Category: Insights

Efficient use of nitrogen on farm

In the face of rising fertiliser prices and environmental concerns, it is crucial to optimise nitrogen use efficiency, NUE, in agriculture. Nitrogen is a key nutrient for crop growth, but on average, only 60% of applied nitrogen is effectively used, while the remaining 40% is lost to the wider environment. This leads to both economic loss and adverse environmental impacts, such as loss of plant ecosystem diversity and waterway contamination.

Reducing reliance on the use of artificial (fossil fuel based) fertilisers is one of the key ways in which all farmers can reduce their farm carbon footprint. Hence finding ways to improve NUE is critical.

How do we go about improving our use of artificial inputs?

1.Improving fertiliser management

The first step in fertiliser management is working out the requirements. Oversupply of nitrogen has many unintended negative consequences:

  1. Reduces soil pH 
  2. Reduces soil  organic matter 
  3. Reduces soil health
  4. Increases nitrogen leaching, run off and volatilisation. 

Fertiliser uptake is most efficient when the right quantity is supplied at the right time , i.e. when the crop can take it up. Regular soil testing and analysis can provide an accurate picture of the chemical composition, providing soil indices for P, K and Mg in line with RB209 and  soil pH. The results from soil testing will be dependent on the legacy effect of previous crops, management and soil type. Standard soil testing does not measure nitrogen content. 

Soil nitrogen supply (SNS) index is used to describe the levels of available nitrogen in the soil. Through measuring the quantity of available nitrogen within the soil, the suggested nitrogen requirement from artificial fertiliser may be reduced due to the supply from the soil alone. Different crops have different nitrogen requirements which are outlined in RB209 with respect to the SNS. These tools can be used to calculate the economic optimum for fertiliser application on each crop. Alongside  fertilisers, optimising pH is critical for most crops to make best use of any fertiliser applied – for most crops it is pH  6.0 – 6.5. Agronomists or FACTS qualified advisors are a good source of fertiliser information and advice.

Timeliness of applications is also an important consideration with split applications being the best way to target the most significant growth periods. Applying nitrogen to a growing crop reduces losses as uptake is at its maximum. With the cost of applications there is an optimum balance for the number of applications on the crop.

Weather is perhaps the biggest determinant of when fertiliser can be applied. The target conditions for soil applied fertiliser are a cool temperature with moist soil. Climate change is becoming a growing threat with more extreme and unpredictable conditions becoming more regular.

Tools to measure Nitrogen

  • Soil Mineral N testing in Autumn or Spring measures plant available nitrogen allowing the grower to adjust the rate of applied nitrogen. This should be done per field and soil type across each field. 
  • Chlorophyll N Tester can be used every 7 – 10 days in most crop types once full leaf ground cover is achieved. e.g. Yara N – Tester
  • Chlorophyll N Sensor mounted on the tractor roof is linked to a variable rate fertiliser spreader or sprayer. Trials have shown a saving of 50 kg of N on wheat is possible.
  • Sap or leaf testing can also be used to measure N in a growing crop.
  • Testing grain and straw for cereals for N and S will allow an accurate budget for N removed and whether there is adequate sulphur which is essential for efficient uptake of N, it will also tell you if you have put too much/enough N on the tested crop.
  • Satellite Imagery, NDVI, can show areas of high and low biomass across fields.

2.       Nutrient management in rotation

The use of cover crops or catch crops can scavenge residual soil nitrogen when sowed after harvest. Nitrogen will be utilised by the plants and stored within the crop until it breaks down and is reincorporated into the soil. These can be used to benefit the following crop by reducing the availability of nitrates to be leached and instead making them available as the residues are broken down. Crops can also be drilled into a standing cover or sown as an understory. This can be particularly beneficial with clover which fixes nitrogen further reducing the demand for artificial nitrogen.

Cover crops are a tool within the wider crop rotation which can be designed with greater diversity incorporating legumes and deeper rooting species to improve the soil structure and residual soil nutrients. By staggering crops with a high nitrogen requirement in a rotation the SNS can be maintained thereby reducing the artificial fertiliser requirements.

Introducing a legume crop into the rotation will facilitate the fixation of nitrogen into the soil which is available for a following crop and will also support improvements in soil health.

3.       Fertiliser application

The method of application significantly influences the distribution and subsequent uptake efficiency of synthetic fertilisers. In the context of solid fertilisers, broadcasting is commonly employed, ensuring a uniform spread across the entire field. This approach is suitable for crops with dense canopies. Other methods for solid fertiliser application encompass placement, band placement, and pellet application. Employing more precise fertiliser application techniques enhances the ability to effectively target the root zone, optimising nutrient uptake but may come at added complexity and cost. When it comes to applications it is important to calibrate the spreader for each product used to ensure accuracy and reduce wastage.

An alternative to solid fertilisers which has experienced a resurgence in recent years, is foliar applications. This approach offers several distinct advantages over traditional solid fertilisers. Foremost among these benefits is enhanced efficiency, largely attributed to the rapid uptake time of products like dissolved urea, which can be absorbed in as little as 5 hours. This improved uptake time provides an additional advantage for alleviating deficiencies in a shorter time period with more flexible and tailored nutrient doses at the correct stage of growth. Additionally, by targeting the plant’s leaves rather than the soil, there is a reduced risk of soil acidification, along with diminished release of volatile compounds. This fosters a more favourable environment for soil biology to thrive and function effectively.

4.       Improving the soil

Soil is a vital component of plant growth and has a huge capacity to improve nitrogen use efficiency through improving the physical and biological components in the soil. A healthy soil is one which promotes plant health and vigour with greater resistance to stress. Healthy soils are more resilient to extreme weather conditions, better able to retain more moisture during droughts and hold more water in periods of high rainfall, thereby reducing waterlogging. Not only does this reduce leaching but it also allows for better uptake of nutrients, including nitrogen, as the soil is coping with a wider range of weather without stressing the crops.

Improving soil conditions facilitates greater biological and fungal activity which improves nutrient cycling, and through interactions with the root zone an enhanced consumption and release of essential minerals.

Increased soil organic matter levels are an indicator of a well functioning soil. Indeed this helps to promote a better soil structure and water holding capacity but it is also a crucial energy source for the microorganisms responsible for nitrogen cycling. The integration of organic manures and composts, where feasible, can significantly augment soil functionality and performance.

To conclude

  • To enhance nitrogen use efficiency, optimal soil conditions are critical. 
  • Ensure any fertilisers are delivered in the right amount, at the right time. 
  • Soil deficiencies should be minimised through sampling and proper nutrient management to allow for maximum uptake of nitrogen. 
  • Consider the use of foliar fertiliser applications to increase NUE at full crop canopy.

This blog was written by Stefan Marks, one of our Farm Carbon and Soils Advisors, to read about our team head here.

A day in the life of… Izzy Garnsey, our Agricultural Data Analyst

I’m Izzy, the FCT Agricultural Data Analyst. I have been part of FCT for six months now, but I am still constantly blown away by the passion and expertise shown by our Team when they start digging through a farmer’s soil and eyeing up herbal leys.

Each day in this job can be different, thanks to the breadth of data that FCT collects and uses. From tractors to goats to nitrogen and anaerobic digesters, we count it all. The speed with which our projects progress means there is a great demand for efficiency in handling the data, and so I get to employ every coding technique I can to make the data flow as smoothly and insightfully as possible. The end of July saw us compiling a full data set of carbon footprinting data to calculate the emissions and sequestration for 82 members of the First Milk dairy cooperative.

There is such variety in the farms that we work with, their livestock, crops, inputs and building materials rarely fit easily within one category. Our Farm Carbon Calculator has been built with an eye for detail designed to capture the complexity of the farming world as best we can, but it still makes analysing the data an exciting challenge. As FCT continues to engage in large projects and extend its reach across the UK and beyond, we will be developing and advancing the software we use for collecting and mapping out our data to give us further insights into the way farmers can lead the charge against the climate emergency.

Read more about Izzy and the rest of the team here.

Sheep – how well adapted are your livestock for your management and environment?

Blog written by Rob Purdew and Hannah Jones

In the absence of sophisticated pharmaceuticals and feed blends, local breeds were historically adapted to their local environment. These adaptations included the ability to withstand weather extremes, the local pest or parasite burden, and the ability to finish on local, often low quality, forage. Local breeds, from Herdwick to Norfolk Horns, were selected for generations and identified as the most efficient livestock for their specific set of conditions.

On the cliff tops of Cornwall, highland cattle are the one of the stalwart cattle breeds for scrub management, where season long grazing results in an average 0.5kg growth rate a day. The same animal in a shed with silage and a more tailored ration will continue to grow at 0.5kg per day with much higher associated costs. Unpicking the carbon footprint integrates the sequestration potential of that scrub, soil management, no bought in feed and the added benefit of habitat provision. The animals may finish older, but as I was told once by a farmer “go for optimum not maximum”, in the scrub environment the highlands were profitable.

A recent event at Trefranck farm, showcasing the innovative work between Matt and Pip Smith with the Castle Vets and Moredun research (funded by Innovate UK) has brought another exciting perspective on sustainability, through the breeding of worm tolerance in Romney sheep. With a careful eye on welfare throughout the project, the first insights into breeding for tolerance to worm load has been unpicked.

Tolerance to worm burden is defined as the ability of a lamb to maintain weight gain irrespective of worm burden. Those lambs with the desirable genetics showed the least growth penalty in the presence of an average worm burden. A comparison of finishing time showed that there was a 10 day difference between the least and the most tolerant lambs. When extrapolated across a whole flock this represents a significant reduction in both forage costs and carbon footprint. This research is driven by the need to address the huge problem of anthelmintic resistance found in roundworms in UK sheep populations, and further incorporates guidelines on targeted selective treatment to ensure the selection of resistant worms in pastures is impeded. Good breeding, alongside good management of pasture environment and animal movement will improve welfare and reduce loss of productivity from worm burden.

Reducing overheads, and your carbon footprint can be achieved by doing the basics –  the right breed in the right environment – and doing it really well.

A day in the life of…. Stefan Marks, Farm Carbon and Soils Advisor

Written by Stefan Marks one of our Farm Carbon and Soils Advisors.

July marks the midpoint of 2023, with the first half passing by swiftly. It has been a varied year thus far and trying to encapsulate what a typical day might look like working for FCT can be difficult. A week can be a mix of farm days, office work and deadlines but perhaps this milestone provides a good opportunity to reflect on the progress made in the first 6 months.

So far this year my involvement in projects such as Farm Net Zero and the Duchy of Cornwall have been somewhat limited though they are certain to be a key focus in the coming months. The foundation of my projects this year have been varied including sampling in the South West for FERA, remote GIS work collating our GPS sampling data for Yeo Valley and the completion of the Durham AONB project.

The Durham AONB project has been a singular focus with a significant amount of sampling and an equally significant amount of data to process from the 29 farms in the North Pennines. Much of this was conducted over the winter period with considerable efforts from samplers in some rather adverse conditions. Indeed, whilst sampling myself I observed first hand some of the difficulties of farming in such a challenging landscape. So, when we returned at the end of May, marking the end of this project, it was fantastic to see the North Pennines at their best with nature in full flow!

To conclude the Durham project, we ran 3 days of farmer focused events in which we presented the results of the soil analysis and potential options for improving soil health to consider on farm. These events provided an excellent forum for a positive dialogue and knowledge exchange between those in attendance. I found being part of this discussion hugely beneficial providing me with greater context of farming in this distinctive landscape which does not closely resemble many farms I visit in Cornwall.

From my own experience I have found farm events are the highlight of the job and these were no different with such genuine interest and active discussion initiated by the farmers themselves. Among the discussions there was an emphasis on enhancing the natural environment and tailoring on farm operations to benefit the unique wildlife in the AONB.

It has been a busy and rewarding 6 months ending with Groundswell 2023. An opportunity to see some familiar faces, catch up with the FCT team and listen to inspiring talks from some from some of the industry’s best. I am looking forward to the second half of 2023!

Read more about Stefan and the rest of the team here.

A Guide to Cover Crops

Cover crops are usually planted within arable rotations between cash crops. They provide a multitude of benefits including building soil fertility, improving soil health and enhancing above and below ground biodiversity.  

As a non-cash crop, it is important to evaluate your soils to identify any issues and decide what you want to accomplish on a field-by-field basis before you sow any cover crops. Species selection should be based on what solution you want the cover crop to provide.

A picture containing tree, plant, outdoor, flower

Description automatically generated Close up of grass

Description automatically generated with medium confidence A field of green grass

Description automatically generated with low confidence A picture containing tree, outdoor, plant, green

Description automatically generated

Above: Cover crops (left to right) oil radish, winter vetch, phacelia and rye

There are many reasons to grow cover crops

Cover crops can offer solutions for soil compaction, fertility building, pest management, livestock feed, cover over winter and more generally, improved soil health.

Addressing compaction issues with deeper rooting species will aid in breaking up the soil and improve porosity, leading to better water infiltration alongside nutrient and gaseous exchange. Incorporating leguminous plants, such as clover, will fix nitrogen, reducing dependency on artificial fertiliser for subsequent crops. Incorporating forage crops into covers which can then be strip or paddock grazed with out-wintered livestock may reduce costs from bought in feed. If arable only, it presents an opportunity to integrate livestock from a neighbouring farm.

Maintaining ground cover and persistence of living roots in the soil can also reduce competition from pests. Certain species of cover crops can even be selected to control the lifecycle of predators. For example, in a Farmer’s Weekly case study, a farmer described his strategy for controlling the population of free-living nematodes that were destroying his vegetables and sugar beet. In this case, a specific oil radish was used that stimulated the hatching of nematode eggs whilst simultaneously providing hostile conditions for their growth, causing slowing and ultimate cessation of nematode reproduction.

Improving soil health

Cover crops are also a useful tool to build stable aggregates to improve soil structure and increase soil organic matter and soil carbon to feed the soil biology. They act as a ‘savings account’, scavenging and assimilating residual nutrients from previous cropping which will then be released upon desiccation for the next crop.

Diversity in cropping is often mooted as a key method to improve soil health and productivity and incorporating cover crops is a fantastic way to introduce much needed diversity into the arable rotation. The idea is that a diverse mix of crops will bring along a diverse mix of rooting types, structures and lengths. Each root will support an array of bacteria and fungi with different apparatus to cycle the nutrients whilst extending and expanding the root network. Above-ground you are also providing a mosaic of solar panels of all different shapes and sizes, keeping the soil covered and maximising the surface area for photosynthesis, utilising the sun’s energy and pumping carbon back into the soil.

Practical tips for establishing and destroying cover crops

For optimum results you need the cover crops to progress quickly therefore warmer soils are usually required – late summer is best for legumes and phacelia, however, brassica and grass species can be sown as late as October. It is good practice to sow multiple species in any one field to optimise competition and gain maximum benefit. This can be especially good for controlling persistent weeds.

Destruction options vary depending on weather, crop type and available machinery. Some cover crops may die off with winter frosts or in hot weather a crimp roller can usually do the job. Ensure a clear plan is drawn out before sowing cover crops and allow a 4-6 week window between destruction and sowing the next crop.  

Using cover crops to increase profit margins

It’s important to think of your bottom-line productivity when assessing whether to go for cover crops. It is an added expense, but the potential savings from reduced inputs could outweigh the additional cost. The benefits of having living roots in the soil all year round, alongside cover to buffer against adverse weather conditions will also improve soil quality, protecting our soils for future harvests and most importantly building business resilience. 

This blog was written by one of our Farm Carbon and Soils Advisors, Tilly Kimble-Wilde. Find out more about her and the rest of the team here.

A day in the life of… Lizzy Parker, our Calculator Manager

As the Calculator Manager, I keep the Calculator running for our thousands of users and our expanding team of soil and carbon advisors.  

Monday morning means a remote team meeting at FCT. In just a 45 minute conversation, I heard about advisory work going on in Aberdeen, Lincolnshire, Cumbria, Dartmoor and the Isles of Scilly. 

Next up I spent time catching up on some research into specific products used in potato storage to inhibit sprouting, where they come from and what their carbon footprint might be. This was followed by an hour to respond to some user queries around how to enter data in our Calculator (including questions on batches of chickens, how to include anaerobic digestion, and requests for new specific brands of fertilisers to be included).

I squeezed in a conversation with a project partner who is helping us improve the interoperability of our Calculator so that users will be able to do more with their data, as well as one with an agronomist in Italy to discuss the needs of footprinting farms outside the UK. 

After lunch it was onto a weekly meeting to check in with our software developers who are working with us to improve the interoperability of our Calculator, solving  issues and scheduling the testing for the week. 

There’s a lot to keep track of in the Calculator and people use it in all sorts of different ways. My next meeting was with another project partner for whom we are footprinting, not only the farms who supply them with fresh produce, but also the rest of the downstream supply chain. Engaging the whole supply chain is important if we are to understand the opportunities for decarbonisation, reduce GHG emissions and support farmers in the long run.

Towards the end of the day, I was sent some news about the release of an academic paper on hedgerow carbon sequestration, so I made sure that that reached a colleague and then  rounded off the day with some prep for welcoming Michael Oldman, our new Technical Support Officer, feeling very excited that we are growing the team at FCT.

Meet all the FCT team

Find out more about Lizzy and the rest of our friendly team here.

Farming sustainably- regenerative or agroecological?

A short blog written by FCT’s CEO Liz Bowles.

I was lucky enough to attend two events in May which got me thinking – the first being an afternoon seminar hosted by the Dutch Embassy in London and LEAF (Scaling up Regenerative Outcomes-tackling the challenges to mobilise change on May 3rd) and the second hosted by CiWF (Extinction or Regeneration on 11th-12th May). At both events there were distinct areas of commonality, mainly around how we produce food in the future, with livestock farmers involved with both events and key questions around how we need to produce food to respond positively to the climate and nature crises we are in.

A key driver for change amongst farming businesses requires a greater level of understanding of the impacts of regenerative or agroecological farming practices; a greater understanding of their financial impact and better mechanisms for monitoring the impact of changing farming practices on farmland biodiversity. At the moment without such evidence the case for change is not obvious to all and hinders action.

The future role of grazing livestock is another key area of debate, but increasingly there is acknowledgement that if we are to reduce our reliance on artificial fertilisers which lead to emissions of nitrous oxide then we need animal manures. Alongside that we know that grazing livestock provide for other wildlife to flourish on farms as well as consuming food that cannot be processed by humans (namely grass) and large parts of the UK are incapable of producing harvestable crops. Taking this together with the high quality of food produced by ruminants for humans (high quality protein and micronutrients) the case for grazing livestock is strong. Less strong is the case for intensive livestock production where those animals consume food which could be eaten by humans and where their production has negative impacts on farmland biodiversity and degrades soil. For the sake of human health we should reduce our overall consumption of meat products and where possible move to “better” products from extensive systems.

At both events it was clear that doing nothing is not an option.

Linked to the need to change how we produce food for the sake of all of us is the need to consider what future farming supply chains need to look like to support this revolution. It is not clear that we can make the changes we need to in production systems without changes to how supply chains work. At the moment it is those businesses buying from farmers who are leading on how they want farming practice to change, yes, to support a positive response to the climate and nature challenges we face, but, also to ensure that they can reach the self imposed targets they set themselves through such initiatives as the “Science Based Targets”.

Linked to this is the question – can we separate the food that farmers produce from the potential new income streams which farmers may be able to tap into such as the voluntary markets for carbon, biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality? In response to this a new farming cooperative has been formed called the Environmental Farmers Group. It brings farmers together to harness scale and member cooperation to secure the best environmental results and financial returns for a wide range of natural capital goods and services. This is the first such group in the UK and operates nationwide.

Alongside ensuring that farmers are properly rewarded for the changes in practice they make to increase biodiversity and store carbon, the key requirement for agriculture which is often being lost at the moment is how best for individual farm businesses to forge their own path to net zero. The first requirement is to know your baseline and one of the best ways to establish this is to use the Farm Carbon Calculator provided free to farmers by the Farm Carbon Toolkit. Once you have established your baseline you can start to look at all the opportunities to both reduce emissions and store more carbon on your farm. Farm Carbon Toolkit offers a comprehensive toolkit providing information on all the main ways to reduce emissions and showcases how farmers are already making changes and the benefits they are finding.

Contact us

If you would like more information for your business please contact info@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk

A day in the life of… Rob Purdew

Written by Rob Purdew, one of our Farm Carbon and Soils Advisors.

A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to attend the final farm meeting wrapping up an Innovative Farmers trial looking at the use of diverse forage mixtures for overwintering. Apart from being the perfect demonstration of how empowering farmers to be able to trial new practices on their own farms can produce results far greater than the sum of their parts (especially when compared to multi-million pound research projects) the big take home message for me was how powerful diversity is in our farming systems, at all levels.

A diverse mix of plant species above ground is reflected in increased diversity below the soil surface and the benefits this brings are many fold. Increased organic matter, nutrient availability and the ability of the soil to hold water are just a few. When out on a farm you can always guarantee that the best soils occur where the above ground diversity is greatest, relative to the surrounding area. This is one of the reasons that herbal leys have received a lot of much deserved attention over the last 10 years. 

Having had firsthand experience grazing large groups of animals on herbal leys I can certainly vouch for their benefits, and spending a lot of time digging holes on farms has only reinforced this. And where the establishment of new herbal leys don’t fit or are unaffordable, simple changes to grazing management or stitching additional species into existing pasture can be equally effective in bringing diversity into your sward. These are the things that get me up in the morning, that and the views from one of the many fields I’ve been soil sampling in recently.

Find out more about Rob Purdew and the rest of the team here.

About the Farm Net Zero population wheat trial

Written by Hannah Jones, Research Manager at FCT, as part of the demo farm trials happening in our Farm Net Zero (FNZ) project.

Overview

Recommended cereal varieties are bred to look identical; the genes between individual plants have only minor levels of variation. The regulations around breeding and the sale of seed ensure consistency as well as ensuring different varieties are unique and suitable for the use (or group) stated.

Wheat, barley, and oats mainly self-pollinate which results in offspring being highly similar to the parent plant. Rye is a bit different; it is cross pollinated. Thus, a field of rye is in fact a population of rye where very plant is considerably different from its neighbour in terms of genes and sometimes in appearance.

Landraces

Seed that has been saved by communities of farmers within one particular region are called landraces. These landraces were locally adapted to specific conditions including soil type, local pests and diseases as well as management such as type of seed bed preparation. In landraces, since each plant is genetically different, the plants best suited to a given climate produced more seed. If the seed is saved and resown, the best adapted plants take up a greater proportion of the subsequent generation.

Evolutionary breeding

Over many generations, successive seed saving and resowing results in adaptation of a crop population, and thus this is called evolutionary breeding or population wheat (or barley). Evolutionary breeding can take place by default with landraces, or a population can be created.

Composite cross populations

The creation of a crop population involves cross pollinating a range of varieties that have interesting characteristics. This cross pollination needs to be done by a plant breeder. One such composite cross population was created from 20 varieties which had either good yielding or quality characteristics: the “YQ population” and was carried out by a team at The Organic Research Centre and John Innes Centre in early 2000 led by Martin Wolfe. The rules for selling grain have been designed according to the standard rules of uniformity of crop. Recent changes in regulations have now allowed the sale of population wheat if there is certified traceability.

Built-in resilience

The physical and genetic diversity within a population can increase the crop resilience to extremes in stress. Crop populations generally perform above the average of the original varieties. For example, if a particular race of a plant disease dominates in one year there will be some plants that have resistance; there will be some yield despite high disease pressure. Alternatively, deeper rooting will ensure under drought conditions there will be some plants that yield grain, whereas the shallow-rooters may be sterile.

Tim Williams (pictured below) at Erth Barton (one of our FNZ demo farmers) is trialling population wheat with his pasture cropping. The wheat has the potential to adapt to local conditions as well as being sown into an existing sward. To follow updates on our Farm Net Zero trials and hear more news, sign up to the FNZ newsletter here.

Tim Williams of Erth Barton Farm

Defra publishes its latest results on UK farm greenhouse gas emissions

Written by Liz Bowles, Farm Carbon Toolkit CEO.

Defra published its Agri-climate report last week. The report sets out the trends in agricultural Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions over the past 30 years, the changing intensity of emissions and the results of the 2022 Farm Practice Survey questions relating to farmers intentions and actions on reducing GHG emissions.

The headline figure is that UK agriculture was responsible for 11% of total UK emissions in 2020. The time series is revised each year to take account of methodological improvements in the UK emissions inventory. It’s also worth noting that these are production-based emissions, rather than consumption-based which adjusts for trade.

During this 30-year period emissions of all greenhouse gases from agriculture have declined:

  • Total GHGs decreased by 16%
  • Nitrous oxide decreased by 20%
  • Methane decreased by 15%
  • Carbon dioxide decreased by 15%

However, it is important to note that most of this reduction occurred in the 2000’s, arising from a drop in ruminant numbers and less use of synthetic fertilisers. Since then reductions have all but stalled.

Some farmers are frustrated that the efforts they are making to reduce on farm emissions through practice change are yet to be recognised within the UK emissions inventory. This is due to the ability to accurately reflect the reductions through the current mechanisms for measurement, which are primarily measuring output versus inputs and livestock numbers and areas cultivated. This is changing as the quality of evidence on the impact of practice change becomes available.

In the meantime those same farmers are increasingly asking their suppliers for accurate emissions data on the products they buy, which is driving those suppliers to look far harder at the products they supply, which will in time lead to greater accuracy of measurement which is very welcome.

In the same report farmers were also asked their beliefs and motivations around reducing their GHG emissions. Interestingly, only 44% of farmers thought that reducing emissions would improve farm profitability in 2022, a decrease from 47% in 2021.

Of the 58% of respondents already taking action to reduce GHG emissions, the survey asked about their main motivations for doing so. This showed:

  • 84% considered it good business practice
  • 74% by a concern for the environment
  • 48% to improve profitability
  • 33% to meet regulations
  • 23% to meet market demands

It’s FCT’s experience that improving GHG emissions and sequestration on farms is good for business and good for the environment. We also experience that markets are increasingly incentivising action, such as increasing the accuracy of input use, improving input use efficiency and making much better use of legumes and clovers across the farm.

Farmers were also asked about the barriers to reducing on farm emissions. Here, there was a clear view that lack of information and incentive are significant barriers, even amongst those who have taken action, alongside being unsure exactly what they can do to reduce farm GHG emissions.

Factors preventing action to reduce GHG emissions.
Factors preventing action to reduce GHG emissions (Source: Farm Practices Survey 2022 – greenhouse gas mitigation practices)

At Farm Carbon Toolkit we can help farmers to better understand the actions they can take to reduce GHG emissions as well as providing free access to completing a farm carbon report for their farm business. We have developed a toolkit to assist farmers to identify the best GHG reduction strategies for their farms. For more information on our carbon calculator and to start your own farms report please see here.