Category: Insights

The Need to Understand the Financial and Climate Impacts of Regenerative Farming

Posted on May 2, 2024 by - Insights, News

It’s often cited that there’s limited, robust evidence for the financial and climate impacts of adopting more regenerative farming practices. This article explains our recent work to explore the evidence base and conduct financial analysis on regenerative farming practices.

Context

The UK market for ecosystem services, including carbon offsetting, has been developing rapidly over recent years in response to the growing urgency of the climate crisis and rapid loss of biodiversity1. With 70% of the land mass in the UK under agricultural production2, farmland managers are being encouraged and incentivised towards more nature-friendly farming practices. As such, new revenue streams are opening up, from public and private sectors, which are looking to meet statutory or voluntary greenhouse gas emissions and nature restoration outcomes3. 

Yet, it is still often cited that there is limited, robust evidence for the financial impact of adopting more regenerative farming practices. This uncertainty poses a significant obstacle to more widespread adoption4. Alongside the lack of robust evidence around the financial impacts of many regenerative farming practices, there is also often a knowledge gap which affects the effectiveness of practice adoption. This gap is being addressed as practitioners learn more, share their experiences, alongside greater research that’s happening on how best to implement these practices. It is certainly true that research into the impact of these practices in the UK is in its infancy, with farmers often leading the way in investigating their impact in the field.  

What we did

To respond to this challenge, SOS-UK commissioned the Farm Carbon Toolkit, using funding from NEIRF, to conduct financial modelling on the costs or benefits to farm businesses of adopting a range of regenerative farming practices. This work supports SOS-UK’s Farming for Carbon and Nature Project, providing a better evidence base to explore ‘carbon insetting’ opportunities for university and college farmland across the UK. Carbon insetting describes the approach when actors within a value chain collaborate to reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions, and may involve interventions in the financial relationship or transactions between those actors. 

This work builds on previous work that’s explored the financial implications of shifting to regenerative or agroecological farming (such as the Cumulus report for the Soil Association5) in two key ways. First, it gives granular data on specific regenerative farming practices, whereas previous modelling work was based on farm-level or food-systems level outcomes. Secondly, it incorporates payment rates for the recently confirmed Sustainable Farming Incentive in England (January 2024 rates). 

FCT approached this task through:

  • Evaluating the most up-to-date and comprehensive research into the carbon, climate and financial impact of the adoption of an agreed suite of farming practices considered as “regenerative”. 
  • Developing farm models for three key farming systems – dairy, arable and lowland beef and sheep farms based on data within the Farm Carbon Calculator database which enabled us to identify the impact on farm greenhouse gas emissions from adopting more regenerative farming practices and systems.
  • Developing partial budgets for the adoption of key regenerative farming practices using information from key industry sources and innovators in this space.

For the first time, we have been able to bring in real-world data from the Farm Carbon Calculator to demonstrate the impact of practice change on-farm GHG emissions. 

Click here to read the report in full

In the next two articles on this topic, we explore:

Footnotes

  1. IPCC (2022). Factsheet – biodiversity. Sixth Assessment Report: Working Group II – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
  2. Office for Statistics Regulation (2024). Agricultural Land Use in United Kingdom at 1 June 2023 [website].
  3. Green Finance Institute (2024), Farming Toolkit For Assessing Nature Market Opportunities [website].
  4. Magistrali, Amelie at el. (2022) Project Report No. PR640-09 Identifying and implementing regenerative agriculture practices in challenging environments: experiences of farmers in the north of England. AHDB.
  5. Cumulus (2002). The Economics of a Transition to Agroecological Farm Businesses: Report for the Soil Association.

Soil Farmer of the Year 2023 – Farm Walk with Richard Anthony 

Posted on April 18, 2024 by - Case Studies, Insights, Soil Farmer of the Year

Written by Tilly Kimble-Wilde, Farm Carbon and Soil Advisor

Richard Anthony, of R & L Anthony near Bridgend, was awarded Second Place in the 2023 Soil Farmer of the Year competition. He was commended on how he responded to and managed challenges, never veering from thinking holistically, always upholding soil health as a priority, and treating each challenge as something from which to learn.

A majority arable business, Richard farms a 6-year rotation of wheat, maize, oilseed rape and westerwolds intermixed with a diverse array of cover and companion crops which he is passionate about. “The emphasis on farm is the soil, improving the soil and organic matter, and keeping a crop in the ground; keeping the soil biology alive.”

Richard and the team also strive to promote and create habitats for wildlife: planting wild bird seed mixes, establishing wildlife corridors, and bordering all hedgerows with a 3m margin to encourage growth year on year. 2m flower margins have also been implemented around all fields of oilseed rape which has been, to quote, “absolutely fantastic.” Encouraging insects and bees and getting the public on side too.

The farm walk itself took place on 23rd November 2023 and kicked off with a presentation taking us through the past year and outlining the various activities and obstacles the farm faced. We were then treated to a fantastic farm walk whereby Richard gave our group of visiting farmers, agronomists, and advisors a tour of some of what they get up to across their extensive arable and forage business.

A big part of what Richard and his team are trying to achieve across the farming business is to use very little bagged fertiliser. Most of the nutrients applied to the soil come from digestate, conveniently stored in the farm’s digestate lagoon. Tankers come in and fill alligator bags for easy transport and the digestate is spread on wheat, oilseed rape and maize.

So far, Richard has managed to eradicate artificial fertiliser when growing maize and OSR; however, wheat still receives a small amount of early application. This wouldn’t have been possible without the construction of the digestate lagoon, a project which was undertaken at the beginning of last year. Still, as Richard says, there is room for improvement. The farm is looking to reduce its N inputs even further by trialling an N inhibitor, all to build more resilience into the system.

This mindset has been applied to fungicides.  To use less, Richard has changed the sprayer to accommodate the wet and windy weather brought in from the coast. Now at 250cm spacing, the booms can run very low resulting in no drift even if it’s windy. This enables more spray days and a better chance at getting the timeliness right.

As with most farms across the UK, the weather has been the biggest challenge with dry weather in May and June, and then rain as soon as harvest began.

Luckily, Richard had installed a biomass boiler 6-7 years ago for grain drying after a very wet harvest having heard about them in Scotland. It has been a game changer. Their 1-megawatt biomass boiler provides a lot more spare heat than previous methods of grain drying where they used up to 1.2 megawatts of gas on one drying floor. In the old system, if they were on 25% moisture, it took 10 days to dry one side. With the biomass boiler on woodchip, they can dry 2 drying bays, double the output, and never have to run the boiler flat out. With the right combine (Richard uses a MacDon belt header), the corn is cut as soon as it gets to 25% and achieves good output, as Richard emphasises “do not wait”.

Planting OSR in August was a struggle, with some fields too wet to put a tine in and any cultivation out of the question. Instead, Richard planted the wet parts of the field by snipping the OSR with a sprinter drill and planting the dry parts with a farm standard drill and a top down.

To better manage the unpredictable weather, Richard has a selection of drills that he’s held onto rather than sell. The farm will run 2, sometimes 3 drills if they can, capitalising on days when they have the right weather. This was especially helpful during autumn when the farm received 295mm of rain in October alone.

The farm also spends a lot of time on drainage. Ditches are cleaned, dug out, drains put in; all with the aim of evening out patches in fields and making the farm more resilient. As Richard says, it’s great getting 16t/ha on wheat in a bit of field but if you’re only getting 3t/ha in another part because it’s too wet there is space to do better.

Still, the most used bit of kit on the farm is a spade.  By continually monitoring and assessing soil structure, Richard can make a well-informed decision when determining how to establish the next crop.

Farm Walk

During the farm walk, we were shown multiple cover crop and companion crop trials that were taking place on the farm. Steve Corbett from Agrii has worked with Richard for many years, trialling different varieties and combinations, highlighting the importance in being selective. You need good establishment, and it must earn its keep.

What they have found is that OSR, a “lazy rooting brassica”, completely lends itself to companion cropping, in this case with beans, spring vetch and buckwheat. Beans help to get the roots down as well as provide free nitrogen through nodulation. Spring vetch as opposed to winter vetch grows quickly providing biomass and N fixation. Buckwheat adds to the canopy, slowing down flea beetle, making it more difficult for pigeons to land, as well as mining phosphates. When the companion crops die, all the fixed nitrogen and phosphates will be released back into the soil ready for the next crop.

Richard deliberately plants OSR at low seed rates to encourage big branchy plants in spring which will grow away, allowing light through the canopy. By choosing thicker and well-branched OSR types, flea beetle is more contained, damaging only the outer leaves, leaving the middle to branch out. In Richard’s experience it provides a plant that will survive despite a pest living within it.

In terms of cultivation, Richard is a big fan of direct drilling. When direct drilling wheat, he believes it is important to see what is happening underground: what is the root depth? Taking stock of root depth and maintaining that attention to detail during crop growth is essential to determine the next steps in terms of cultivation. At Sealands farm, root depth is critical to survive the winds, Richard has found through monitoring that cultivation disrupts root growth, and that direct drilling fits his system best.

Ultimately, Richard has tried a lot which didn’t work out, but he’s kept at it. One outcome which has surprised him the most was the success of forage rye which he believes is underestimated. In the field, Richard showed us the root mass it was building and the excellent soil structure it yielded. This has provided Richard with an extra income stream, either taken for silage or grazed (ensuring to move stock on in wet conditions to avoid undoing all the good work he’s built up!).

Looking to improve the soil structure even further, Richard planted the forage rye together with westerwolds. He found that they were able to harvest the westerwolds a fortnight earlier due to the ability of the forage rye to get away in the spring creating its own microclimate which Richard believes benefitted the westerwolds.

Finally, we heard about Richard’s problem with persistent perennial ryegrass. In this instance, he introduced an annual ryegrass to outcompete the perennial. “Putting in a bully to outcompete a bully”. It worked and Richard is now able to include it within the arable rotation without generating a loss. This allows a rest period within the rotation to build fertility, stabilise soil structure and generate a bit of extra cash from silage or grazing. Essentially, Richard is maintaining the balance of farming resiliently: optimising soil health and crop yields while sustaining a viable business.

As we’ve all come to realise, we can’t rely on the weather, however, prioritising soil health as perfectly exemplified by Richard, can better equip us to respond and adapt. When we get to know our soils, monitoring how they behave in certain conditions and how they respond to our actions, we are better prepared and forearmed to make decisions that will affect future harvests and pocket.

Through trials and problem solving, Richard together with Steve have implemented more diversity and reduced inputs without damaging profits. A big resistance to straying from our well-known and “safe” rotations is often down to “how will it pay for itself”. Richard and Steve have shown that they’re not radical in their rationale for cover and companion crops, the bottom line is it has to pay. The most exciting take home from the day is they didn’t give up: they’ve found the right species to incorporate, the soil health on farm is improving and crop yields are directly benefiting. It was a truly inspiring day and a masterclass in perseverance. Richard hasn’t made it look easy by any stretch but as he puts it “we’re just learning all the time.”

You can read the full report here.

In Introduction to Soil Biodiversity

Posted on April 18, 2024 by - Insights

By Stefan Marks, Farm Carbon and Soil Advisor

One gram of soil can contain one billion bacteria and up to 10,000 different species of bacteria with only 1% of organisms estimated to have been identified.

The soil functions as part of a vital living system which supports crop and animal health, underpinned by massively complex interactions between the biological, chemical, and physical properties of the soil. Life in the soil is often underestimated, spanning millions of species and billions of organisms which account for the highest concentration of biomass from anywhere on the planet. Fertility and crop performance are at risk of being distilled down to the chemical or physical constraints of the soil in isolation. This encourages an oversimplified approach to soil management. Sustainable Land Management, and the move towards regenerative agriculture encourages a more holistic management of the soil, resulting in enhanced biological diversity and so delivering the key benefits. It is important to recognize the importance of soil biology without overthinking its complexity, after all, we cannot manage for individual microbial species.

Soil Microorganisms

Soil microorganisms describe both bacteria and fungi, whose abundance makes up much of the biological biomass in the soil. Bacteria and fungi produce a range of enzymes which can break down and absorb inorganic and organic matter which is later made readily available as nutrients to plant roots. Fungal communities form larger hyphae ‘networks’ which are beneficial in mobilising nutrients in mutualistic exchanges with rooting structures. These fungal hyphae can extend over great distances and further help with the aggregation of the soil, improving soil stability, water holding capacity and therefore a greater resilience to droughts and waterlogging.

Bacteria exudates form the ‘glues’ which facilitate the formation of microaggregates from soil particles and as well as increasing the cycling of nutrients with a particular focus on the nitrogen cycle. Both fungi and bacteria are responsible for the breakdown of organic matters within the soil profile and so populations benefit greatly from manure applications. 

Due to their short life cycles, the population of these organisms may shift rapidly as a result of changes to their environment including the soil temperature, moisture and chemical composition. A healthier soil will generally have higher microbial biomass and will benefit from a larger fungal-to-bacterial ratio. Applications of agrochemicals and fertilisers can impact populations with overapplications of nitrogen promoting a more bacterially dominated soil. Likewise, tillage can break up the fungal hyphae which are more sensitive to physical disturbance.

Soil Macrofauna

The macrofauna are larger organisms which inhabit the soil with perhaps the most notable being the earthworm. Not only do earthworms operate as ecosystem engineers to enhance the soil and provide a better environment for other plants and animals to reside but they are an excellent indicator of soil health. Whilst it can be difficult to measure soil biodiversity the presence of earthworms indicate, on a larger scale, a healthy operating food web with a distribution of organisms across all trophic levels. As such earthworm numbers have become a good metric for biological soil health which are a result of and have an impact upon the chemical and physical properties of the soil. Earthworms fulfill different functions based on their niche, with the three main groups being:

  • Epigeic –  Inhabit litter layer and cycle carbon
  • Endogeic – Topsoil dwelling and enhance soil aggregation and nutrient mobilisation
  • Anecic – Deep burrowing improving porosity, water infiltration and root development

Considerations for Biological Soils

  • Feed the soil: amendments of organic matter will benefit soil organisms as it provides a feed source for them to thrive on. Conversely the greater the soil fauna populations the quicker and more available the nutrients. Over applications of inorganic fertility sources can have a negative impact causing the soil to become too bacterially dominated.
  • Crop diversity: the greater the crop diversity the greater the diversity in below-ground populations as there is a greater range of plants to feed and interact with in the growing environment. This necessitates the implementation of more diverse crop rotations into arable systems and will benefit from greater diversity in grassland with the inclusion of legumes and herbs.
  • Reduced tillage: tillage can have an adverse effect on established populations of soil organisms from the fungal hyphae all the way up to the earthworms. A move towards less intensive tillage through the adoption of no-till or min-till establishment at suitable parts of the rotation will help to maintain soil biological populations.

Overall, the biological component of the soil should not be overlooked as it is an essential part of a vital, living soil. Allowing soil to function properly will bring a host of benefits which can result in real world cost savings. Chief among these benefits may be the increased resilience in a changing climate.

Sustainable crop rotations

Posted on March 21, 2024 by - Insights, News

Looking back at 2023, it can safely be defined as a challenging year with the wettest autumn / winter we have seen for decades. Farmers have not only faced the challenge of maximising yields and optimising soil health, but also battling against the elements to drill crops into the ground. Hoping for a kinder 2024, this blog explores options to build resilience into crop rotations aiming to cultivate a balance between high yields and optimum soil health.

Minimising cultivation

First things first, this blog is not telling you to get rid of the plough. All machinery serves a purpose, it is just about knowing when to intervene. Within systems that have reduced their cultivations or those that have been adopting conservation ploughing (i.e. ploughing one year in three or more), soils tend to be more resilient through improved soil structure. Good soil structure has a matrix of small, medium, and large pore spaces able to retain and drain water as well as provide pockets of air for respiration and gaseous exchange and water for nutrient exchange. When we till the soil, especially when ground conditions are sub-optimum, we run the risk of squashing the pores and causing compaction and soil degradation, reducing water infiltration, increasing anaerobism (lack of oxygen) and building up toxic gases, all contributing to poor soil health and disappointing crop yields.

Carry out a VESS: Visual Evaluation of Soil Structure

It is important to get out there and dig holes; get to know your soil and how it behaves under certain environmental conditions. When you assess the soil structure, look for compaction and note its depth. Can this be remedied by deeper rooting species, or does it require mechanical intervention? Always keep the depth in mind as it’s no good going in too deep or too shallow.

Diversity

Sustainable rotations begin with diversity. A multipronged approach combining arable crops, legumes and cover crops takes full advantage of all the tools we have in the box as arable farmers. Diversity in species above ground matches diversity in species below ground: helping to break pest and disease cycles and improve soil health through provision of various rooting architecture, root exudates and crop residues. The soil is alive and many of the nutrients available to crops and plants come from the activity of soil-dwelling organisms that are busy stabilising, consuming and releasing nutrients for the benefit of the crop. Diversity in crops and roots therefore contribute a rich source of food for soil fauna to feast on, enhancing soil fertility and subsequent crop health and crop yield. 

Where pests and disease more commonly thrive is within monocultures e.g. continuous cereals. We are seeing an increasing reliance on chemicals to control and abate problems within these systems, depleting our soils of beneficials in the process. Similarly, a lack of diversity in roots are only supporting a limited community of microorganisms. This is not sustainable; therefore, we must explore how we can incorporate more species within the rotation. OSR is one of many good examples. It has deep roots and is easily diversified with companions e.g. vetch / buckwheat / berseem clover. Maximising the number of crop species in a rotation will optimise the diversity of organisms below ground.

On farm, an easy way to measure how biologically active our soils are is by monitoring earthworm numbers. Earthworms are at the top of the soil food web and will travel to and reside where there is lots of food; they are also brilliant at breaking down residues and redistributing nutrients throughout the soil profile. How many worms do you count in a spade full of soil? Where are you finding the most? And can those numbers be replicated elsewhere on farm?

Legumes

The blog wouldn’t be complete without talking about legumes. Approximately 78% of the air is nitrogen. If we can harness the power of leguminous plants to fix some of that nitrogen, we can cut costs by reducing the amount of artificial fertiliser whilst also minimising our environmental impact. Consider incorporating peas or beans into the rotation as stand-alone crops, clover as a companion crop or include legumes as part of a cover crop mix. Farmers are often able to reduce the amount of bagged fertiliser used after legumes.

Legumes to build fertility: field beans in an arable rotation

If possible, trial a small reduction across a proportion of the field first and see how your yields fare – you might be pleasantly surprised.

Cover Crops

Utilising cover crops between winter and spring cropping is an excellent approach to building soil health in between cash crops: stabilising soil structure by maintaining living roots in the soil throughout the year, feeding the soil biology and acting as a buffer protecting the soil from adverse weather conditions. 

On top of this, one of the biggest advantages of cover crops is that they are great at scavenging and holding onto residual nutrients left over from the previous crop, reducing losses from leaching. Once destroyed, the nutrients will be released back into the soil, improving nutrient use efficiency, and potentially enabling a reduction in artificial inputs required by the next crop. 

Cover crop mixes should be tailored to your needs and soil type. It’s better to choose species type based on what you are trying to achieve: building fertility, keeping the ground covered, and/or alleviating compaction. 

If possible, conduct trials and aim to include 3 or more species in the mix to capitalise on diversity in both the above-ground biomass for optimised photosynthetic potential (think assortment of leaf shapes to increase surface area from which to harness the sun’s energy), and below-ground biomass through varied rooting structures, depths, shapes and sizes (pumping sugars and carbon into the soil, building soil organic matter and feeding the soil biology).

Livestock Integration

Integrating grazing livestock into your rotation offers an alternative technique to destroying cover crops whilst also adding valuable organic matter to the soil in the form of manure. Including grass and clover leys also gives the ground a break, allowing time for recovery and offers another income stream from grazing or silage / hay making. The benefits of perennial roots in the ground over an extended period, especially if a mix of roots at different depths, will help to improve soil structure and build fertility for future crops.

Grazing livestock returning soil organic matter and building soil health.

Explore the Sustainable Farming Incentive options to see if herbal leys or a 2-year legume fallow could be economically viable.

Monitoring and Adapting

It is important to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all approach; be adaptive and tailor options to local environment and conditions. Trial different methods and see which suits your system best.

Regularly monitoring soil health, accounting for all nutrient sources, and keeping an eye on pest and disease prevalence alongside crop performance and weather is crucial to make informed adjustments to rotations as needed.

In summary, farmers are in a unique position in that yes, we produce emissions in the process of producing nutritious food however, we can also build soil health and boost biodiversity simultaneously contributing to offsetting our own emissions and future proofing our farms and landscapes. Implementing a sustainable crop rotation in the UK is not just about growing crops; it’s about promoting a future where productivity and soil health co-exist. By diversifying crops, integrating legumes, embracing cover crops, minimising tillage, incorporating livestock, and tailoring practices to local conditions, it is possible to achieve a resilient and sustainable agricultural landscape supporting local and wider communities for years to come.

Building trust in Carbon Calculators in Agriculture

Posted on March 27, 2024 by - Calculator, Insights

Farm carbon calculator logo

By Liz Bowles, Farm Carbon Toolkit Chief Executive

In a recent blog post, we explored all the factors that influence the accuracy of carbon footprint, from the data the user inputs, through to the processes that ensure the Farm Carbon Calculator’s calculations and emissions factors are correct, and the ongoing testing carried out. Here we would like to tell you about how we are involved with activity to support Calculator harmonisation to increase levels of trust in all UK Farm Carbon Calculators.

Defra is very keen to support the agricultural sector in embracing greenhouse gas accounting. To this end in 2023, they commissioned ADAS to look at a number of leading UK Carbon Calculators to improve our understanding of the differences between them and to support methodology harmonisation going forward. Not surprisingly the differences between the Calculators investigated arise from three main areas – scoping, factors and standards.

Scoping describes what is measured, and some calculators include things that others don’t. At the Farm Carbon Calculator, for instance, we measure as much as possible of a farm business.

There are some standard and some non-standard emissions factors used. For instance, the UK Government produces a comprehensive list of emissions (UK GHG Inventory Conversion Factors) from fuels & energy, livestock and crops that all calculators will use. But some of the other factors come from a range of other scientific papers and there may be some variability in which ones are used by different calculators. 

There are a number of standards that describe what and how to measure carbon footprints. Whilst there are a number of standards that relate to food and farming, there is a lack of consensus over which standard is ‘the one’ to adhere to.

Guidance for all carbon calculators

A series of recommendations for all Carbon Calculators, Industry and UK governments were made by ADAS as a result of this work – ADAS report . Here we list those recommendations and how we are implementing them.

SectorWhat is the ask?What is FCC doing?
Industry and GovernmentClearly define the scope required for farm level carbon assessments and how they will be usedWe are actively working with industry bodies to harmonise the way emissions data is collected and calculations are made
CalculatorsAlign with the requirements of the latest standards and guidance – currently GHG Protocol standardsFollowing our Carbon Trust Review we are implementing our agreed action plan to ensure full alignment with the GHG Protocol
CalculatorsRegularly review and update Calculators to account for changes in scientific knowledge, carbon accounting methodologies and new emission factorsWe update the Calculator in spring and autumn each year, covering all three areas outlined in the recommendation
CalculatorsComply with the latest IPCC guidanceWe already adhere to IPCC guidance
CalculatorsTo use emission factors from agreed sources for the embedded emissions in fertilisers, feed and fuelsWe base emissions factors on the GFLI database, which is considered the most robust source of this data. However, we would welcome a more UK-centric database which is required to be used by all Calculators. Agricultural carbon tools have been struggling with the challenge of embedded emissions in purchased livestock for years
IndustrySupport the development of appropriate emissions factors for the embedded emissions in purchased livestock
CalculatorsPresent outputs in compliance with the latest standardThrough our adoption of the Carbon Trust Recommendations our outputs will align with the latest standards
Government and industryDefine consistent disaggregated output categories for use by all calculators.(not applicable)
Calculator providersBuild user confidence through transparency of approach and third-party verification of the alignment of calculators to minimum standardsOur methodology is freely available on our website and we annually carry out an independent review of the Farm Carbon Calculator

Alongside the work of ADAS, FCT is working with other UK Calculators as well as industry bodies such as Dairy UK to support more rapid harmonisation to reduce report results variation for farmers. Watch this space!

As an organisation that exists to help farmers and growers measure, understand and reduce their carbon footprint,  we always operate in the best interests of our users which includes ensuring our Calculator is as accurate as possible at all times. We are independent, providing a free carbon calculator for farmers and growers, and have a process of continual improvement in place. As a regular user of our Calculator you can always compare current and past results using the most up-to-date Calculator, allowing you to track business progress to net Zero.


You can find all you need to know about the Farm Carbon Calculator here If you need more information please contact us at calculator@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk or phone us on 07541 453413

How to get an accurate farm carbon footprint report

Posted on February 26, 2024 by - Calculator, Insights

Process of doing your carbon footprint report

When calculating the carbon footprint of a farm business, users should expect a result that is accurate, insightful, representative and replicable. However, farmers and growers can sometimes be unsure what the results from different carbon calculators mean, and why they are different. In general, it is good practice to find a carbon calculator which works for you and stick with it. Many calculators provide their methodology which demonstrates transparency and is a feature which users should look for.  In this blog we walk you through the process, and what affects the reports produced.

Inputting data into Carbon Calculators

Before starting the process of collecting data from your farm business, scoping is an important first step in understanding what’s in and what’s out of the report. For instance, a farm might have different enterprises, such as arable farming, a farm shop and some business units. Reporting on those enterprises separately makes sense from the perspective of understanding the carbon footprint of farming operations. In many instances, it is important to understand who the report is being completed for. Completing a whole farm footprint ensures that no details are overlooked and enables users to estimate farm carbon removals as well as emissions. However, increasingly the customers of farmers and growers are keen to understand the emissions associated with the products they are buying.

It should be noted, however, that producing separate reports that focus on the product can lead to overlooking important parts of a farm as a system – those parts of the farm that keep the system working but don’t directly result in a product.

Time period for the report 

This is generally over a 12-month period and can coincide with business accounting or harvest year, whichever is most convenient. It is perfectly possible to carry out emissions reporting over shorter periods to coincide with, for example, batches of livestock production. If you take this approach, be sure not to leave gaps between your reporting.

Data collection is a key part of the process and is generally undertaken by the business owner/employee. Getting this right is critical, and the quality of the data going in directly affects the accuracy of the results that come out. Our advice is quite simple – collect as much data as possible that is relevant to your business over the period to be reported on. We have a data collection spreadsheet to help with this part of the process https://calculator.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk/resources. 

When entering data into the Calculator, it is important to ensure that data is entered correctly and in full. Users need to ensure that they’ve inputted everything collected in the data collection process and that units, decimal points and other important information are filled in correctly. There is much potential for error here, which will have a significant impact on the results!

Once data is entered and results can be viewed, interpretation of the report is very important. Is the report looking at a whole farm or enterprise footprint? Are you looking at the emissions only or the carbon balance? Are results being shown per hectare, per tonne, or for the whole business? Being clear about what has been measured, and what is being reported is crucial – particularly if comparing between different businesses or within a sector. 

Getting our bit right

As a provider of a leading carbon calculator for farmers, growers and food businesses, at Farm Carbon Calculator we take a huge amount of care in ensuring that we are getting our numbers right. 

Alongside your farm data, all Calculators will have a series of formulae and emissions factors which are used to calculate the farm’s emissions. Emissions factors tell us how much greenhouse gas is released from a certain activity – for instance using a litre of diesel in a tractor. At FCT, we do this on thousands of items! We update all our emissions factors on an annual basis, and sometimes more frequently if new and credible research comes along. 

Once we’ve entered the new emissions factors, which have to be backed up by rigorous and credible peer-reviewed science, we then test the Calculator to ensure that everything is working properly. This process is rigorous and any anomalies are corrected before the update goes live. We publish our methodology and references on our resources page. The next update is due in April 2024.

This ongoing process ensures that we are on top of the science, up-to-date, and maintaining a tool that users can expect to get accurate and reliable results from, in order to make informed decisions for their business.

Alongside getting the factors and formulae correct, there is increasing guidance on what needs to be included within any agricultural greenhouse gas audit and how the calculations should be completed. Examples of such guidance come from the draft Land Sector Removals guidance from GHG protocol which sets standards for how GHG accounting should be carried out and the Forest, Land and Agriculture Science (FLAG guidance) from the Science-based Targets Initiative (SBTi). At FCT, our Calculator has been analysed against the requirements of FLAG and our Calculator has been found to be well aligned with its requirements.

As an organisation that exists to help farmers and growers measure, understand and reduce their carbon footprint,  we always operate in the best interests of our users which includes ensuring our Calculator is as accurate as possible at all times. We are independent, providing a free carbon calculator for farmers and growers, and have a process of continual improvement in place. As a regular user of our Calculator you can always compare current and past results using the most up-to-date Calculator, allowing you to track business progress to net Zero.

You can find all you need to know about the Farm Carbon Calculator here If you need more information please contact us at calculator@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk or phone us on 07541 453413 

In the next blog we focus on how we get externally reviewed, and are engaged with industry and Government to improve accuracy and standards.

Your beef enterprise: how to accurately estimate emissions and sequestration

Posted on February 13, 2024 by - Calculator, Insights

To accurately estimate the emissions and sequestration from your beef enterprise, you will need to add data to the following sections of the Calculator:

  • When setting up the report, make sure you enter the area of grazing (grassland) as well as any non-agricultural land area and cultivated land (arable or horticultural)
  • Use the Livestock section and select beef cattle. Add as many entries as you need to cover your herd. For example, you may have two groups of steers with different liveweights or kept on the farm for different lengths of time. In which case, enter the steers from the first group with one liveweight and then the steers from the second group as a separate entry with their own liveweight. This will give you more accurate emissions from their enteric fermentation (gut methane).
  • To calculate the average head of livestock on the farm over a 12 month period, take the number in a particular livestock category per month (so you have 12 “snapshots”) add these together and then divide by 12. Our data collection sheet has a help sheet for this. For growing animals, you may want to use the same approach for calculating average liveweight (our defaults assume a midpoint liveweight through the year for growing cattle but growth rates won’t be linear so using the snapshot approach may be more accurate)
  • Livestock entries also capture the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) of the methane emissions from enteric fermentation and of the nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from the animals’ manure over the course of the year. The Calculator asks you how this manure is managed as this has an impact on the N2O emissions
  • You have the option to input the average dry matter intake (DMI) per animal per day (kgDM/head/day). The DMI can be used to more accurately calculate the enteric emissions of the cattle, and if left blank, a simpler algorithm will be used that does not consider DMI
  • You will need to account for any supplemental feeding via the Livestock > Animal feeds option – this is for brought-in feeds that were produced off-farm
  • Account for all your fuel use, electricity use, consumables, inventory items and waste produced using the relevant sections (Fuels, Materials,  Inventory, Waste). However, if you also have a dairy herd or arable operation, you may prefer to create a separate report and use this as an Overheads report to apportion shared capital items and energy usage emissions between your enterprises. Watch our video to see how this works in practice.
  • We recommend getting your soil sampled and have a guide on how to do this effectively and affordably. By monitoring your soil organic matter or soil organic carbon over time you can begin to log sequestration rates in your grazed (or other) soils. Once you have two years’ worth of soil sample results, you can enter these in the Calculator under Sequestration > Soil Organic Matter (you will also need bulk density measurements and a record of the depth of the sample).
  • If you don’t have directly sampled soil data for all your soils, you can use our range of proxy values for different Countryside Stewardship and habitat classes to estimate how much carbon your soils may be sequestering year-on-year. You can also measure the length of any hedgerows and field margins (ungrazed) and enter these to estimate the carbon sequestered in them on a yearly basis.

The Financial Reward of Reducing Carbon

Posted on February 13, 2024 by - Insights

By Robert Purdew, Farm Carbon and Soils Advisor

There is a growing concern about carbon “tunnel vision” in agriculture, where the sole focus is on reducing emissions without considering the bigger picture. Reducing emissions is crucial, yet it’s important to acknowledge that it is only one piece of the puzzle and focusing solely on carbon can neglect factors such as soil health, water quality, biodiversity and other issues such as pollution. There is also often concern from farmers about how the pressures to achieve net zero targets can impact profitability, especially when incentives to be net zero are limited or non-existent, and investments in the infrastructure and technology required to transition to low-carbon farming are high.

But this doesn’t have to be the case. We can use an understanding of a farm’s emissions to make informed decisions to change management practices that can lead directly to both reduced emissions and increased profitability, and we can point to an increased number of farmers who are doing just this.

Mike and Sam Roberts farm 435 acres at Blable Farm, of which a large proportion is down to herbal leys. After Sam returned to the farm in 2018 a decision was made to review the whole operation and, in conjunction with James Daniel of Precision Grazing, the decision was made to reduce the herd slightly from 180 to 150 cows, implement rotational grazing on diverse leys and to focus on reducing inputs and improving soil health.

Cattle out wintering at Blable Farm

The effects were immediate and obvious. Soil health has seen a rapid improvement with better structure, increased earthworm numbers and soil organic matter is on the rise. The grazing period has been increased from 6 to 12 months and the farm hasn’t bought fertiliser since 2021, with none being used last year. Importantly, animal performance has increased in line with improved soil health and while cow numbers were reduced initially Mike and Sam are looking at increasing numbers again. All of this has seen a significant saving on input costs which has been re-invested into the business, including a full soil audit to better understand how soil health is improving. In line with reduced costs on-farm emissions have been reduced significantly with Mike confident the farm can reach net zero within 5 years, a commitment made as part of being a demo farm for the Farm Net Zero project.

Another example of a farmer using an understanding of their carbon footprint to drive down costs and improve profitability is Tom Burge of Oaremead Farm. Tom farms 760 acres of grassland on Exmoor and runs both a suckler herd and commercial sheep flock. In 2017 Tom began shifting to a more regenerative farming system which predominantly focussed on an improvement in grazing management, once again aided by James Daniel from Precision Grazing.

A person standing in a grassy field with cows Description automatically generated

Over 5 years, Tom has completely cut out the use of artificial fertiliser and reduced his feed use by over 70%. This has been made possible by an increase in dry matter grown of 0.9 tDM/ha, through improved grazing management, and has reduced input costs by 50%, with a similar reduction in emissions from inputs, as shown in the chart below. Crucially the farm is now profitable before taking into account income from subsidies and environmental schemes. In the next 5 years, Tom plans to completely cut out bought-in feed and to have halved fuel use and, like Mike and Sam, be well on the road to net zero while remaining highly productive and profitable.

Oaremead Farm emissions from inputs

These are just two of an increasing number of examples that we are coming across as we work with more and more farmers who are using their carbon emissions as just one metric to help improve their farm businesses. And far from impacting just a farm’s emissions and bottom line, the management changes that are being implemented are having beneficial impacts on those ecosystem services mentioned previously, soil health, biodiversity, water quality and reduced pollution. Proof if ever it was needed of the potential for long-term sustainability within our farming systems.

Five farms in Cornwall on a journey towards Net Zero

Posted on January 18, 2024 by - Case Studies, Farm Net Zero, Insights

We’re excited to share a series of five new videos that showcase some of the farms in Cornwall that are part of the Farm Net Zero project.

Each video shares a different farm’s journey as it works to improve the environment, produce nutritious food, while also responding to climate risks, such as flooding. There is a specific focus in these videos on how the farms are engaging within their local communities, to help tackle these issues. The Farm Net Zero project includes practical advice for farmers on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, showcases innovation, provides robust science through soil testing and carbon footprinting, and inspires other farmers to tell their stories to consumers on the steps that they are taking to address climate change and protect soil health.

The full-length video below includes all of the following five stories. If you prefer to view each story separately, please simply click on each of the links here:

The complexities of calculating livestock emissions

Posted on January 11, 2024 by - Calculator, Insights

What do we mean by livestock emissions?

Emissions from livestock cover two broad categories:

  • Enteric methane emissions (this is the methane produced by the animals digestion)
  • Greenhouse gas emissions from the manure and slurry produced by the animals.

When you enter a group of animals in the Farm Carbon Calculator e.g. 100 dairy cows, the Calculator will consider both enteric methane emissions and the nitrous oxide, ammonia and methane emissions associated with the manure or slurry those 100 dairy cows produce over the course of 1 year.

It is really important to enter the average number of animals in a category over the course of the year rather than the total number. For example, if you have 100 dairy calves on farm for only 6 months of the year, you should enter 50 dairy calves. Otherwise the Calculator will have to assume that all 100 calves are on farm for all 365 days of the year, which would overestimate the enteric methane production and the amount of manure produced.

Why do the emissions associated with livestock vary?

In the Farm Carbon Calculator, we ask users to tell us the number of livestock in a range of different livestock categories. The emissions produced by animals will vary based on:

  • Number of livestock (more animals means more emissions)
  • Liveweight of animals (larger animals tend to produce more manure)
  • Type of livestock (ruminants produce enteric methane, monogastrics don’t. Each type of animal has its own “rate of excretion” and different animals’ manures produce methane at different rates)
  • Pregnancy and lactation (pregnant or lactating cattle produce more enteric methane for their size)
  • Manure or slurry storage (rates of methane and nitrous oxide, emitted indirectly through leaching and ammonia volatilisation, vary depending on how the manure is stored and for how long)
  • Where manure/ slurry is spread (if manure is spread, the type of land it is spread on will affect the rate of indirect nitrous oxide emissions through leaching).

What about slurry covers, storage bags, slurry bugs etc… ?

We are actively working on incorporating a lot more options into the Farm Carbon Calculator to allow users to give more detail on their manure management practices. We plan to include options in 2024 for sending manure and slurry to anaerobic digestion, adding detail on slurry pit coverage, storage timing, and different application or incorporation methods for slurry (e.g. trailing shoe versus splash plate).

We are also researching the possibility of including slurry bugs (bacteria that inhibit greenhouse gas production from slurry stores) and chemical nitrous oxide inhibitors (that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases when the slurry is applied to the soil) as options so that users can show the benefits of these in reducing their slurry emissions. Similarly, we would like to be able to include methane inhibitors that can help to reduce enteric methane emissions for livestock.. To date though, the quality of independent scientific evidence for these management practices is very variable and different products show variable results depending on the farm environment, so it is harder for us to give robust estimates of the effect they will have on a farm’s emissions.