Manure is one of the most valuable resources produced on-farm. When managed well, it boosts soil health, cuts fertiliser bills, strengthens resilience and reduces environmental impact. The key is maximising the benefits while minimising the risks.
Treat manure as a valuable resource
Manure doesn’t just supply nutrients – it feeds soil biology, builds organic matter and improves soil structure, chemistry and resilience. Shift the mindset: manure is an asset, not a waste product.
Develop a nutrient management plan
Nutrient planning is a win-win for profitability and the environment. A good plan will:
Match nutrient inputs (fertiliser + manure) to crop demand
Identify high-risk areas (watercourses, slopes, compacted soils)
Reduce nutrient losses
Improve efficiency and lower costs
Most farm assurance schemes require a manure management plan — but even without certification, having one is invaluable.
Match nutrients to crop demand
Applying the right rate at the right time is the single most important factor in manure management. Correct timing:
Maximises nutrient uptake
Reduces losses to water and air
Improves yield potential
Lowers fertiliser requirement
Avoid spreading when soils are waterlogged, frozen, or when heavy rainfall is forecast.
Know the nutrient content of manures and slurries
To ensure that you can make the most of the nutrients within your manures and slurries, it’s important to know what is in them. You can use published values found in guidance such as RB209 to minimise the risk of over application, or you can send samples off to the lab to get a more precise understanding on what is in your manure and slurry.
Samples can be taken from the field at spreading by collecting material in containers and then sending them to the lab. Ensure that if you are going to the trouble of taking samples, that you integrate the results into your nutrient management plan.
Test and manage soil pH
Correct soil pH is the foundation of good nutrient management. If pH is suboptimal:
Nutrient losses increase
Nutrients become unavailable
Yields suffer
Monitoring and correcting soil pH ensures applied nutrients are actually used by the crop.
Improve storage to improve timing
Adequate slurry and manure storage gives flexibility to apply nutrients when:
Crops are actively growing
Soil conditions are suitable
Environmental risk is low
Insufficient storage often forces spreading in poor conditions — when losses are highest.
Simple storage improvements include:
Repairing gutters
Diverting clean water away from stores
Covering yards
Installing floating or fixed covers
Reducing rainfall entry maintains nutrient value and lowers spreading costs. Covers also reduce ammonia emissions, improving air quality.
Manage soil manures carefully
For farmyard manure (FYM):
Site field heaps carefully to reduce nitrate leaching
Consider composting to create a more stable material
Composted manure benefits soil biology but releases nitrogen more slowly than fresh manure.
Use low-emission spreading techniques
Application method affects how much nitrogen is retained for crop growth. To improve nutrient efficiency:
Use trailing shoe, band spreaders or injection systems
Avoid high-trajectory splash plates where possible
Incorporate manures quickly if cultivation is planned
Use rear discharge spreaders for more even solid manure application
Better technology = better nitrogen retention and lower ammonia losses.
Reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions
Agriculture contributes to climate change through nitrous oxide emissions, which arise from:
Soil microbial activity
Organic manure applications
Nitrogen fertiliser use
Careful nutrient management reduces these losses.
Planning also reduces ammonia emissions — improving air quality and protecting human health. Emissions are influenced by:
Manure type
Application timing
Soil pH
Soil moisture
Weather conditions
Storage method
Managing these factors makes a real difference.
Maximise benefits, minimise risk
When stored and applied correctly, manures:
Improve profitability
Build soil resilience
Cut artificial fertiliser use
Lower carbon footprint
But applied at the wrong time or in excessive quantities, they become an environmental liability.
The goal is simple: Maximise nutrient value. Minimise losses. Plan ahead.
Optimising manure management strengthens both farm performance and environmental stewardship — delivering economic savings today while building resilience for tomorrow.
From June 2024 to August 2025, Farm Carbon Toolkit worked with the Suffolk Wildlife Trust on the ambitious and very exciting Connecting Constable and Gainsborough Country Landscape Recovery (CCGCLR) Project. The project is one of the largest of its kind in England, working with two farm clusters – the Wool Town Farms Cluster and the Stour Valley Farmer Cluster – and covering 18,500 hectares, starting from just below Bury St Edmunds at the top of the landscape recovery area, to just west of Manningtree in North Essex at the bottom. With its productive soils and closeness to continental Europe, this ecologically rich landscape has drawn human settlement for thousands of years, resulting in a wealth of historical and cultural associations that continue to make it such an attractive place to live and work.
The conundrum of balancing sound ecological management and sound socio-economic management is at the heart of CCGCLR project, and is reflected in the goals of the project:
Supporting sustainable, productive farming – nature friendly practices, taking action for soil health, working towards Net Zero
Restoring Habitats – enhanced woodlands, grasslands and floodplains, collaborative solutions to deer management, long term nature based solutions to climate change
Connectivity – improving connectivity across the area through joined up habitat corridors
These goals highlight the fact that long term productivity and sustainability go hand on hand in a resilient landscape under threat.
Farm Carbon Toolkit’s work on the project has been in two stages. The first has been the carbon baselining of project farms, where we meet with the farmers, collect the relevant information for the footprint and discuss how a subsequent report should be tailored to support the goals of the farmer. From an early stage it became clear what a wide range of farms were on the project – each of them wanting to do the right thing for their local landscape, but within the confines of conflicting economic and practical pressures.
After the collected data was entered into our Farm Carbon Calculator, we used the output to produce baseline reports for each farm showing where the areas of emissions and sequestration were, and suggested actions for how to get closer to Net Zero – or in the case of farms that were already there, how to further solidify this position.
One of the benefits of a carbon footprint is that it can often highlight areas which are both costly and high in emissions. When such patterns reveal themselves it often causes the farmer to evaluate whether the current way of doing things is actually benefitting the farm or whether there might be a better way to utilise resources.
In the second stage of our work on the project, each farm completing a footprint was offered an extra day of time and a set of options for things such as calculator training for future use, and advice on implementing sustainable farm strategies etc. There was a wide range of sessions that took place as a result, including the following:
Modelling future farm changes (such as bringing on livestock) to see the impact on the carbon footprint
Advisory sessions based on foliar feeding, grazing management, crop nutrition, soil health and other sustainable farming strategies
Creating follow-up footprints reports and then comparing the changes between the baseline and the new report
Calculator tutorials for farmers and land agents, showing in-depth use of our calculator, using modelling, scenario planning and report comparison to gain further insights
The discussions in the footprint report handbacks and the follow-up sessions revealed a large appetite for positive action and learning. One of the results of this was the organisation of our BASIS certificate in Greenhouse Gases, Carbon and Climate Change mitigation in November and December 2025 for the first time in the East of England. Supported by a grant from the Dedham Vale National Landscape team, this was held at the wonderful Tudor barn at The Hall, Milden, and drew a diverse group of participants from the project area including farmers, land agents and farm advisors. Our own Becky Wilson and Hannah Jones were the course tutors and the sessions were rich in discussion and sharing ideas.
Lastly, all the data from our work has been amalgamated into a landscape report which highlights emissions, sequestration and areas of opportunity and will be included in the submission to DEFRA. This also enables the project team to forecast the carbon impacts of proposed habitats for phase two and compile monitoring and evaluation frameworks alongside providing the value to the individual farmers. There are further exciting developments to follow, so please watch this space.
Farm Carbon Toolkit is proud to have worked on the Connecting Constable and Gainsborough Landscape Recovery Project and work with a fantastic group of farmers. We hope for a positive outcome when the project plan is submitted to DEFRA in early 2026.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) is a framework that offers a standardised way for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reach net zero by 2050 at the latest. The Forest, Land and Agriculture Guidance (FLAG) is specifically for land-intensive sectors like agriculture which guides us to reduce emissions, aligning with the 2015 Paris Agreement’s 1.5℃ global warming target. Participating in the SBTi is currently a voluntary process, but many larger corporations have committed to making these reductions to participate in climate action.
As a farmer, you might have heard of SBTi FLAG targets through your biggest customers (e.g. supermarket buyers and food processors) and it’s likely this isn’t just another piece of corporate paperwork — it is now driving the demands of your supply chain. The world is now getting on board with this initiative, with ¼ of global revenue covered by a target and ~11,000 companies committed to setting them. You likely aren’t setting an SBTi target yourself, particularly if you are a small enterprise, but your operations are a vital part of your supply chains’ Scope 3 emissions. Here is how and why this framework may influence the way you operate.
How it Affects You: The Practical Shifts
The FLAG guidance requires food companies to account for land-based emissions and land-based carbon removals – if sufficient data is available. This may mean a more detailed request for information about your farm and how you operate:
Granular Data Requests: Your buyers may now be asking for more than just “average” carbon footprint data. They may ask for specific figures on your nitrogen fertiliser use, livestock practices including manure management or feed regimes as they are required to prove they are meeting their own 5- to 10-year reduction targets. You will already have a lot of the necessary data to hand. It’s just a case of keeping good records and collating the data where you can. Producing your farm’s carbon footprint is a good place to start!
The Rise of Carbon Sequestration: SBTi FLAG and the updated GHG protocol Land Sectors Removals Guidance (which it is heavily based on) is the first global standard that allows companies to count soil carbon sequestration and hedgerow/woodland growth toward their targets if the supply chains have direct traceability to your farm. This means your buyers will be increasingly interested in farms operating with practices that can maintain or build soil carbon (min-till, cover cropping, leaving stubble in the field, etc) and they’ll want robust evidence for it, such assoil test results. Getting your soils tested over time could unlock potential new customers for your business.
Land Use Change Accounting: Under FLAG, companies must commit to zero-deforestation and no land conversion by no later than 2025. In 2026, this means you must be able to prove that no high-nature-value land (like ancient woodland or permanent peatland) has been converted to arable use on your holding. It also requires you to know and log any previous changes in land use over the past 20 years as part of footprinting your farm. Our guide on land use change may help.
SBTi FLAG v1.1, Dec 2023
Why it Affects You: The Commercial Reality
The “why” is simple: the UK’s major retailers (Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s, etc.) and global processors (Nestlé, Arla) have signed up for these targets to keep investors and consumers happy. People want to know the products they’re buying are not harming the planet.
Market Access: In 2026, having a carbon audit for your farm is becoming a condition of trade. If you can’t provide the data or demonstrate progress, you may find yourself moved to the “high risk” list for certain premium contracts.
Supply Chain Incentives: Some processors are now offering sustainability premiums—small top-ups on the milk or grain price for farmers who can prove they are employing regenerative practices or using low-carbon fertilisers or maintaining high soil organic matter.
Value of Natural Capital: Because the FLAG guidance validates carbon removals on farms, your land’s ability to store carbon has a tangible financial value to your supply chain. This is shifting their perception of a farm from “food production” to a “climate solution.”
Joining the dots with other schemes
It is important to see the SBTi FLAG framework not in isolation, but alongside other public and private schemes in the UK, for example the Sustainable Farming Incentive in England (SFI; see the Table below), Whole Farm Plan in Scotland, Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS) in Wales and how they can compliment each other. Additionally, it’s important to be aware of the competing interests on your land and the restrictions on reporting with other opportunities from the Voluntary Carbon Market. The SBTi guidance has rules regarding the use of offsets in inventory accounting. To avoid carbon double-counting you need to make sure that the ownership of the carbon is clear, particularly when reporting for multiple different schemes. For example, if you sell the carbon credits from your woodland to a bank, your milk buyer (the supermarket) cannot count those same removals toward their Scope 3 FLAG target. You have to decide which “market” offers you the best long-term value.
Example Feature
How FLAG and SFI Work Together
Soil Health
SFI pays you to test soil; SBTi FLAG gives that data a “home” in the supply chain to prove carbon storage.
Nutrient Management
SFI pays for precision grazing/fertiliser plans; FLAG uses the resulting lower N2O emissions to hit supermarket emissions reductions targets.
Hedges & Trees
SFI pays for the planting; SBTi FLAG reporting framework allows the sequestered carbon to be counted in the “FLAG inventory” of your buyer.
What’s next?
Start collecting and organising your farm data:
Many farm management softwares will hold a lot of your data already, getting all of this into one place by doing a carbon footprint can help with the process
When you get requests for data, don’t be afraid to ask your buyers questions as well:
Do they have incentive schemes that you can join?
What are the soil sampling requirements, e.g. 30 or 50cm depth? Multi-year data?
The couple have embraced agroforestry to support their cattle and enhance biodiversity – and by integrating tree planting for shelter, forage, and shade, they are optimising farm productivity and boosting environmental benefits. The farm covers 125ha and the 240 cows are milked twice daily (averaging 11447 litres annually), with milk from forage making up 4300 litres. Rotational grazing is employed with the cows at grass for a minimum of 183 days to satisfy their milk contract.
Reducing Emissions
Stuart and Helen have planted a large number of trees at Longmoor, both in field and in hedgerows – and in the last 4 years and have starting trialling agroforestry as hedgerows, to divide up pasture.
According to Stuart, the most significant reduction in CO2 emissions has come from change in establishment techniques. For the last five years all maize has been established through strip tillage (in conjunction with cover crop establishment); average worm count has increased by 120% between 2020-2025; and they have not ploughed any land for five years.
Looking after Livestock
Stuart and Helen have been genomic testing all replacements for 12 years now, and focus on both health traits and refining the stature of the cows in order to make them suit their grazing system.
My wife is a farm vet and we have worked extremely hard to maximise health and productivity in the herd, minimising wastage and unnecessary emissions. We pay close attention to Enviro and Feed Advantage scores in the genomic proofs of both replacement heifers and bulls. Age at first calving averages 21.8 months.
Stuart Rogers
Carbon Sequestration and the Water Cycle
At Longmoor Farm, the method of managing grassland greatly increases the carbon storage capability. Helen and Stuart have created paddocks through planting of new hedges within the grazing – and while this will have a long-term positive effect on carbon capture, the strip-till, cover cropping and hedgerow management practices provide the farm with short term gains.
The couple are also about to begin a wetland project in conjunction with FWAG, Wessex Water and the Duchy of Cornwall, which will take an unproductive area of land out of the rotation and switch it to a habitat area benefiting many different species. This will allow water to cycle better on this parcel of land, making the farmed area more productive with the ability to cover crops on it.
Looking to the future
Looking to continue down the path of minimal soil disturbance and reductions in inputs, Stuart and Helen have a number of plans to continue the reduction of emissions at Longmoor.
We are now farming more land which allows us to grow our own cover crops, grow crops for feeding the herd at home (to reduce bought in protein), extend our rotation and create riparian buffer strips and continue establishing more margins and hedgerow management practices.
We are looking at investing in our slurry storage and have multiple projects running to change the housing of young stock. We are heading down the road of mechanical termination and hope to significantly reduce the chemical termination process. The investment in the youngstock builds on our commitment to prioritize the health of our herd and reduce the age to first calving.
Stuart Rogers
A more in-depth case study can be viewed and downloaded here.
Carbon Farmer of the Year
You can read more about the Carbon Farmer of the Year competition here, and enter our 2026 competition here!
Bringing together dairy supply chains, researchers and farmer representatives, the conference looked toward the practical realities of reducing on-farm enteric methane (CH₄) emissions – with a lot of the talk around feed additives, good quality silage and the trend towards insetting within the dairy industry.
The science behind reducing enteric methane
With talks from leading researchers such as Dr. Andre Bannink (Senior Scientist on Ruminant Nutrition & Mathematical Modelling at Wageningen Livestock Research), a recurrent focus was the correlation between feed quality and methane reduction. The consensus is that by increasing the organic matter digestibility of the feed, you can tweak the rumen microbiome, which results in less enteric methane being produced.
Silage Quality: Good quality silage is key to reduction – an increased digestibility of silage and forage = reduced methane. Specifically, the “1st cut” of silage is noted for being the highest in omega-3s.
The Power of Fats: Fatty acids and omega-3s significantly affect the rumen microbiome. Research suggests that a 1% increase in fat in dietary dry matter (DM) can lead to a 4–5% reduction in methane.
Feed additives: beyond Bovaer
While there was some discussion regarding NOP-3 (Bovaer), the conversation was heavily dominated by other additives, particularly the role of using linseed/flax or other plant-based feed additives to reduce enteric methane. Danone, for example, is conducting trials to see if a 9% reduction in enteric CH4 can be achieved and integrated into their supply chains. Other research showed evidence of published studies that outlined ~9% reductions. Outlined below are two feed additives that were discussed on the day:
Product Name
Active ingredient
Application
Impact (CH4 reduction)
Notes
Agolin
‘Blend of essential oils’
1g/head/day mixed into mineral feed
Alters rumen microbial activity reducing CH4 by 8.8%
Used in Mooh’s offsetting carbon credit scheme for reducing enteric methane emissions. There may also be other health benefits.
Tradilin
Pressure cooked Linseed
~500g/head/day
Leads to a progressive release of omega-3 in the rumen of dairy cows, mimicking the behaviour of fresh grass. Reduces CH4 by 9%
Other health benefits beyond CH4 reductions include:
• increased milk production (1.5-3 litres more milk per cow per day • -10% ketosis and -3% metritis • -10 days of calving interval • 5 – 11 days earlier first calving for the heifers born from a cow fed Tradilin
Feed additive products that mitigate EM
Rewarding farmers – the financial benefits of insetting vs offsetting
One of the emerging trends at the conference was the dairy industry’s shift toward insetting emissions reductions within the dairy supply chain. However, there was also evidence of carbon credit offsetting schemes that had been set up by dairy supply chains to reward their farmers for undertaking measures to reduce methane. If you’re unsure about the distinction between these two financial avenues, check out our report on the Voluntary Carbon Market and the implications for farmers.
Outlined below are some key takeaways in the comparison between Arla’s insetting-based incentive model and Mooh Coop’s offsetting-based incentive model:
Arla insetting based incentive model
Arla’s sustainability roadmap is heavily based on SBTi targets – where 97% of their emissions are Scope 3
10% of their emissions reduction targets for on-farm mitigation strategies are around feed additives
They have their own Farm Ahead tool to measure carbon footprints and other sustainability measures on farms
They use a points based system across a range of farm metrics (not just carbon) to reward their farmers with payments, utilising 5 big KPIs to rate the farms
Mooh Coop offsetting based incentive model
Farmers who use the Agolin feed additive can monetise their emissions reductions by generating reductions carbon credits
Mooh use the Verra carbon standard methodology for enteric methane reductions, and liaise with South Pole to help help sell the credits
This can be a relatively long process process ~ e.g. 1 year
Mooh anticipates sales, so they pay farmers upfront and get paid back once the credits are sold
Farmers sign an agreement that states they can’t claim to have reduced their carbon emissions and milk that’s sold is not marketed as low carbon to avoid double counting
500 active farms – total of 20,000 cows in scheme
Mooh acknowledged that the dairy industry is going more towards insetting
Data quality and trust in carbon tools
Dr Eleanor Durrant from Cool Farm Tool also did a short talk on the LUNZ project (Land Use for Net Zero), a multi-partner collaboration we’re proud to be part of with Agrecalc and researchers at Cranfield University and the University of Gloucestershire. This project aims to develop and evaluate a scalable, auditable farm and food-level GHG accounting framework for UK land use.
You can read more about our latest improvements to the FCT Calculator and how we are keeping it up to date with the latest science here.
The final Farm Net Zero conference took place on 20th November 2025 at the Royal Cornwall Showground—under a blanket of unexpected snow!
Yet despite the weather, the room was full. Farmers, growers, advisors, researchers, community partners and supporters all gathered to reflect on five years of hard work, collaboration and learning. It felt less like the end of a project and more like the celebration of a community that has quietly reshaped what climate action looks like on real farms.
There was a striking range of delegates in the room. Young and older farmers and growers, a pretty even gender balance, and people representing every part of the agricultural community. But what really stood out was that every presenter brought a different perspective, a unique set of skills and lived experience, and together they created a strong thread of community that ran throughout the entire day. It was genuinely inspirational.
Farm Net Zero is a collaborative five-year project led by Duchy College Rural Business School, working in partnership with Farm Carbon Toolkit, Westcountry Rivers Trust, Soil Association, Innovative Farmers, Innovation for Agriculture, and Just Farmers. This ambitious initiative has been made possible thanks to funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. The final conference was organised by Duchy College with support from the FNZ project partners, to share some of the learnings, hear from participants, and to celebrate five years of the project.
A day rooted in practical progress
The day began with one of the FNZ Demonstration farmers, Mike Roberts of Blable Farm, who shared how he has changed farming practice to build greater business resilience. His reflections set the tone for the whole event: grounded, honest and focused on what works in the real world. Mike expressed heartfelt thanks to the project team at Duchy College, Farm Carbon Toolkit, Westcountry Rivers Trust, Innovative Farmers, Innovation for Agriculture and Just Farmers — a partnership that has been the backbone of Farm Net Zero since day one.
We then heard from Anthony Ellis of Pensipple Farm, who spoke about the trials he has been undertaking to reduce insecticide and fungicide use. By improving soil health, he has been able to cut fuel use for fieldwork by 10–15%—a meaningful saving both economically and environmentally. During this session, an important point was raised about the “elephant in the room”: who owns the carbon and wider natural capital benefits in a tenanted farming context? It’s an issue that will matter more and more as low-carbon farming evolves.
Malcolm Barrett of Tregooden Farm also reflected on the changes they have made on the farm. Through FNZ, the Barretts have reduced costs significantly by lowering inputs and outwintering cattle, with the biggest gains seen on arable fields—soil organic matter is up by around 3%, thanks to cover crops and min-till. Better soil health has reduced fuel use and enabled them to cut pesticide use, too.
Amelia Lake from the Real Food Garden offered a shout-out to FCT for helping them understand their soils and how best to improve them. Their focus on no-dig systems and continuous compost additions has boosted soil health, and they’ve seen improvements in veg nutrient content, something they believe is closely linked to better soil function.
Nicola and Chris from Heligan Gardens shared how transformational their compost-focused Farm Net Zero field lab has been for their waste management system. By learning how to optimise composting, combining three separate waste streams while ensuring pathogen kill, they have been able to reduce waste, improve soil health and close nutrient loops more effectively.
We also heard from Emma Restorick at the Prideaux Walled Garden, who has been trialling ways to tackle bindweed and reduce carbon footprints through optimised home-grown compost and other nature-friendly techniques. Her work highlights just how adaptable and innovative small horticultural enterprises can be when given structured support and the space to experiment.
Robust data from real farms
The results of the project speak for themselves.
Over the course of the project, the project team carried out an extraordinary amount of monitoring and testing, including digging over 1,935 holes (over 10,000 auger dibs), and soil sampling 215 fields in both 2021 and 2025. This has created one of the richest long-term datasets of any UK farming climate project.
Initial findings show that fields in herbal leys in 2021 and still in herbal leys today sequestered an average of 3.35 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. Across the project area, herbal ley coverage has increased by nearly 500 hectares, contributing significantly to soil carbon gains.
Habitat-based sequestration also shows clear gains: project farms collectively sequestered an additional 2,640 tCO₂e into on-farm habitats, supported by increases in both hedgerows and woodland. Hedgerow length increased from 607 km in Year 1 to 664 km in Year 5, with associated carbon sequestration rising from –2,338 tCO₂e to –2,854 tCO₂e. Farmers also planted 1,104 additional trees over the project period, reinforcing long-term carbon storage and biodiversity benefits.
Looking at changes in overall farm carbon footprints, every farming system involved in the project saw reductions:
Horticulture: 4.3 tCO₂e → –7.54 tCO₂e
Arable: 572.22 tCO₂e → 402.49 tCO₂e
Beef & Sheep: 508.37 tCO₂e → 489.09 tCO₂e
Dairy: 1.25 kg CO₂e/kg FPCM → 0.99
These improvements were largely driven by reductions in input use, particularly feed, fertiliser and fuel, supported by more diverse rotations, improved grazing management, better composting systems and healthier soils.
These were not theoretical models or one-off trials; these were whole-farm shifts, supported by careful measurement and farmer-led experimentation.
Last words
Finally, dairy farmer Andrew Brewer of Ennis Barton highlighted how evidence from Farm Net Zero had given him the confidence to encourage Arla to support farmers in growing herbal leys. As a member of Arla’s Sustainability Working Group his takeaway was powerful:
“The integrity and nutrient quality of food starts with farmers and growers.”
What came across loud and clear at the conference was the importance of steadfast and consistent activity, and the power of farmer-to-farmer learning. The project has built a community of farmers and advisers who have been willing to share their successes and failures openly, and this spirit of collaboration has been central to the project’s achievements.
What really made Farm Net Zero work
Beyond the numbers, what came through again and again was the strength of the community that has grown around the project. Demonstration farmers, monitor farms, advisers, researchers, gardeners, and local organisations, all willing to share what worked and what didn’t.
It powerfully demonstrates that progress doesn’t come from one-off interventions. It comes from steadfast, consistent activity—and from supporting farmers to try new things with confidence.
Farmers spoke freely about reducing inputs, changing rotations, experimenting with cover crops, improving composting systems, tackling weeds, integrating livestock, and rethinking their relationship with soil. The willingness to compare notes, challenges, successes and missteps has made this one of the most practical and trusted climate-action projects in UK farming.
So, what next?
This is the question many people asked during and after the conference. Farm Net Zero has clearly delivered:
measurable reductions in emissions
better soil health
stronger business resilience
increased biodiversity and more protective infrastructure (hedges, trees)
greater collaboration across Cornwall’s food and farming community
a five-year dataset that is rare at national level
The challenge now is to build on this success, not let it fade as the formal project period ends. Here are some priorities:
1. Share the learning more widely
The results, stories and practical guidance from Farm Net Zero need to reach a far larger audience — in Cornwall and beyond. Farmers elsewhere in the UK face similar challenges, and the FNZ experience can offer a roadmap: low-cost changes, peer-to-peer learning, and practical ways to reduce emissions while improving profitability. There’s a responsibility to translate these findings into accessible guidance, workshops, case studies and tools that any farmer can use.
2. Keep the community alive
The strength of FNZ was the trust between participants. Maintaining that network through events, field labs, farm walks, online spaces and continued collaboration will be vital. Farmers expressed a clear desire to keep learning from one another.
The good news is that some field labs and events will continue over the next few months, and the appetite for ongoing collaboration is strong.
3. Use the data to inform policy and practice
With more than 10,000 soil samples, detailed farm footprints and hundreds of farmer-led trials, FNZ now represents one of the richest real-world datasets on low-carbon farming in the UK.
That evidence can help shape better support schemes, more targeted advice, and more practical pathways for farmers transitioning towards net zero.
A beginning, not the end
Through the Farm Net Zero partnership, we’re committed to ensuring these insights don’t sit on a shelf. The findings from this project can play an important role in influencing how the sector and policymakers think about resilience, emissions reduction, soil health and resource efficiency.
As the conference was wrapped up, there felt a feeling of pride — not only in what’s been achieved, but in how it was achieved. Farmer-led, data-driven and grounded in real practice. Farm Net Zero has shown what’s possible when farmers are trusted, support experimentation, and commit to long-term learning rather than short-term initiatives.
The project will look forward to sharing the full results in early 2026 and helping ensure that the legacy of Farm Net Zero continues to grow. Cornwall has shown what can be done. Now the task is to help others follow.
We would like to extend our gratitude to the National Lottery Community Fund for their support throughout this five-year journey, and to all the farmers and partners who have made this work possible.
Written by Alex Bebbington, Project Officer, Rural Business School, Duchy College
This is a write-up from a Farm Net Zero event on foliar fertilisers, hosted by Rob and Liz Priest at Scadghill Farm, Bude, on Thursday 9th October 2025.
Addressing the Risks of Conventional Fertiliser
The use of conventional nitrogen fertiliser is associated with several environmental risks. These risks include:
Leaching into watercourses
Acidification of soil
Poor nutrient use efficiency
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from manufacture and volatilisation on ground contact
The Foliar Fertiliser Alternative
An alternative approach is to use foliar fertiliser—liquid fertiliser applied directly to plant leaves.
To better understand this method, the Farm Net Zero project hosted an event at Scadghill Farm in Bude, where farmers met to hear from TerraFarmer about the Tow & Fert system. This event was made possible thanks to the National Lottery Community Fund, which has generously funded the Farm Net Zero project.
Benefits of Foliar Application
Compared to solid, conventional fertilisers, applying liquid fertiliser directly onto the plant’s leaves reduces many of the associated risks.
Crucially, nutrient use efficiency can be improved. Because the fertiliser is applied directly to the leaves, it can be taken up quicker than soil-applied fertiliser. This improved efficiency means reduced quantities of fertiliser may be needed, which could result in saving input costs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
A Case Study: Scadghill Farm
Rob and Liz Priest run Scadghill Farm, a 220-acre suckler beef and sheep farm, as part of their larger organic farming business. When taking over the conventionally farmed land, Rob and Liz felt the soil performance and biology needed improvement, leading them to consult Tom Tolputt from TerraFarmer.
Tom worked with the Priests to assess their soil nutrient levels and created a bespoke foliar fertiliser mix to address deficiencies and boost soil biology. The mix included organically certified fish hydrolysate and molasses, aiming to provide a “balanced diet” for the soil microbiology.
Introducing the Tow & Fert System
Matt Vellacott, TerraFarmer’s field operative, demonstrated the Tow & Fert machine used for applying the foliar fertiliser.
The Tow & Fert machine used to apply the foliar fertiliser. These trailed machines come in different tank sizes with the example shown at this meeting the smallest option
Mobility: These are trailed machines that come in various tank sizes. The model shown at the event was the smallest option and comes with its own petrol engine, meaning it can be towed behind vehicles without a Power Take-Off (PTO).
Mixing: The tank is equipped with an agitator to allow mixing the fertiliser within the machine. However, for faster refilling, many farmers choose to mix in a separate tank and then decant into the sprayer.
Speed: The model demonstrated can cover up to 4 hectares in half an hour, depending on the application rates. While Matt and Tom concede that foliar applications are slower than conventional fertiliser spinners, they emphasise that the productivity benefits outweigh this difference.
Key Takeaways
Foliar fertiliser can improve the efficiency of nutrient uptake by plants.
Using foliar fertiliser instead of solid fertiliser can lead to emissions reductions.
Farm Carbon Toolkit release a new report for farmers and land owners which explains the Voluntary Carbon Market and additional climate-friendly farming income streams.
The voluntary carbon market (VCM) has grown in recent years, but many still find the route to accessing the markets unclear and shrouded in uncertainty. Recent research also suggests that conversations around the VCM are polarising and particularly hard for farmers to decode. The VCM is an actively developing market that requires weighing up the potential risks and benefits before participation to ensure reputational and financial risk to a farm business has been considered.
In the report we provide information on various carbon credit types, discuss the differences between carbon insetting and carbon offsetting schemes and provide an overview of how to assess the quality of schemes. We also list relevant schemes operating in the UK agricultural sector and make recommendations. Download the report to read more.
Contents
What is the voluntary carbon market?
Why get involved with the sector?
The Risks of VCM Participation
Projects operating in the UK agricultural sector
Responsible reporting of carbon reductions, removals and credits
Other public and private finance options.
Authors
Dr Grace Wardell, Dr James Pitman, Dr Lizzy Parker, Becky Willson, Samuel Smith, Tim Dart, Liz Bowles
We are grateful to the Centre for High Carbon Capture Cropping (CHCx3) for supporting Farm Carbon Toolkit to produce this report. CHCx3 is a multi-partner research project helping UK farmers to increase carbon capture and farm resilience through diversified cropping, enabling new income sources and supporting enhanced value chains for industries.
CHCx3 is funded by Defra under the Farming Futures R&D Fund: Climate Smart Farming (project 10042535). It forms part of Defra’s Farming Innovation Programme, delivered in partnership with Innovate UK. www.carboncapturecropping.com
We would also like to thank the following for feedback on the first draft and contributions to the final report
Dr Lydia Smith – Project Lead of the Centre for High Carbon Capture Cropping (CHCx3), NIAB
Megan MacGillivray – 3Keel
Julian Gould – Farm Manager atHendred Estate
Kitty Grubb – Previous roles at Regenified and Agreena
Dr Jonathan Scurlock – National Farmers Union of England and Wales (NFU)
Andrew Adler – Non-executive Director FCT, Veterinarian and Consultant
Andrew Rigg – Non-executive Director FCT and Arable Farmer.
For more information about carbon credits in farming check out our popular piece on getting paid for carbon.
The Voluntary Carbon Market has surged in recent years, offering UK farmers and landowners potential new income streams for adopting climate-friendly practices. However, for many, the path to accessing this market remains unclear.
Farm Carbon Toolkit have produced a report that aims to demystify the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM), providing an overview of carbon credit types, scheme integrity, and the risks involved, helping you weigh the potential benefits against the challenges before participating. Some of the topics in the report are summarised below, for more detail read the full report.
The VCM is a decentralised platform where companies, individuals, and organizations can purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions. Each credit represents a reduction or capture of emissions equal to one metric tonne of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
Since agriculture is currently excluded from the Compliance Carbon Market (CCM) in the UK (like the UK Emissions Trading Scheme), the VCM is the primary venue for activities that remove and store carbon in biomass and soils through sustainable agricultural activities or nature projects.
Types of Carbon Credits
To generate credits for most schemes, you’ll first need to accurately baseline your operations. Credits are generated based on the measurable change from that baseline. These credits typically fall into three categories:
Carbon removal projects tend to fetch higher payments per tonne of CO2e because they actively remove carbon. However, they demand a high level of monitoring and verification, often requiring direct soil measurements at five-year intervals to evidence the permanence of carbon stocks.
Process of setting up a VCM project
Offsetting vs. Insetting: Which Path is Right for You?
A scheme that generates carbon credits that are sold outside of your value chain is known as carbon offsetting. However, an alternative has emerged in recent years, whereby climate friendly farming is financed by actors within your value chain. This is known as carbon insetting and is not considered to be part of the VCM, however we discuss it within the report to provide a full picture of what initiatives are available to farmers and landowners. Therefore a key decision involves who buys your credits:
Carbon Offsetting: This involves generating carbon credits and selling them outside of your value chain to unrelated buyers (e.g., a telecoms provider). This is considered ‘Beyond Value Chain Mitigation’ (BVCM).
Carbon Insetting (or WVCM): This is where a farm’s supply chain (like a processor or retailer) finances carbon improvements on the farm. Although not technically part of the VCM, insetting projects are often thought to offer the most promising avenue for successful, transparent, and verifiable climate impacts. Some carbon insetting schemes will produce carbon credits, however most, particularly with your direct downstream supply chain, will not.
Insetting allows both the farmer (Scope 1) and the supply chain company (Scope 3) to reflect the reductions or removals in their GHG inventories. These projects are believed to strengthen supplier relationships and enhance credibility due to improved traceability. The set up of these schemes may not look like other carbon offsetting schemes and are likely to not produce credits but provide direct value, see section 1.4 in the report for more detail.
Navigating the Risks and Ensuring Integrity
Participation in offsetting schemes comes with crucial risks that farmers must assess:
Risk
Description
Price Volatility
Fluctuating carbon credit prices may not always cover the costs of significant management shifts.
Long-term Contracts
Commitments can range from 3 to 50 years, potentially restricting future land-use choices.
Carbon Reversals
Carbon gains can be lost through natural disasters, unpredictable weather, or mismanagement. Schemes often use a central buffer pool to insure against these losses.
Additionality
Projects must prove that reductions/removals would not have happened without the project, which can often exclude early adopters of sustainable practices.
Leakage
An emissions reduction in one area causes an increase elsewhere (e.g., repurposing grain land leads to grain being grown elsewhere).
Reputational Risk
Farmers face potential reputational damage if their credits are linked to corporate ‘greenwashing’.
To instill confidence and integrity in the VCM, farmers should look for schemes that adhere to the highest standards. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has developed the Core Carbon Principles to help buyers identify high-integrity credits. These principles ensure that credits create real, additional, and verifiable climate impact. The ICVCM publishes online what carbon standards and their methodologies align with the core carbon principles, however most are still undergoing review.
It is also vital to practice responsible reporting. If you sell a carbon credit, you can no longer claim that reduction or removal toward your own business’s net-zero targets, as this would constitute double counting.
UK Projects and Finance Alternatives
There are a number of schemes available in the UK agricultural sector for a diverse array of activities including; regenerative practices in arable farming, woodland creation, peatland restoration, feeding cows alternative natural feeds and directly measured increases in soil organic carbon (see Table 4 in the report for further details).
The established, government-backed standards like the Woodland Carbon Code (WCC) and the Peatland Carbon Code (PCC) provide clear methodologies for carbon removals and reductions associated with these land management activities. While there was investigation into a potential UK Farm Soil Carbon Code, we provide an update on why it is no longer under development, alongside other UK carbon codes such as the Hedgerow carbon code in Box 1.
Beyond the VCM, farmers can access other income streams for sustainable farming and environmental land stewardship:
Government Schemes: Examples include the Improved Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) in England (set to open early 2026), Scotland’s Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AESC), the Sustainable farming scheme (SFS) in Wales and Northern Ireland’s Farming with Nature Transition Scheme (FwNT).
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG): Developers pay land managers to create or enhance habitats to offset ecological impacts. An example of the type of finance available from a BNG project is provided in Box 3 in the report.
Key Takeaways for Farmers
Before entering the VCM, we advise the following recommendations:
Scrutinise Schemes: Employ a high level of scrutiny and look for schemes that follow the ICVCM’s Core Principles or Oxford Offsetting Principles.
Know Your Buyer: Ask who will purchase the credits to determine if it aligns with offsetting or insetting, and whether this aligns with your values.
Investigate Full Costs: Determine the complete costs of participation, including monitoring and verification services, as these can impact your net revenue.
Measure Now: Even if you are undecided about selling credits, there is no better time to start measuring the carbon in your soils.
Avoid Double Counting: If you sell a carbon credit, you can no longer claim that reduction or removal towards your own business’s net-zero targets.
Retain Credits: Consider retaining any generated credits to meet your own farm’s net-zero targets.
This work was funded by the Centre for High Carbon Capture Cropping (CHCx3). CHCx3 is a multi-partner research project helping UK farmers to increase carbon capture and farm resilience through diversified cropping, enabling new income sources and supporting enhanced value chains for industries.
CHCx3 is funded by Defra under the Farming Futures R&D Fund: Climate Smart Farming (project 10042535). It forms part of Defra’s Farming Innovation Programme, delivered in partnership with Innovate UK.
For more information about carbon credits and the Voluntary Carbon Markets in farming check out our popular piece on getting paid for carbon.
As I was harvesting apples this weekend in an orchard that’s 15 years old, I was marvelling at how apples, and more widely perennial crops, produce food for us with really minimal input.
A sackful of high quality Pinova apples
In this particular orchard, the management I do is mowing or strimming four times a year, pruning trees in winter, hedge cutting in winter…and that’s more or less it. This orchard is planted on Grade 4 land with soil that is light, shallow and with a slight Northerly aspect. It has produced 2/3 of a tonne of apples over 2/3 of an acre this year. Whilst it’s a good year for apples, this orchard consistently produces good amounts of fruit.
The spread of over 25 varieties means any particular variety that crops poorly one year doesn’t impact overall yields too much. Within this, all the varieties are selected for disease resistance (particularly to canker and scab), as well as taste, vigour and genetic diversity,
Much of the fruit will go for juicing, or cider, but much of it is very high quality eaters and cookers that can be stored for months. It is amazing what you can produce on a small area with very little input from humans.
A functioning ecosystem
Orchards are perhaps our best example of agroforestry at work. Existing for hundreds, maybe thousands of years they embody the intercrop between fruit, pasture, livestock and a wide range of biodiversity. Traditional orchards are some of the most biodiverse places in the farmed landscape. Even in more intensive orchards they can be managed for wildlife and carbon sequestration alongside fruit production.
Birdsfoot trefoil is one of the species thriving in this orchard, providing forage for bees
In this particular orchard, and other small orchards on my farm, the land supports lots of butterflies, bees, birds and a wide variety of flora. No chemicals are used and there are actually no fertility inputs. The only machinery used is a mower and a strimmer. There are actually no fossil fuel inputs to the entire system – the machines are electric and we even transport the apples using an electric vehicle! Is this actually the future?
An electric strimmer, one of the few tools used in the orchard
I appreciate this isn’t a fully commercial operation and that in a commercial orchard there needs to be a focus on yields, quality, storage, processing, etc. However in some ways it encapsulates the debate on extensive versus intensive. Extensive growing systems mean low inputs, high biodiversity and moderate production levels. There is a whole debate to be had too around the nutritional quality v quantity of crops.
In addition to low emissions from any machinery or inputs, perennial crops (encompassing many fruits and nuts) also sequester carbon in both the soil and trees. Furthermore, a lack of cultivation means soil organic matter isn’t being oxidised, furthering the potential for carbon sequestration in soils. This is not so far away from a natural ecosystem, which inherently are large carbon sinks.
Agroforestry systems
Traditional top fruit orchards, often with livestock grazing underneath, are timeless examples of a farming system that produces fruit for eating, drinking, and feeding to livestock, as well as seasonal grazing. What hasn’t been grown more widely across the UK are nut groves, such as cobnuts, walnuts and sweet chestnuts. These bring the opportunity to bring protein into our diets as well, but it also requires something of a cultural shift to have more edible nuts in our diets.
The argument I would make is that we can successfully move away from simply fields of grass into agroforestry systems with relative ease, and that livestock and trees are perfectly compatible given the right planning. There are new skills to learn, equipment to buy and markets to access, but these are achievable. In return it would bring a fundamental shift in our landscapes with more carbon being sequestered, shade being provided, diversification of farm produce, and habitat being created.
Cereals grown as alley crops between hazel at Wakelyns Agforestry in Suffolk
However there is also an opportunity to integrate vegetables, other fruits and even arable into agroforestry systems – as has been successfully done at places like Wakelyns Agroforestry in Suffolk. The common thread here is that trees have enormous benefits in agricultural systems and really require very little input from us relative to the benefits that they can bring in terms of diversity of crops, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, water storage and landscape benefits.
Because these systems don’t require much, if any, cultivation, require few inputs, they bring a sort of stability to the land in a way that annual crops don’t. More perennials are something that previous generations would have seen as normal, and their reduced presence in our landscape is a relatively recent thing. Here’s me hoping for the return of perennials in our farming systems which bring real benefits to us all, and for generations to come.
Recent Comments