales are put out for the winter, with the aim being to set up blocks to shift the cattle every two to three days on a self feed basis. The type of cow has changed as the system has evolved; the animals that cope better in this system are slightly smaller framed and carry flesh. The cows need to be at 350kg at 15 months in order to allow them to calve at 2 years old at around 450kg in the middle of April outside.  Cattle are weighed and recorded regularly to monitor live weight gain and body condition and FEC tested every 90-100 days to monitor worm burdens. The sheep are also weighed regularly to provide insight into which animals and genetics are coping with the system. The sheep are supplemented with rock salt and minerals depending on the pasture and soil analysis.  

It wouldn’t be a soil farmer walk without a group of farmers standing over a soil pit and looking at the impact of the management changes on the soil. Alex has seen changes in soil health, since making the early transition to rotational grazing, however over the last couple of years has been focussing on enabling the biology to thrive and optimising nutrient cycling and the interaction between the soil and the plant roots. As such, two key assessment methods have been useful to show progress which have been the penetrometer and Brix assessments.

I started to get really excited about Brix readings a few years ago, and then really clocked onto it last year. I realised that the taller the plant got the Brix reading grew and grew, we started with 3’s and 4’s, as the covers got to boot stage readings got to 9’s and 10’s which was really exciting. This year, the penetrometer has been a useful tool, the pressure readings had been 250’s and 300 PSI and now we are down to 150, and I think that once we have psi’s of 150 then we are getting oxygen into the soil. We can send soil off to the lab for analysis, but how the soil is structured is a reflection of our management. 

If we find fields that are compacted, I’ll skip them and give them 120 days rest rather than 60 days. We have stopped treating the whole farm as one block and looked at what the field needs and how we can optimise root architecture and plant diversity. Its important to us that every grazing experience is positive.  We want to get to the point where we don’t need to apply anything, although we aren’t there yet. I’m not totally against applying anything, we need energy in the system and if the soils are tight, then we aren’t at optimal soil function, but the aim is to get to the point where we can target nutrition based on soil and plant need

Due to the nature of the farm and that 85% of the farm is hill areas, a key challenge for Alex has been to manage these areas in a way which can control the bracken ingress. He has been managing these areas in order to build capacity higher up, so that the in bye ground can be managed in a way to provide longer recovery periods.  

If I don’t keep enough stock to get on top of the bracken, I will lose the whole farm to it.  We only have 8-10  weeks to influence on that plant when it is above the ground, the other part of the year it is below the ground.  We have implemented a grazing system which is intensively extensive, really hard hitting when we are there – in the summertime we are moving cattle 4 times per day, but then really long recovery periods. Which allows us to knock the top cover of the plant back but not doing enough to impact the biology and chemistry of the plant – which is why we have just brought pigs onto the farm.

Where this has been implemented, the results have been remarkable. Where the bracken has been managed in this way, the pasture regrowth has been diverse – clovers, vetches and grasses alongside yarrow and red clover are now starting to emerge due to the management system. Although bracken in a challenge, Alex also sees the benefits of it when it is controlled as it is mobilising a lot of potassium around the system which can then be used to support the pasture regrowth. The management of these areas is crucial, where extensive management is leading to the development of these bracken areas,  

The base geology between our unimproved and improved land is exactly the same, so the  potential to increase output on that land is vast. The more I think about it, the more I think that soils don’t want to be extensively managed, they want to be intensively managed with long recovery periods. We produce a lot of disturbance and then get off it to let it recover.

The group then went to look at the pigs, the new tool in the bracken control strategy! The aim with the pigs is that their rooting activity will help to chew the roots of the bracken up and add manure to aid nutrient cycling. Following the pigs activity the area will then have seed broadcast to increase forage production. The pigs will also be moved into higher areas to help with the bracken control. 

The final stop on the walk was at some slightly higher country. The field had been soil sampled and the results had shown good levels of organic matter but suppressed levels of biological activity. As such, Alex is conducting some trials looking  at the efficacy of spreading fine lime as a way to improve the calcium content of the soil and enhance the biological activity. Analysis shows that there is most compaction on the farm in the in bye fields, higher up there is less compaction but lower pH’s and less biological activity; as such if we can grow more feed higher up then less forage is required. The farm is using half as much feed as they used to since transitioning to the system. The grass used to be very thatch dominated but there is now an increase in clovers and plantains starting to appear. 

Alex explained his change in thinking to manage for what you want rather than what you want to control.

I was so transfixed about managing bracken, I forgot to manage the grass. So by managing the grass, I build the quality nutrition and manage the soils to get the system working, then the pastoral density comes and will deal with the bracken.

To finish the walk questions turned to what next? Alex has spent the last 6 years gathering data, digging holes and persisting to pull it all together. So for the future, he thinks that the big changes have been done, its more about being observational and tweaking the system to optimise biology. 

Grass is the most undervalued crop and so we are starting to put it in through the introduction of the new leys. We aren’t carrying more livestock but we are spending a lot less money. Its taken me 10 years to understand how to manage this ground.  The failures have been too high- to learn about this we have to get some of it wrong, I’ve never had a year yet where we have got everything right but that is how we learn. Now its time to deliver what we know will work and to drive that system we need nutrition. We’ve been funded to experiment and now the system has to deliver.

Our sincere thanks to the Alex and the team at Rotmell for a fascinating afternoon that gave everyone plenty to think about.

Green Claims Relating to Carbon

Posted on November 21, 2024 by - Insights

Written by Grace Wardell/Calculator Development Officer

Due to an increasing awareness of climate change, more people than ever are interested in the environmental impact of the products they’re buying. But how many of the claims around carbon are true and how can we trust them? The UK Green Claims Code suggests that 40% of green claims made online could be misleading1. As a farm business, it is particularly important to ensure that claims made around carbon or greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and removals are truthful and transparent. Whether you’re being offered ‘low carbon’ fertilisers or want to promote your GHG reductions, navigating green claims can be tricky. 

We know this can feel scary, no one wants to be accused of greenwashing. If you’re looking to make positive environmental claims about your farm, we would advise keeping a record of your working with evidence to back it up. We’ve laid out some key terminology to help get you started with carbon accounting, how you can market it and how you can evaluate the green claims of products you buy.

What are green claims? 

Green claims (also sometimes called ‘environmental claims’ or ‘eco-friendly claims’) are often made by a product or business that claims a benefit to, or a reduced impact on the environment.

Some examples of green claims include: 

  • “This product will reduce the carbon footprint of your farm”
  • “Company’s environmental footprint reduced by 20% since 2015”
  • “CO2 emissions linked to this product halved as compared to 2020”

How can carbon footprinting help?

Carbon footprinting is the first step to making green claims about your business or a product you’re selling. In order to reliably report changes in GHG emissions, you first have to estimate them. Conducting a carbon footprint can highlight ‘hot spot’ areas in your business which might be emitting more GHGs than you thought. Addressing these ‘hot spot’ areas and reducing emissions associated with them is often an easy first win in the journey to lower emissions, net zero and even financial savings. You can try out our carbon calculator tool, which is free for farmers and growers. You will then need to record your GHG emissions estimate in subsequent years. Once you have evidence of reduced emissions over time, you may want to promote this, for example on a product you sell or as a business. Here are some key terms to get familiar with.

Key terms

Reduced emissions refers to the direct lowering of GHG emissions by adopting more sustainable agricultural practices, technologies, and management strategies. These reductions involve minimising the release of GHGs that occur during conventional farming activities. Looking at ways to reduce GHG emissions is the first recommended step before you seek to make any “green claims”.

Example: A farmer adopts precision agriculture techniques to apply fertilisers more efficiently (e.g., using soil sensors, variable rate application, or slow-release fertilisers).

Impact: By optimising fertiliser use, the farm reduces the amount of nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions, which are released when excess nitrogen is applied to the soil. Improving nitrogen use efficiency can directly reduce N2O emissions.

Avoided emissions refer to GHG emissions that would have been released into the atmosphere under business-as-usual practices but are prevented through changes in farming methods, land use, or supply chain activities. These emissions reductions do not remove carbon from the atmosphere directly, but rather prevent emissions from occurring in the first place. It’s very similar to “reduced emissions” but it is more hypothetical.

Example: A distributor uses biofuel from used cooking oil to transport their products (renewable energy source) instead of using diesel.

Impact: High emissions that would have been released from burning diesel or during transport are avoided. This distributor may have lower GHG emissions from transporting the same quantity of goods the same distance as compared to a distributor using diesel. However they may require more biofuel to transport the same quantity of goods the same distance so the avoidance of emissions is not guaranteed.

Carbon Removals is the process of actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it for a long time, using either technology or nature-based solutions. In a farming context, this is mostly done by natural sequestration of carbon into soils, trees and other biomass. These removals can help offset GHG emissions, making them a critical component of climate change mitigation efforts in agriculture.

Example: A farm establishes hedgerows along field boundaries, which serve as natural windbreaks and biodiversity corridors.

Carbon Removal Mechanism: Hedgerows sequester carbon in plant biomass and enhance soil carbon storage along the boundaries of agricultural fields.

Impact: In addition to carbon removal, hedgerows provide habitat for wildlife, improve soil health, and protect crops from wind and erosion.

Carbon insetting refers to reducing GHG emissions – or increasing carbon storage – within a company’s own supply chain, focusing on sustainability improvements that benefit the company’s own production processes and stakeholders. Whereas carbon offsetting involves reducing GHG emissions – or increasing carbon storage – outside of the companies supply chain, often by purchasing carbon credits from environmental projects, such as tree planting. With carbon offsetting, the reduced emissions, or enhanced carbon storage, occurs elsewhere and is therefore harder to track. Read our detailed explanation of carbon insetting and offsetting on our getting paid for carbon page.  

When entering into any carbon insetting or offsetting agreement, try to ensure there is a clear definition of the project, who is responsible for claiming the GHG reductions and where those reductions are taking place. These principles can ensure there is clear evidence of where GHG reductions are coming from and can help prevent the double counting of emissions reductions.

Assessing green claims on products you buy

You might have come across “Low Carbon” products, one example of this is low carbon fertilisers. Traditional nitrogen-based fertilisers (e.g., ammonia, urea) are energy-intensive to produce, mainly due to the reliance on fossil fuels for the Haber-Bosch process, which converts nitrogen from the air into ammonia. Improvements in technology have now produced Green ammonia, manufactured using renewable energy (solar, wind, hydropower) to generate hydrogen through water electrolysis, instead of using fossil fuels. This significantly reduces the carbon emissions from fertiliser production. Alternatively, Blue ammonia is ammonia still being produced using fossil fuels, but incorporates carbon capture and storage methods to remove CO2 produced during the process. Blue ammonia still relies on the heavy use of fossil fuels, whereas green ammonia reduces this demand. 

Urease inhibitors are an example of a GHG mitigation product that can reduce ammonia emissions associated with urea fertilisers. Urease enzymes are naturally present in soil and are involved in the process of changing urea into ammonia and carbon dioxide. This means that when urea is applied to soils, a significant loss of nitrogen occurs as ammonia is released into the atmosphere, resulting in air pollution. Urease inhibitors are added to urea-based fertilisers (sometimes known as protected urea) to slow down the enzymatic process, keeping more nitrogen in the form of plant-available ammonium for longer and increasing the fertiliser efficiency. New rules in England (2024) have outlined when unprotected/uninhibited urea can be applied, check out this AHDB article to see how it may affect you.

Another example of a GHG Mitigation product are methane inhibitors for ruminant animals. Methane inhibitors are feed additives designed to reduce methane emissions produced during digestion, specifically in the process known as enteric fermentation. The goal is to prevent or slow down the final step in the fermentation process where methane is produced without harming the animal’s digestion or productivity. A methane inhibitor feed additive (Bovaer by DSM-Firmenich) has been approved for use in the UK that on average claims a 30% reduction in methane emissions for dairy cattle and 45% reduction for beef cattle2. It is worth noting that the efficacy of these products can vary across different feeding systems and therefore may not always be a ‘silver bullet’ to reducing methane emissions. 

Provenance

“Farm washing” by big UK supermarkets often leads people to believe that they’re buying products grown on small family farms within the UK, however a lot of this produce originates overseas or from big industrial scale farms.

Riverfords recent ‘Farmers against Farmwashing’ Campaign showed that 74% of shoppers want supermarkets to be transparent about produce and meat that is not British and sourced from abroad. When shoppers were shown a photo of produce in a UK supermarket under a Union Jack flag, 68% of people expected more than half of it to come from a British farm, when in fact, none of it did. 

Supermarkets have been called out before for marketing these fake farm brands that sell imported produce under a fictitious farm name and even a Union Jack flag. As a consumer, you can always check the fine print on produce packaging to see where it originates and don’t just rely on branding.

Case Study: I’ve got a Life Cycle Assessment for a product I buy in, can I use it in my carbon footprint?

For inputs on your farm, you may be buying products that come with their own associated carbon footprint and want to know if you can incorporate this into your business’s carbon footprint. Let’s work through an example.

The feed you buy your dairy cows has a life cycle assessment (LCA) carbon footprint that has been passed onto you by the company selling this product. 

  • Always check that the product LCA you have is for exactly the item you have purchased. The functional unit in this example would most likely be for 1 kg feed wheat and not a derivative of that, for example 1kg of white flour. Different products will have different processes involved that generate emissions, we can’t always assume that just because the products are similar, they will have a similar carbon footprint.

Check the methodology of the LCA to understand how it has been generated and what the uncertainties around it are.

For example, the feed wheat claims that it has a negative emissions factor (-1.2 kgCO2e/ kg wheat), i.e. the production of it has sequestered more carbon than it has generated. The LCA claims that this is due to using regenerative practices to grow the wheat which has enhanced soil carbon stocks. However, when you look at the methodology, it lists that carbon sequestration was not measured by direct soil measurements, but was instead modelled with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) methodology Tier 1 approaches (see Box 1). 

  • If the product you are buying claims to have a negative emissions value, then the methodology needs to be based on direct soil carbon or GHG measurements on that farm. If a direct measurement of sequestered carbon can be provided, this increases the reliability of the claim and can be passed on to a company which could include it as part of its scope 3 emissions inventory. 
  • The choice of methodology will impact the reliability of the results. For example, there are three IPCC tiers to the recommended approaches (see Box 1). If direct soil measurements are taken, this would be a tier 3 approach and is the most reliable method, however the methodology uses a tier 1 (global) approach with estimated carbon stocks. 

Check how the carbon footprint is reported.

  • Ensure the carbon emissions are reported separately to any carbon removals the company claims – not just the carbon balance (i.e. emissions – removals). There is a requirement by carbon reporting guidance to separate these two values. It is mandatory to report emissions, but not removals, due to the uncertainty around them. 
  • Check the units that it is reported in (usually kg CO2e / kg product) and ensure that this makes sense for the way you will use the product. 
  • Has the footprint been validated externally by third party verification? Although this is not absolutely necessary to have a reliable product footprint, it can help add confidence that the methodology has been checked by others. 

If you are satisfied that the LCA has supplied a clear methodology on how the carbon footprint has been calculated, you may wish to include it as part of your scope 3 emissions report. 

Box 1. IPCC Methodologies for Calculating GHG Emissions

Tier 1: This is the most basic approach, using default emission factors and generalised activity data provided by the IPCC for different sectors. It mostly uses global data and is intended for broad estimates with low accuracy.

Tier 2: This approach uses country- or region-specific emission factors and more detailed activity data, such as local energy usage. It improves accuracy compared to Tier 1 by incorporating factors that are more relevant to the specific conditions of the region.

Tier 3: The most advanced method, using detailed modelling or direct measurements and highly specific data for the particular circumstances of the country or sector. Tier 3 provides the highest level of accuracy by incorporating real-time data, complex models, and system-specific emission factors.

Each tier increases in complexity, accuracy, and the level of data required.

Pointers on how to sense check and provide robust environmental claims

The competition and markets authority has set out six principles for businesses to follow when making green claims and provided examples to help you assess green claims3. Here we have summarised the principles with examples:

  1. Is the claim truthful and accurate?
    • Check the facts: Verify that the environmental benefit being claimed is backed by credible evidence. Look for data, scientific studies, or certifications that support the claim.
    • Avoid exaggeration: Ensure that the claim reflects the actual impact of the product or service and is not overstating the environmental benefits.
  1. Is the claim clear and unambiguous?
    • Does it go beyond using generic phrases like ‘green’ and ‘eco-friendly’ and list the specifics of how it is an improved product? 
  1. Does the claim omit or hide important relevant information?
    • This may be hard to know and would probably involve doing a little bit of research around the product and its production methods. 
    • For example, a product with ‘save our seas – these are microbead free’ makes you believe that similar products may contain microbeads – however microbeads are banned in the UK, and therefore shouldn’t be in any of the products!
  1. Does the claim make fair and meaningful comparisons?
    • If a product is claiming to be better than others on the market, how has this been assessed? Has the comparison included a wide range of alternative products?
  1. Does the claim consider the full life cycle of the product or service?
    • Life cycle assessments show the overall impact of a product from cradle to grave.
  1. Is the claim substantiated?
    • An example of a substantiated claim might be: “Our product packaging is made from 100% recycled materials and is fully recyclable. By using recycled materials, we have reduced our packaging-related carbon footprint by 40% compared to virgin plastic packaging. This reduction has been verified through a third-party Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in compliance with ISO 14040 standards.”

References 

  1. UK Government. The Green Claims Code. Available at: https://greenclaims.campaign.gov.uk/. Accessed [07/11/2024].
  2. DSM-Firmenich (2024). Bovaer. Available at: https://www.dsm.com/anh/products-and-services/products/methane-inhibitors/bovaer.html. Accessed [07/11/2024]
  3. UK Government, Competitions and Market Authority. Making Environmental Claims on Goods and Services. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims/environmental-claims-on-goods-and-service Accessed [07/11/2024]

In the Spotlight: The Incredible Role of Dung Beetles on Livestock Farms

Posted on October 31, 2024 by - Insights, News

The inaugural Dung Beetle Conference took place in June 2024 at Yeo Valley Holt Farm in Bristol – a collaboration that puts this tiny beast on the farm vet agenda.

Written by Rob Howe

It would have seemed a far-fetched idea a few years ago, a two-day conference about dung beetles attended by farmers, vets, policymakers and schoolchildren. Yet in June this year, we pulled it off, with huge thanks to Dr Hannah Jones (Farm Carbon Toolkit) and Rob Howe (BCVA, COWS, Vet Sustain), together with event sponsors, First Milk, Yeo Valley, Techion, Micron Agritech and Duggan Veterinary Supplies.

Hannah and Rob share mindsets around regenerative farming topics and how dung beetles should fit into all farmer’s thoughts and practices. Researchers have previously held Dung Fauna conferences, but these have been largely academic. This re-imagining of those events held by Richard Wall, Bryony Sands, Sarah Beynon and others, aimed to focus on biodiverse farming and integrated parasite management (IPM), which has been the focus of Rob’s work both in practice, in research and in his Nuffield Scholarship. 

Conference Write-Up

The conference was opened by Sarah Beynon who spoke passionately about dung beetles and of her seminal work calculating their positive £367m of beneficial financial impact every year to UK cattle farms. Darren Mann, widely considered the gospel on dung beetles, wowed the audience with his own passion and bluntly hilarious style! We then heard of the impact parasiticides have in the environment and the degradation times of dung pats, as well as new research linking their abundance and diversity to soil health parameters from Bryony Sands, video-linked from the USA. 

Organisers found it rewarding to see all the decades of superb work from so many inspiring people, brought together and shared with those that need to know it most – farmers and vets. 

There is an impressive body of work now that led to my own  efforts in proving there is an alternative approach – Integrated  Parasite Management (IPM)

Rob Howe, BCVA, COWS, Vet Sustain

Rob Howe spoke on the importance of IPM, and the vital role of the vet, along with a vision for animal health tied in with this new approach. I then had the privilege of handing over to a wide array of experts in their fields to talk on the individual subjects and strategies that make up IPM, including species diversity, farming biodiverse, breeding for resilience, the role of trees, pasture management, soils and FEC testing. It was a ram-packed day punctuated at lunch by a dung safari led brilliantly by Darren Mann.

The conference also offered an opportunity to see demonstrations of key providers of in-house FEC testing by FECPAK, Micron, and Ovacyte who all attended and sponsored the event 

Day Two started in the mature agroforestry system, and a dung beetle hunt was led by Claire Whittle, with input from many others including Sally-Ann Spence and Lindsay Whistance, whose work on the value of trees for livestock, needs much more airtime.

Over the two days we got to hear from so many great speakers all linking dung beetles to wider biodiversity including birds, a fantastic project on Dartmoor and how equine and small animal vets and owners are grasping the opportunity to have similar positive impact in their respective fields.

 The responsible use of parasiticides  

The conference ended with a workshop supported by BCVA, COWS and Vet Sustain. The workshop opened with a short “scene setting” presentation from the VMD with an overview of the current regulatory framework for veterinary medicines in the UK. The discussion groups focused on the issues around responsible prescribing and parasiticide use and identifying workable solutions and associated actions to drive much-needed positive change to promote the responsible use of parasiticides.

BCVA has been working hard behind the scenes for some years to influence progressive policy change in this area. BCVA’s policy on parasite control was launched by Sally Wilson in 2021, following Rob Howe’s IPM workshop and introduction to the power of dung beetles at Congress. BCVA has since been involved in wider collaborative discussions with the VMD and additional stakeholder organisations and recently worked with BVA on parallel activities to make progress on this important subject.

Key asks, actions & outcomes from the workshop

Farmers, farm advisors and farm vets all fed back in the workshops, offering a range of ideas, with the following common themes:  

Education 

  • To promote IPM as a more sustainable way to approach the use of parasiticides, all groups cited novel education and training as essential – specifically, for practising vets but also in vet schools and agricultural colleges.  
  • A strong desire for everyone to get on board with a “new narrative” on display at the conference, reaching beyond IPM, producing food good for humans, the planet and of course animals.  
  • Peer-to-peer learning opportunities were valued highly by everyone when it came to shifting farming practices, with many on display at the conference.

Funding 

  • It was highlighted that opportunities for IPM to be funded within the SFI-type schemes, as it is in the arable sector, would be beneficial.  
  • A general fund for (farms’) innovative ideas rather than prescriptive lists. Excellent examples might be EID/  Handling/Weighing facilities for DLWG and helping IPM &  targeted selective treatments.  
  • A cross-industry fund created to facilitate the rollout of IPM; training and tools for delivery and recording.  

Monitoring 

  • Collecting baseline figures on top-level use for the livestock sector would enable monitoring of progress, similar to those seen with antibiotics. The VMD were present, and we hope in time will help deliver this.  
  • The same applies to the farm level where benchmarking could help drive change. This may be more likely to come from the industry itself.

Policy & Governance 

  • Advertising of parasiticides should not be targeted at end users (across spp)  
  • POM-V status could ensure this, but so could a legal change in advertising rules for parasiticides.  
  • IPM should come into landscape recovery, and eventually as standard everywhere  
  • A desire for support for vaccines such as louping ill to be available and others developed  
  • More robust environmental assessments (small animals particularly) and enforcements of product advisory wording across species. 

Communication 

  • The need for improved communication between the entire farm team and advisors  
  • Improved communication between vets and SQPs would be ideal. An app to facilitate IPM may be able to help achieve this. 

Landscape approaches 

  • Commons health plans and or landscape health plans (look outside the farm gate). 

Industry support, facilitation & incentives 

  • Milk buyers are already involved in a positive way. Great examples here at the conference with First Milk and Yeo Valley sponsoring and encouraging positive changes.  
  • Others including M&S support farms to look at parasite control through an IPM lens and Muller leading the way in starting to measure usage. 

Timeline for Change 

  • Sentiment for action was positive, with 5 years set as a target, since this movement is already happening as evidenced at the conference, and people are aware, so major change could happen quite quickly.  

Get in touch and join the movement

The conference concluded with a commitment to work across the sector to progress these key actions. We would like to hear from anyone keen to help achieve these aims and or be involved in the next one. Please contact Rob_ Howe@BCVA.co.uk or info@dungbeetletrust.co.uk.

Conference Acknowledgements

This conference built on a brilliant legacy of research, and brought together farmers, vets, soil experts, entomologists, researchers, industry and public, to celebrate the great work that is going on, but also to shape future policy and regulation. In the interest of brevity, it hasn’t been possible to acknowledge every speaker, contributor or supporter of this event, but the organisers would like to thank everyone who helped make this happen and also show appreciation to all those who have worked for some time in this important area to advance our profession’s understanding. And finally, a huge thank you to all the event sponsors – Yeo Valley, First Milk, Techion, Micron Agritech and Duggan Veterinary Supplies – without whom we could not have made this day happen.

Conference Reflections from a Vet
Andy Adler – Farm Carbon Toolkit – Vet Perspectives

As a vet who has been out of clinical work for a while, I turned up to the Dung Beetle Conference 2024 due to my role in one of the sponsoring companies, Farm Carbon Toolkit. I had been aware of dung beetles and integrated parasite management (IPM), but I had little knowledge and no experience discussing IPM with farmers.

I found a place with positive energy and a diversity of farmers, vets, and industry professionals united in the need to identify how to support ecology in farming while supporting food production. The mix of sponsors from First Milk, Yeo Valley and Farm Carbon Toolkit meant that the industry was well represented and led the conversation on how to get to a farming system with a positive impact on the environment and nature.

Shifting baselines (Masashi Soga, 2018) come to mind for me. Farmers there described how dung pats would disappear within 24 hours as multiple species of dung beetles eat, bury and process the dung. I still find this expectation ‘unbelievable’; however, I accept that this is due to my shifted baseline of expectation. I also realised that as vets, we must deal with the conflict of interest between animal needs and the owner’s ability. Now, we have to deal with disputes between animal needs, nature needs and the owner’s ability to understand how best they can balance off competing demands.

I left after two days of interactive talks and an exploratory field safari, identifying dung beetles and understanding their abundance within healthy pats. My mind was opened. I now look in cow pats and understand how few beetles are on some farms.

The following questions (and more!) have sat with me since.

– How can we understand our shifted baseline and rebalance it?
– How do vets deal with an additional conflict of interest?
– Can IPM become a veterinary campaign similar to the Mastitis Plan or Health Feet Program?

I would highly recommend that farm vets think about dung beetles and their moral and ethical responsibilities towards the environment, animal welfare, and owners’ needs.

Further reading

Read our blog: What are Dung Beetles?

Case Study: Ben Richards, Middle Trelan Farm, Cornwall

Posted on August 19, 2024 by - Case Studies, Insights, Soil Farmer of the Year

Ben Richards
Video courtesy of Innovation for Agriculture

Ben Richards has been awarded Third Place in the 2024 Soil Farmer of the Year competition. This case study gives an overview of how Ben has built his system around resilient soils to provide the forage and nutrition his herd. If you would like to visit Ben’s farm, a farm walk taking place on 12 September 2024: click here to book your place.

Middle Trelan Farm is a 290-acre dairy farm in Cornwall, milking 180 to 200 cows, depending on the time of year. The farm has been certified organic since 2020, with the cows being 100% grass-fed, milked once a day, calved in spring from the 10th March and outwintered to reduce costs. 

Soil management has been a key focus on the farm for over 20 years, and Ben shares that making more money has consistently been a key driver in the steps taken to improve soil health and reduce inputs. 

Ben Richards

Early noughties – addressing nutrient imbalances and surface compaction  

As a wet farm with heavy clay soil, an early challenge in soil management was to alleviate surface compaction, which was achieved using slit aeration. 

Ben also took advice from Straight Line Nutrition, using recommended fertilisers to resolve nutrient imbalances in the soil. 

2010s – phasing out chemicals and introducing herbal leys  

Weaning off chemicals has been a gradual process at Middle Trelan Farm. In 2012, the decision was made to start gradually weaning off the high use of nitrogen fertiliser. Now, Ben focuses entirely on feeding the soil, not the plants, which he does by applying 2.5 tonnes/acre composted farmyard manure per year.  

Having switched from blanket spraying to spot spraying broadleaf weeds in 2005, spraying was stopped altogether in 2016. It took four to five years to increase dock beetle numbers to the point where they were controlling docks. Now, with the overall reduction in chemical use, the docks have become more palatable, so what the dock beetles do not eat the cows will eat anyway. 

Ben also started growing herbal leys in 2016, selecting species to benefit the soil, as well as those which will benefit the cows. This includes choosing deep-rooting species to improve the soil structure and enable water to permeate into the soil. Seed companies warned that cows would not eat some of the plants, such as sweet yellow blossom clover, but in practice, Ben has found that as the soil has improved and plants become more palatable as a result, the cows will eat all species. He has not included any ryegrass in the mix for over five years, with the exception of during Covid when the seed companies were not able to source an alternative. 

For reseeding herbal leys, cows are now grazed on the area to be reseeded over winter, followed by pigs. The pigs turn over the soil and root around, preparing the ground for establishing a herbal ley in the spring.      

The cows have benefitted from the move away from chemicals and the introduction of herbal leys, as they can self-medicate by selecting the nutrition they need. The evidence for this is clear, as Ben has not needed to treat the cows with any medications for eight years, although he does still give the calves an anthelmintic for lungworm. 

The phasing out of chemical inputs, from broadleaf herbicides to veterinary medicines has reduced costs and therefore improved farm profitability. 

2020s – moving from a bacterial soil to a fungal soil 

Ben shares that it was 2021 to 2022 when the farm turned around – it had reached the point where it had a fully functioning bacterial soil. The focus has now shifted to move to a fungal-dominated soil, as with fungal mycorrhizal structures present plants can cooperate, warning each other of dangers and contributing to the overall health of the farm ecosystem. 

The presence of deep-rooting plants will facilitate the transition to a fungal soil, so Ben has embarked on an agroforestry project, which is funded by Forest for Cornwall. The project began in 2023 to 2024, when 6,500 trees were planted in 1.5m rows (3 trees across 1.5m), with 12m between rows, which should be close enough for the fungal mycorrhizal structures to reach each other. Grazing trees were selected, including different varieties of willow, poplar and aspen. 

The wettest fields were chosen for tree planting, with the intention that the trees will also help drain the fields, getting rid of surface water. Herbal leys have been planted between the tree rows, so in year two the trees will be grazed together with the herbal leys. 

Another 4,000 trees will be planted this winter. In year three, Ben intends to stop planting and wait to see the impact during a full grazing season, then if it is working as expected he can take cuttings from the existing trees and roll out the system across the whole farm.    

Ben explains that the overall goal of the agroforestry is to maximise dry matter production on-farm to feed the cows, while the trees will also help drain the fields, promote fungal activity in the soil, secure a reliable forage supply throughout the summer and also provide nutritional benefits to the cows eating them. In short, the trees should ‘tick all the boxes’ for farm resilience now and in the future. 

To conclude, Ben shares that he has found it to be true that ‘less is more’. The less interfering he has to do with the cows, the better their life is, and the better his is too.    

Groundswell reflections: how close can agriculture get to being carbon positive?

Posted on July 18, 2024 by - Insights, News

Groundswell

by Liz Bowles, CEO

Groundswell this year was as exciting as ever, with so many excellent sessions and people to catch up with and meet for the first time. 

There was much interest in how farmers and growers can benefit from the new markets for carbon, biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality to name but three, but to my mind, there was far less attention on how the sector can actually reduce the emissions associated with producing food itself.

For me, this is critical as we have to find a way to reduce the greenhouse gases we push into our atmosphere, as well as removing some of the historical emissions already there, if we are to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.

There is, however, a central question for our food system which is: What level of emissions are inevitable from the production of food which is essential for humanity? The Climate Change Committee has come up with a view on this in their 2020 UK agricultural policy for net zero report, which suggests a road map for saving 64% in the annual emissions from agriculture compared to 2017 levels when UK agriculture was responsible for around 58 MtCO2e (12% of total UK  emissions). On closer inspection of the figures though, the actual savings in emissions from agriculture are set at around 21 MtCO2e / year, with the remaining savings to come from forestry, changes to our diet and the production of energy crops instead of food.

This is set out below:

The specific actions suggested for each of these areas are set out below:

  • Tree planting on 30,000 hectares per year
  • Use 10% of UK farmland  for agroforestry (no distinction made between agroforestry and hedgerows)
  • Restore at least 55% of peatland area by 2050. (For lowland peat lands this means rewetting or paludiculture to reduce emissions and for uplands this means rewetting).
  • Increases in low-carbon farming practices for soils and livestock (no detail provided)
  • Increase the area of farmland devoted to energy crops to 23,000 ha per year

From this list, the low carbon farming practices interest me in terms of how their adoption will enable an annual reduction of 10MtCO2e per year to occur (~25% of 2022 UK agricultural emissions). At Farm Carbon Toolkit we work directly with farmers and growers to adopt these practices and changes to current management processes. Typically the areas to focus on include:

  • Planting cover crops
  • Changing crop rotation
  • Transitioning to no/min till where possible
  • Growing new crops
  • Integrated pest management
  • Adopting rotational grazing
  • Planting herbal leys

Across all these practices, there should be a focus on reducing the use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers and purchased livestock feed (especially those including imported ingredients) as both these inputs carry a high level of associated emissions.

Many of these practices can also be considered to be part of the suite of “regenerative farming principles”. Adoption of more regenerative farming practices is growing steadily, but for many farmers, the key question surrounds the financial viability of their adoption when margins are so tight. A recent report commissioned by the Farming for Carbon and Nature Group and funded by the Natural England Environment Investment Readiness Fund (NEIRF) sets out the financial and climate impact of adoption of more regenerative farming practices and systems and includes partial budget information on the financial impact of adoption in England with support from SFI where relevant.

Regenerative farming practices and their financial viability, including external support available in England, where available

This chart clearly shows that with the inclusion of SFI support, many of the practices generally considered to be regenerative are likely to deliver a similar margin than more conventional practices in these areas. The area where more support is needed is in the adoption of more complex arable rotations including pulses and fertility building leys, where even with appropriate SFI payments, the margins from shorter more degenerative rotations are likely to be more profitable. We are a member of the Nitrogen Climate Smart Consortium which is supporting the increased production of pulses and legumes in the UK together with their use as animal feeds to address the need to reduce the use of artificial fertilisers and imported animal feedstuffs. This project will support farmers to do this through farmer field trials as well as the introduction of new technology for on-farm pulses processing.  You can find out more about this project and get involved by following this link.

In summary, I am fairly confident that UK agriculture can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 10% through the adoption of low-carbon farming practices. Indeed through some of the practical work with farmers in which FCT is involved, we are seeing higher levels of emission reductions being achieved within businesses with little or no change in farm output and in many cases increased profitability and business resilience. The element which is mostly missing is the confidence and knowledge to make the necessary changes and knowing where to start.

At FCT we provide a (free for farmers and growers) Farm Carbon Calculator to allow businesses to understand their starting point, a set of tools within our Toolkit to assist businesses to make those chances and a team of expert advisors to talk to.

You can always make contact with us by email info@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk or by calling us on 07541 453413. We look forward to hearing from you.

Can Milk be Green?

Posted on July 19, 2024 by - Insights

Reflections from Groundswell Dairy Session 2024

Written by Becky Willson

Groundswell 2024 Dairy Session – a great turnout!

Dairy is often in the spotlight in terms of its environmental impact. Whether it be focussed on slurry management, methane emissions from animals, or soil loss and run off from maize crops, dairy is often an easy target. However, there are numerous farmers and projects who are showcasing that this doesn’t need to be the case, and there are positive steps that can be taken. 

When approaching Groundswell this year, it was one of the things that we wanted to highlight. We are very lucky to work with some really forward-thinking organisations and farmers that we wanted to highlight at this national event. So we submitted our session “Can Milk be green?” to try and understand some key questions. 

These were:

  • How do we quantify the importance of regenerative dairy systems when the current metrics are solely focused on reducing emissions intensity/litre?​
  • How do we accurately represent the contribution that regenerative dairy systems are providing to carbon sequestration, biodiversity and resilient landscapes?​
  • How do we do this in a cost-effective way which provides reassurance to processors and consumers that milk can be green? ​
  • How do we support farmers in that transition?​

We had a fantastic panel of speakers which included farmers who were making changes and processors who were supporting both data collection, evidence building and industry communication. 

Tom White from Yeo Valley introduced the session and highlighted the ability for grass-based dairy systems to deliver on a wide range of environmental benefits. The key areas of importance were around how we gather good data, collaborate and support our farmers to be able to deliver the changes on-farm. Tom focussed on the importance of diversity, including diversity in our pastures, rotations and management systems to deliver on a range of environmental impacts. 

Andrew Brewer from Ennis Barton farm in Cornwall provided some insights into the trials that he has been involved with on his farm as part of the Farm Net Zero project. Trialling herbal leys and their impact on cow health and rumination, soil recovery after potatoes and cover crops have all provided useful tools to build soil heath and reduce emissions.

Will Mayor from Yeo Valley farms spoke about how by using their experiences with the beef animals they have adapted a system that works for their dairy cows. Implementing next-level grazing has allowed them to increase covers, remove the topper from the system and maintain milk quality and pasture utilisation, alongside soil health and carbon sequestration.

Lucy Noad from Woodhouse Farms shared her story in terms of her transition from a more conventional dairy farm over the last few years. Lucy spoke about the need to support farmers in the transition and also to ensure that the way we communicate engages farmers to understand the relevance of practical solutions for them. 

Mark Brooking from First Milk concluded the session highlighting some of the ways that First Milk are supporting their farmers to make the transition to more regenerative practices. Farmers are supported through incentives to implement rotational grazing, species diversity and minimal cultivation in order to demonstrate an uplift in soil health, sequestration, biodiversity and water quality. Data is being collected on the impact of these changes to provide confidence in the potential for their members to deliver solutions.

It was an inspiring session which provided real life examples that show the positive steps that are taking place to provide data, collaborate and support farmers. Although our soil project with Yeo Valley is in the interim years before we retest soils, it was great to hear some of the practices taking place and the production and resilience benefits that the farmers are seeing now irrespective of soil carbon sequestration.

So can milk be green? The answer was a resounding yes!

To watch the full session please visit the Groundswell YouTube channel.