Now in its second year, the annual Carbon Farmer of the Year competition is organised by the Farm Carbon Toolkit and generously sponsored by HSBC Agriculture UK. The competition aims to find farmers and growers who are engaged with–and passionate about–reducing their business’s climate impact through changing management practices to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Andrew Brewer was awarded the Carbon Farmer of the Year Award for 2024, presented by Steve Dunkley, our sponsor from HSBC Agriculture (seen in the picture below).
Andrew Brewer, Winner of the Carbon Farmer of the Year Award for 2024 presented by Steve Dunkley, HSBC Agriculture UK
Andrew is part of the Farm Net Zero project and low GHG farming has been a top priority for him and his farm for a number of years. He manages 500 Jersey X dairy cows across his 400 Ha farm in Fraddon, Cornwall. He stood out to the judges for his understanding and application of a range of practices to enable his pasture-based dairy farm to remove atmospheric carbon into soil, trees, and hedges, while simultaneously minimising farm GHG emissions by focusing on maximising forage intake for his dairy cows and minimising inclusion of supplementary concentrate feeds. Andrew also selectively breeds his cows to work well within his pasture-based system. There is an opportunity to tour his farm during a farm walk he is hosting on November 8th.
The other two finalists, Tom Burge and Jason Mitchell were praised for their continued efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in their businesses. The finalists awards were presented by David Cope, Head of Sustainability at the Duchy of Cornwall who was also on the panel of judges (seen below). Tom Burge, who featured in the mob grazing workshop has done fantastic work cultivating a low input grazing system which has seen vast improvements in his grass quality and sequestration potential.
Similarly, Jason Mitchell is a Director of Greenville Dairies Ltd based in Newton Stewart, Northern Ireland. He has also been recognised for his continued effort to farm in a low carbon management system. At Greenville Dairies they have reduced emissions from their 850 strong dairy herd, largely through the application of genomics leading to greater feed efficiency alongside the development of a significant Anaerobic Digestion facility which sees them now taking in food waste alongside utilisation of cow manure to produce electricity, liquid natural gas (LNG) and digestate. Electricity and LNG are sold to the grid and to Companies such as Lakeland Dairies (their customer for their milk).
Tom Burge and Greenville Dairies, Carbon Farmer of the Year 2024 finalists, with David Cope, Head of Sustainability at the Duchy of Cornwall
Competition judges, Steve Dunkley (HSBC UK), David Cope (Head of Sustainability at Duchy of Cornwall), and Liz Bowles (CEO Farm Carbon Toolkit) were very impressed with the commitment and innovation shown by all the finalists in identifying sources of GHG emissions on their farms and developing strategies to both reduce emissions and increase the rate of carbon removal into soils and non-crop biomass.
Liz Bowles, Chief Executive Officer at Farm Carbon Toolkit, says:
Once again, the Carbon Farmer of the Year competition has identified some truly inspirational farmers. All our finalists have made great strides in reducing business reliance on fossil fuels through changes to their farming practices and careful soil management to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon.
It was particularly positive to see a dairy farm winning this year’s competition, given that dairy farming is often in the media spotlight for its adverse environmental impact. We are looking forward to showcasing the many effective ways that our finalists are reducing on-farm emissions and increasing carbon storage for others to see at free farm walks over the coming months. Watch this space!
Steve Dunkley, HSBC UK Agriculture, says:
HSBC UK Agriculture is pleased to support the 2024 Carbon Farmer of the Year competition. The quality of entries has been superb and hugely inspiring. As a business, we’re very keen to support the agriculture industry in transitioning towards net zero. While that will take many forms, we have the ambition to help farmers fund investment in the new practices and technologies needed to evolve.
The Carbon Farmer of the Year competition is a great way of showcasing how farmers are already achieving these changes and encouraging others to follow their lead
The FCT field day was an event to shine a light on the sustainable solutions benefiting farmers economically, socially and environmentally. The focus was on mixed agricultural systems, as well as celebrating those who are doing the most to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon into their soils.
On the 25th September 2024, our Annual Field Day brought together farmers from all over the country, including the winners of our past FCT Soil and Carbon Farmer of the Year competitions, to hear about the exciting developments in sustainable agriculture. In addition, we were grateful to HSBC UK Agriculture who helped sponsor the Carbon Farmer of the Year Competition and to all our supporters of the Annual Field Day – Cross Compliance Solutions, First Milk, Shearwell, Velcourt and Yeo Valley.
The event was held at Boycefield Farm in Dilwyn, courtesy of Billy Lewis, Soil Farmer of the year (2022) and the Lewis family. The day was a grey one with a few showers but did not dampen any spirits or the curiosity of the farmers that enjoyed the day!
Our delegates arrived ready for a 10am start which was officially kicked off by a welcome from FCT CEO Liz Bowles and an introduction to the farm by host Billy Lewis.
Opening comments by Billy Lewis to all the guests
Billy Lewis – Our host and 2022 Soil Farmer of the Year talking about how the farms’ approach of integrating livestock and herbal leys into a previously intensive arable system has rejuvenated soil health, drastically reduced fertiliser and feed inputs, whilst boosting profitability. Billy also mentioned the challenges his farm has been facing, with the changing climate and consistently wet weather proving to be high on the list.
We enjoyed a circuit of the farm to join workshops on subjects including adapting arable rotations to build fertility and resilience in a changing climate, mob grazing and the importance of soil testing. We heard about developments that have been made on Boycefield farm, as well as from farmers implementing similar systems across the country.
We have captured a snapshot of the workshops below:
Soil clinic – chaired by Becky Wilson (FCT)
We heard from our very own Becky Wilson and Niels Corfield, a regenerative agriculture advisor.
Becky standing in the soil pit explaining the benefits of upkeeping healthy soil to the group
Niels and Becky focussed on firstly, and most importantly, how the health of the soil is crucial to any agricultural system. Having a deeper understanding of what to look for within the soil aids farmers in assessing their own soils and tailoring their systems to increase soil health and fertility.
Becky brought us around the freshly dug soil pit to demonstrate the levels of compaction that occur at different depths. Highlighting the importance of less dense, yet stable soil in the top layer so that root growth of grasses and herbal leys are not hindered by increased soil density. It was pointed out that Billy Lewis’s mob grazing style was contributing to the meadow’s low soil density and therefore thriving grass system. As the stock is moved frequently, there is little time to compact the soil by trampling. Becky also highlighted the importance of earthworms for soil health. Earthworms are a key indicator of good soil health as they provide a multitude of benefits. Their burrowing increases spaces within the top layers of the soil which allow in water and air which promotes root growth for pastures through reduced compaction. Additionally, as Becky mentioned, their powers of nutrient cycling cannot be understated. Earthworms feed on organic matter which is excreted into plant available nutrients, speeding up pasture growth.
After Becky’s talk on soil qualities Niels took over to discuss a few practical methods (without the use of fancy gadgets) farmers can use to assess their soil health. With only the use of a spade and an inspection of what’s going on below the grass you can tell a lot about the soil. Niels encouraged the guests to go out into their fields and start to collect samples. He demonstrated the method of collecting a core sample by inserting a spade to a depth of around 30 cm on three sides and used the last side as a hinge to lever up a block of soil to inspect. Once the sample was out of the ground, he highlighted the relative ease of which the soil broke up as well as pointing out the abundance of earthworms, noting that this isn’t the case for a lot of agricultural soils.
Neils showing the group the simple ways in which soil samples can be taken
Livestock and mob grazing – chaired by Stefan Marks (FCT)
In this talk we heard from Tom Burge, an upland beef and sheep farmer, Billy Lewis, the host farmer, as well as Dan Smith, a farm manager running a commercial, net zero livestock farm alongside being a facilitator at the Herefordshire Rural Hub. They talked about their experiences with mob grazing, grass quality and the lessons they have learned experimenting with grazing systems.
Billy, Tom, and Dan discussing the benefits of mob grazing in front of one of his Hereford mob
In this session, Billy, Tom, and Dan discussed the benefits as well as the challenges involved with mob grazing while drawing on their shared experience of experimenting with this type of grazing system.
Tom Burge is a 4th generation farmer, owning an upland grazing farm in North Exmoor rearing over 1,000 Romney X ewes and 500 Scottish Blackface ewes. As well as 100 Angus suckler cows. After setting aside a 150 acre field trial with the aim of reducing fertiliser application, he began experimenting with mob grazing. He found that moving stock regularly (in his case every 2-3 days) and long resting periods resulted in improved grass quality and increased grass growth. All the panellists concurred that long resting periods for the grassland is crucial for increased grass quality and plant diversity which leads to more resilient grasslands.
In terms of economics, all the panellists agreed that the switch to mob grazing resulted in higher live weights and milk yields from their cattle and sheep. However, it was interesting to hear that these yield increases were marginal compared to the reduction in costs which resulted from the change of system. Dan found that within his new system, he could keep sheep outside all year round, including during lambing. He noticed that less bacterial infections and instances of pneumonia were occurring when he made these changes. Billy also noted the lack of fly related infections on his cattle on his mob grazing system which resulted in lower veterinary costs and better welfare. Although Billy still has periods through the winter where cattle are kept inside, these periods have reduced and therefore feed costs have decreased as a result. All the panellists concluded that optimising for a low input system was of great benefit to not only their pockets but the health of the stock as well.
An insightful question came from one of the listeners of the talk, who asked; how do you measure the changes in pasture performance? All three panellists admitted that they didn’t formally measure or record grass growth or quality of. Through anecdotal evidence and multiple decades of experience growing grass and farming on their respective farms they could see the difference in the quality of their grass which has translated into the quality of their stock and produce. Dan Smith added to this, highlighting that the preferred measure of performance is through financial gains, where all three of panellists have found a financial benefit.
A second question was fielded around the time consuming nature of mob grazing after Billy mentioned his rotations may only last 6-12 hours on some of his more intensely grazed meadows. He has found that frequent livestock movement isn’t as unmanageable as one might think. He proceeded to demonstrate the ease of which he can move electric fencing hexagonal fence posts (as seen in the picture below). These structures rotate along the ground as Billy moves the end of the fence, saving time by not having to take out every fence pole and place it in a different location in the field. Through experience, Billy often decides when to move his cattle by eye and knows that a system that incorporates flexibility works best for him. This certainly helps with the weather challenges that the three panellists agreed was a main limiting factor to their system. Droughts and periods of heavy rain (which were wonderfully demonstrated throughout the day) are challenges where flexibility is a crucial mitigator. Billy with his free moving electric fence pointed out that he can avoid waterlogged areas in order to protect the soil and grassland from trampling which is even more of a danger in wet conditions.
The easily movable electric fencing which saves Billy time when moving his stock
Arable/ Herbal Leys – chaired by Tilly Kimble-Wilde
We heard from Angus Gowthorpe (mixed farmer and Soil Farmer of the Year 2018 finalist), Edward Gent (Cambridge arable farmer who has been no-till for 16 years) and FCT’s Anthony Ellis (FCT farm carbon and soil advisor and mixed farmer). The talk focussed on their experiences with diversifying arable rotations, sometimes with herbal leys as well as their different approaches to grazing these areas.
Panellists in one of Billy’s arable fields – note the agroforestry alleys in the background
Angus Gowthorpe, who manages a mixed farm in North Yorkshire, spoke about his transition from conventional to regenerative farming and how herbal leys have played a crucial role in this shift. By integrating a mix of species into his rotation, including deep-rooting herbs such as chicory and plantain, he has seen significant improvements in soil structure and organic matter. Angus highlighted how the diversity of plant species in the herbal leys helps build resilience in the system, reducing reliance on chemical inputs. He highlighted how grazing these leys with his cattle further stimulates root growth, enhancing the biology of the soil, contributing to a more productive and resilient farm ecosystem. The sentiments of this approach were echoed by both Edward and Anthony who had implemented similar systems.
Afternoon Sessions: The economic and climate impact of ‘regen’
Following lunch, we moved into a panel discussion Chaired by James Daniel with presentations from Anthony Ellis (FCT), Angus Gowthorpe, Tom Burge & Nick Down (Velcourt Farming Ltd).
James Daniel – Founder of Precision Grazing, whose primary objective is to optimise performance from pasture, James works across the UK helping farmers to implement and manage their grazing systems alongside ensuring family quality of life for farmers.
Angus Gowthorpe – mixed farmer and Soil Farmer of the Year 2018 finalist. Angus has been at the forefront of the regenerative transition in the UK and continues to push the envelope on what defines a sustainable farming system.
Tom Burge – Upland beef and sheep farmer whose move to a regenerative, grazing-based system has helped to eliminate inputs and transform the finances on his challenging Exmoor farm
Nick Down – Nick is the Head of Sustainability for Velcourt Ltd. Velcourt directly manages 57,000 hectares and provides advice in both the arable and dairy sectors across the UK. Nick oversees the farming operation of the Yattendon Estate in West Berkshire. The estate is going through a transition to a more sustainable farming system, incorporating more space for nature and enhancing carbon sequestration under an ambitious environmental delivery program. The farm is also a LEAF demonstration farm.
First each of the panel members presented an overview of their farming system, the regenerative practices they’ve employed and the subsequent improvements this has made to their business carbon footprint, resilience and profitability.
Angus sharing with us the financial benefits of his regen system
Angus shared with us a side by side comparison of his arable operations between his previous conventional system and his current low-input regen system for winter wheat production. From this slide it is obvious to see what financial benefits arise from converting to a regen system. Firstly, his in-field operations have reduced from four operations to only using direct drilling on his fields. This saves him a total of £142 per hectare. Additionally, a reduction of his fertiliser inputs saved his business £189 per hectare. Through soil analysis he found that his past applications of P and K were superfluous to crop requirements. He has also reduced reliance on fungicides and plant growth regulators by £103/ha. The reduction in inputs has given Angus an ability to withstand a lower yield without reduction in enterprise margin. At current prices he calculated that this was equivalent to around 2.3 tonnes/ ha or around a 30% reduction in yield.
A perspective of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions and financial benefits of regenerative agriculture from livestock farming came from Tom Burge who kindly shared his numbers before and after adopting his new farming strategy.
Tom Burge’s projections on how his emissions will change while continuing on his regenerative farming journey.
From starting his journey in 2017, he has eliminated use of fertiliser on his pastures, significantly reduced reliance on external feed and fuel, as well as reduced the number of hours of manhours worked on his farm. This has all translated into a steady reduction of on-farm emissions (expressed as kgCO2e per kg live weight of his stock). Due to implementing mob grazing strategies, pasture growth has increased by 0.9 tonnes of dry matter per hectare, displacing 36 tonnes of fertiliser and 72 tonnes of feed between 2017 and 2022. On top of the 1.66kgCO2e per kg of live weight, this has saved Tom’s business financially, to a tune of £24,000 per year. By 2022, Tom realised that the increasing cost of inputs outweighed the potential added value of his outputs, making these inputs un-economical to use.
Breakout workshops on field trials, weatherproof farming and composting
Billy showing the guests the resulting compost after he uses his windrow compost turner
Composting: Billy Lewis
Billy Lewis showed us his farm-yard manure composting process. After buying a windrow compost turner second hand, Billy is able to easily turn the compost pile to aerate it. Ensuring good air flow is key to creating compost, as aerobic microorganisms feed on the organic components and convert them into a nutrient rich soil amendment. Composts are much more stable than farm yard manures, providing a more consistent and slow release of nutrients, therefore, benefitting soil health in the longer term. This slow release enhances soil health and pasture growth by reducing the amount of leaching and volatilisation that occurs. Billy explained how he adds different components to his compost depending on what is available, such as wood chips and apple peel from a nearby orchard.
Research Trials: Hannah Jones
Hannah Jones (Senior Soil and Carbon Advisor with FCT) led an insightful discussion on effectively planning and conducting field trials in a scientifically robust yet practical way. She began by explaining the essentials of multi-year farm trials, covering aspects like choosing crop options for trial strips, combining various tests within one field, and structuring controls to minimise the effects of natural variations on trial results.
A major focus was on understanding how different factors can influence outcomes and the importance of controls. For instance, in a trial introducing beans into crop rotation, it’s crucial to have both fertilised and unfertilised areas to determine if observed benefits are due to the nitrogen contribution from beans, the fertiliser itself, or just field characteristics. In livestock research, increasing population size reduces the impact of natural variation (e.g. individual susceptibility to disease), thereby making the data more statistically reliable. Randomly assigning animals to control and trial groups is also key, as it prevents biases that could affect outcomes; for example, having the first ewes going through the hurdle enter one field and the latter half go into another could unintentionally separate the flock by skittish and lazy animals, skewing results because they have different temperaments.
Hannah also shared ideas and trials setups which some of the attending farmers were considering. The conversation highlighted the value of data sharing—each farm is unique, but insights from one trial can benefit many. By participating in groups like the Innovate funded Nitrogen Climate Smart agriculture (NCS) project, farmers can connect, share findings, and collaborate on new practices. FCT advisors are available to help with planning and can connect participants with like-minded farmers to optimise trial efforts.
Weatherproof Farming: Niels Corfield
Niels delivered a presentation which demonstrated to us the importance of improving soil health for sustainable farming. Niels Corfield is a farm advisor interested in regenerative farms and landscapes.
He shared video examples of how compacted soils, often mistakenly thought to be saturated due to standing water, were actually preventing deeper water infiltration and leaving dry soil underneath. Healthy soil, with proper porosity, was shown to allow water to penetrate, “banking” moisture for dry periods, which is crucial for crop resilience in hot summers.
Niels made a case for weatherproofing farms to both rain and drought through a mixture of practices including soil management, mechanical interventions e.g sub soiling, mineral, and biological interventions. We looked at some of these in detail. A key takeaway was that root health is central to improving soil structure, and managing grazing or cropping practices to encourage root mass and density is a fundamental part of improving soil resilience and health.
The evidence presented showed that a move away from set stocking and changes in pasture management was able to extend grazing seasons, reduce the need for winter housing, and boost grass production. Data from various drought years showed how drought severely impacted grass growth across the UK. However, farms with better-managed soil saw increased productivity due to better water retention, emphasising the benefits of improving soil structure and retaining water during wet seasons for use during dry spells.
We were left with the idea that land provides honest feedback which can be seen and acted upon: It reveals the effectiveness of farming practices through direct observation and we were encouraged to inspect the land regularly ourselves in real-time with a range of tests, rather than solely relying on lab results.
Carbon Farmer of the Year 2024
This very interesting and insightful field day concluded with the presentation of carbon farmer of the year. It is the second year of the competition and is awarded to a farmer who is engaged with and passionate about reducing their business’s climate impact. The award focuses not only on changing management practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also on understanding and enhancing carbon storage in farmland. We were delighted to be joined by the three finalists. Andrew Brewer was awarded the Carbon Farmer of the Year Award for 2024, presented by Steve Dunkley, our sponsor from HSBC Agriculture (seen in the picture below). Andrew is part of the Farm Net Zero project and low GHG farming has been a top priority for him and his farm for a number of years. He manages 500 Jersey X dairy cows across his 400 Ha farm in Fraddon, Cornwall. He stood out to the judges for his understanding and application of a range of practices to enable his pasture-based dairy farm to remove atmospheric carbon into soil, trees, and hedges, while simultaneously minimising farm GHG emissions by focusing on maximising forage intake for his dairy cows and minimising inclusion of supplementary concentrate feeds. Andrew also selectively breeds his cows to work well within his pasture-based system. There is an opportunity to tour his farm during a farm walk he is hosting on November 8th.
Carbon Farmer of the Year 2024 Winner Andrew Brewer, Ennis Barton (right) presented by Steve Dunkley, HSBC UK Agriculture (Left)
The other two finalists, Tom Burge and Jason Mitchell were praised for their continued efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in their businesses. The finalists awards were presented by David Cope, Head of sustainability at the Duchy of Cornwall who was also on the panel of judges (seen below). Tom Burge, who featured in the mob grazing workshop has done fantastic work cultivating a low input grazing system which has seen vast improvements in his grass quality and sequestration potential.
Similarly, Jason Mitchell is a Director of Greenville Dairies Ltd based in Newton Stewart, Northern Ireland. He has also been recognised for his continued effort to farm in a low carbon management system. At Greenville Dairies they have reduced emissions from their 850 strong dairy herd, largely through the application of genomics leading to greater feed efficiency alongside the development of a significant Anaerobic Digestion facility which sees them now taking in food waste alongside utilisation of cow manure to produce electricity, liquid natural gas (LNG) and digestate. Electricity and LNG are sold to the grid and to Companies such as Lakeland Dairies (their customer for their milk).
Carbon Farmer of the Year 2024 Finalists Tom Burge (middle), Adel Tajouri representing Greenville Dairies (right), presented by David Cope (left)
Groundswell this year was as exciting as ever, with so many excellent sessions and people to catch up with and meet for the first time.
There was much interest in how farmers and growers can benefit from the new markets for carbon, biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality to name but three, but to my mind, there was far less attention on how the sector can actually reduce the emissions associated with producing food itself.
For me, this is critical as we have to find a way to reduce the greenhouse gases we push into our atmosphere, as well as removing some of the historical emissions already there, if we are to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.
There is, however, a central question for our food system which is: What level of emissions are inevitable from the production of food which is essential for humanity? The Climate Change Committee has come up with a view on this in their 2020 UK agricultural policy for net zero report, which suggests a road map for saving 64% in the annual emissions from agriculture compared to 2017 levels when UK agriculture was responsible for around 58 MtCO2e (12% of total UK emissions). On closer inspection of the figures though, the actual savings in emissions from agriculture are set at around 21 MtCO2e / year, with the remaining savings to come from forestry, changes to our diet and the production of energy crops instead of food.
This is set out below:
The specific actions suggested for each of these areas are set out below:
Tree planting on 30,000 hectares per year
Use 10% of UK farmland for agroforestry (no distinction made between agroforestry and hedgerows)
Restore at least 55% of peatland area by 2050. (For lowland peat lands this means rewetting or paludiculture to reduce emissions and for uplands this means rewetting).
Increases in low-carbon farming practices for soils and livestock (no detail provided)
Increase the area of farmland devoted to energy crops to 23,000 ha per year
From this list, the low carbon farming practices interest me in terms of how their adoption will enable an annual reduction of 10MtCO2e per year to occur (~25% of 2022 UK agricultural emissions). At Farm Carbon Toolkit we work directly with farmers and growers to adopt these practices and changes to current management processes. Typically the areas to focus on include:
Planting cover crops
Changing crop rotation
Transitioning to no/min till where possible
Growing new crops
Integrated pest management
Adopting rotational grazing
Planting herbal leys
Across all these practices, there should be a focus on reducing the use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers and purchased livestock feed (especially those including imported ingredients) as both these inputs carry a high level of associated emissions.
Many of these practices can also be considered to be part of the suite of “regenerative farming principles”. Adoption of more regenerative farming practices is growing steadily, but for many farmers, the key question surrounds the financial viability of their adoption when margins are so tight. A recent report commissioned by the Farming for Carbon and Nature Group and funded by the Natural England Environment Investment Readiness Fund (NEIRF) sets out the financial and climate impact of adoption of more regenerative farming practices and systems and includes partial budget information on the financial impact of adoption in England with support from SFI where relevant.
This chart clearly shows that with the inclusion of SFI support, many of the practices generally considered to be regenerative are likely to deliver a similar margin than more conventional practices in these areas. The area where more support is needed is in the adoption of more complex arable rotations including pulses and fertility building leys, where even with appropriate SFI payments, the margins from shorter more degenerative rotations are likely to be more profitable. We are a member of the Nitrogen Climate Smart Consortium which is supporting the increased production of pulses and legumes in the UK together with their use as animal feeds to address the need to reduce the use of artificial fertilisers and imported animal feedstuffs. This project will support farmers to do this through farmer field trials as well as the introduction of new technology for on-farm pulses processing. You can find out more about this project and get involved by following this link.
In summary, I am fairly confident that UK agriculture can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 10% through the adoption of low-carbon farming practices. Indeed through some of the practical work with farmers in which FCT is involved, we are seeing higher levels of emission reductions being achieved within businesses with little or no change in farm output and in many cases increased profitability and business resilience. The element which is mostly missing is the confidence and knowledge to make the necessary changes and knowing where to start.
At FCT we provide a (free for farmers and growers) Farm Carbon Calculator to allow businesses to understand their starting point, a set of tools within our Toolkit to assist businesses to make those chances and a team of expert advisors to talk to.
You can always make contact with us by email info@farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk or by calling us on 07541 453413. We look forward to hearing from you.
Dairy is often in the spotlight in terms of its environmental impact. Whether it be focussed on slurry management, methane emissions from animals, or soil loss and run off from maize crops, dairy is often an easy target. However, there are numerous farmers and projects who are showcasing that this doesn’t need to be the case, and there are positive steps that can be taken.
When approaching Groundswell this year, it was one of the things that we wanted to highlight. We are very lucky to work with some really forward-thinking organisations and farmers that we wanted to highlight at this national event. So we submitted our session “Can Milk be green?” to try and understand some key questions.
These were:
How do we quantify the importance of regenerative dairy systems when the current metrics are solely focused on reducing emissions intensity/litre?
How do we accurately represent the contribution that regenerative dairy systems are providing to carbon sequestration, biodiversity and resilient landscapes?
How do we do this in a cost-effective way which provides reassurance to processors and consumers that milk can be green?
How do we support farmers in that transition?
We had a fantastic panel of speakers which included farmers who were making changes and processors who were supporting both data collection, evidence building and industry communication.
Tom White from Yeo Valley introduced the session and highlighted the ability for grass-based dairy systems to deliver on a wide range of environmental benefits. The key areas of importance were around how we gather good data, collaborate and support our farmers to be able to deliver the changes on-farm. Tom focussed on the importance of diversity, including diversity in our pastures, rotations and management systems to deliver on a range of environmental impacts.
Andrew Brewer from Ennis Barton farm in Cornwall provided some insights into the trials that he has been involved with on his farm as part of the Farm Net Zero project. Trialling herbal leys and their impact on cow health and rumination, soil recovery after potatoes and cover crops have all provided useful tools to build soil heath and reduce emissions.
Will Mayor from Yeo Valley farms spoke about how by using their experiences with the beef animals they have adapted a system that works for their dairy cows. Implementing next-level grazing has allowed them to increase covers, remove the topper from the system and maintain milk quality and pasture utilisation, alongside soil health and carbon sequestration.
Lucy Noad from Woodhouse Farms shared her story in terms of her transition from a more conventional dairy farm over the last few years. Lucy spoke about the need to support farmers in the transition and also to ensure that the way we communicate engages farmers to understand the relevance of practical solutions for them.
Mark Brooking from First Milk concluded the session highlighting some of the ways that First Milk are supporting their farmers to make the transition to more regenerative practices. Farmers are supported through incentives to implement rotational grazing, species diversity and minimal cultivation in order to demonstrate an uplift in soil health, sequestration, biodiversity and water quality. Data is being collected on the impact of these changes to provide confidence in the potential for their members to deliver solutions.
It was an inspiring session which provided real life examples that show the positive steps that are taking place to provide data, collaborate and support farmers. Although our soil project with Yeo Valley is in the interim years before we retest soils, it was great to hear some of the practices taking place and the production and resilience benefits that the farmers are seeing now irrespective of soil carbon sequestration.
So can milk be green? The answer was a resounding yes!
Watch a replay of this webinar held on the 11th September 2024 where representatives of the three major farm carbon calculators shared more details of the work they are doing together: Work to support UK agriculture to measure GHG emissions using the most up-to-date and accurate tools possible, harmonising the methodologies and outputs of their carbon calculation tools.
We received a great list of questions during the webinar event and teams from the various calculators will look to address those queries in due course.
The three major farm carbon calculators featured in the Defra Report Harmonisation of Carbon Accounting Tools for Agriculture – SCF0129 have announced a collaboration by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), intended to harmonise the methodologies used in calculating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture.
The three companies are looking forward to their joint work on this major challenge, to fulfil the requirements outlined in the comprehensive Report, compiled by ADAS throughout 2023. It is generally agreed that the overarching goal should be to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture through resource efficiency improvements, optimising production practices and mitigating environmental impacts.
Liz Bowles, Farm Carbon Toolkit CEO, said:
We are not seeking to reach a point where all three calculators will produce the same answer for any given dataset. As the Defra report put it, “ there is no single ‘right’ answer”. Rather we are striving to make it possible for users to fully understand why different calculators produce different answers.
We plan to align with the Science-Based Targets initiative Forestry Land and Agriculture Guidance (SBTi FLAG) and draft Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector Removals Guidance (GHGp LSRG) through our collaborative actions. This commitment underscores our dedication to maintaining high-quality standards and ensuring environmental sustainability in our operations, and in calculation outputs.
Scott Davies, Agrecalc CEO, said:
It is intended that we agree on a common set of data sources which all three calculators will use. All calculators can go beyond these baseline requirements, and all parties to this MOU will retain their commercial independence. We will also involve the relevant government and other organisations’ teams with our work plan as we develop it.
This collaborative approach supports a joint understanding of industry requirements and advancing consistency in our tools and methodologies. Our goal is collaboration with industry, trade bodies, and fellow calculator providers in the UK and internationally, so that we can actively contribute to the development of more consistent approaches to on-farm carbon calculation.
Richard Profit, Cool Farm Alliance CEO, said:
We are looking forward to this collaboration, as it will help align methodologies where that makes sense and that will especially allow us to look into new areas that require attention. How we then incorporate the new information in our calculators will vary from calculator to calculator as a result of our different base approaches.
We will also ensure that the tools include the latest and most robust scientific findings into their frameworks and roadmaps.
The calculators are seeking that this joint work become the “agreed way” and at some point, become a minimum required standard for all calculators to adopt. The companies will engage in consultations with Defra, Welsh Government, Scottish Government, and Northern Ireland Government to reach a practical and realistic form of ongoing validation of their harmonisation work.
Methodologies or other harmonisation solutions developed as a direct result of the MOU will be published transparently, or will otherwise be made available for others to use.
Although this MOU currently only involves the three major companies in this space, the group is open to other calculators joining the coalition so long as they publicly provide transparency in their Calculator methodologies.
We will be holding a joint webinar on the 11th September 2024 at 1pm – 2pm to share more details of the work we are doing together. Please register here if you would like to join us
Notes to Editors
Farm Carbon Toolkit is an independent, farmer-led Community Interest Company, supporting farmers to measure, understand and act on their greenhouse gas emissions, while improving their business resilience for the future.
The Farm Carbon Calculator uses the IPCC 2019 and UK GHG Inventory methodologies and is aligned with the GHG protocol agricultural guidance. Recent development has allowed us to provide greater interoperability with other data platforms through our Report Export API and Carbon Calculation Engine API. This represents a step-change in the industry’s ability to provide trustworthy carbon footprints with transparent methodologies on platforms where farmers already collect data, thus reducing the data inputting onus on farmers. This new functionality has been warmly welcomed by supply chain businesses who are now using our Calculation Engine to support their customers without need for further data entry.
The Farm Carbon Calculator is used across the UK and on four continents with global usage growing at around 20% per year.
For over a decade, Farm Carbon Toolkit has delivered a range of practical projects, tools and services that have inspired real action on the ground. Organisations they work with include the Duchy of Cornwall, First Milk, Tesco, Yeo Valley and WWF. The Farm Carbon Calculator is a leading on-farm carbon audit tool, used by over 8,000 farmers in the UK and beyond. To find out more visit www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk
Agrecalc, a carbon footprint tool developed by combining practical expertise with world-class agricultural science, is a precise instrument that offers both breadth and depth of on-farm and through-the-supply-chain calculations of GHG gas emissions.
Agrecalc is the largest source of collated farm benchmark data from thousands of farms, having been used as the designated tool to deliver carbon audits under various schemes since 2016. It is recognised as the preferred carbon calculator in many of the emerging government programmes.
With a mission to increase efficiency and business viability of food production, the scientists, consultants, and developers who work on Agrecalc, strive to constantly upgrade the calculator according to the most up-to-date available research results and recommendations.
Cool Farm Alliance Community Interest Companyis a science-led, not-for-profit membership organisation (community interest company) that owns, manages, and improves the Cool Farm Tool and cultivates the leadership network to advance regenerative agriculture at scale.
For over fifteen years, the Cool Farm Alliance has worked to put knowledge in the hands of farmers and empower the full supply chain to understand and support agro-ecological restoration by providing a respected, standardised calculation engine to measure and report on agriculture’s impact on the environment. The Cool Farm Tool has established widely endorsed, science-based metrics for water, climate, and biodiversity, supported in 17 languages and used in more than 150 countries around the world.
Cool Farm Alliance members share the need for a respected, consistent, standardised, independent calculation engine and have joined the Alliance to ensure the Cool Farm Tool meets this need, now and in the future. To find out more visit https://coolfarm.org/
University of Cumbria is offering their part-time short course ‘Upland Farming for Net Zero’ delivered in partnership with Farm Carbon Toolkit, across 5 weeks from 9th September 2024. The course will take place in Cumbria, with sessions at the University of Cumbria’s Ambleside Campus, at upland farms across the county, and online.
Participants will learn where and how greenhouse gases are emitted, captured and stored on an upland farm. Farm visits and theory sessions will enable a comparison of farming practices and land management options, with climate impact in mind. In-person workshops will build skills and confidence to enable each participant to complete a quantitative farm carbon audit and make practical recommendations for actions towards net zero emissions.
Up to 12 full bursaries, subject to eligibility, are offered by the Foundation for Common Land via their Our Upland Commons project, with details available here.
Farm Carbon Toolkit supported the development of this accredited course for farmers, advisors and new entrants and worked with the University of Cumbria to enable delivery of the course for the first time earlier this year, in Dartmoor. Comments from participants included:
It was really worthwhile and I’ve gained a lot of knowledge and practical skills from attending
Plenty of on-farm, real-world teaching and examples
Becky was a fantastic tutor- incredibly engaging and knowledgeable
Dung beetles are fascinating creatures that play an essential role in breaking down dung, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing vital ecosystem services such as improving pastures, conditioning soils, and reducing parasitic burdens on our livestock.
What are the types of dung beetle?
There are three basic groups of dung beetles: dwellers, tunnellers, and rollers. Dwellers live and reproduce within the dung, tunnellers create channels underneath the dung pat pulling dung through the soil and storing within the tunnels to eat and lay their eggs, rollers roll dung balls away and bury them underground.
Where can you find dung beetles?
Dung beetles are found on every continent except Antarctica. Their habitats range from desert to farmland to forest, owing their entire existence to dung from an equally wide range of animals. You’ll find most dung beetles in or around dung pats from herbivores that typically pass undigested plant material as well as liquid. Adult dung beetles tend to feed on the more liquid portion of the dung pat and dung beetle larvae will feed on the more solid portion. Hence, it’s important for the animals depositing dung to have a diet containing lots of fibre.
Dung beetles in the UK
There are around 60 species of dung beetle in the UK belonging to the tunneller and dweller groups – rollers are found in the warmer climate of the southern hemisphere. Some dung beetles are active during the day whereas some fly at night. Just like humans, dung beetles have preference when it comes to sniffing out food (dung). Some prefer dung from specific animals, some prefer dried dung as opposed to fresh and some are even picky when it comes to the location of dung within a field, however, mostly are generalists and will reside in any they can find.
What are the benefits of dung beetles?
It has been suggested that dung beetles can save the cattle industry around £367 million a year.
How?
Firstly, they increase soil nutrients. Fresh dung contains nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous; dung beetles eat, bury, and release these nutrients for the benefit of the surrounding soil biology, improving soil fertility and soil structure through channelling and drawing down organic matter. This can reduce reliance on fertiliser and makes much better use of our manures.
Secondly, dung beetles reduce pasture fouling. When dung isn’t removed from the field, the grass underneath it will die and the grass surrounding it will be unpalatable to livestock. If you scale this up, it removes a huge area for grazing as well as wasting an abundance of nutrients.
Thirdly, dung beetles are excellent at reducing pest flies from the activities of mites which are transported on the beetles’ bodies. The value of these organisms can be identified through reduced parasites on your livestock that ultimately impact milk yield and liveweight gains due to energy expended by the livestock to defend themselves or fight against infection. In both cases, dung beetles reduce survival of flies and parasites through competition of resources.
Why are dung beetle populations in decline?
Unfortunately, despite the benefits of dung beetles, they are in decline due to the intensification of livestock systems – use of pesticides and anthelmintics. During the grazing season, dung pats could be broken down in a matter of days but instead, many lie rotting for a long time (and producing more methane emissions).
How can we encourage dung beetle populations?
Provision of dung is vital. If we’re able to outwinter even a fraction of our stock it provides a food resource all year round, attracting a more diverse array of dung beetle species.
Feeding livestock a more fibrous diet i.e. moving away from a grain-based diet can also help as it’s important to provide that partially undigested fibrous material.
Finally, long-acting anthelmintics can cause catastrophic loss of dung beetle populations. With veterinary support, frequent weighing of livestock and spot-treating animals offers a more sustainable way of reducing anthelmintic use, reducing the wormer-resistance in intestinal parasites, and protecting dung beetle populations.
How can we find out more about dung beetles?
There’s a wealth of information online about dung beetles, but to really get down to the detail, Farm Carbon Toolkit is holding a two-day conference, in partnership with leading vets, dairy cooperative First Milk and Somersetdairy company Yeo Valley, on Tuesday 11 and Wednesday 12 June at Yeo Valley’s Holt Farm near Blagdon, south of Bristol. Event details and registration can be found here
Overall, from the financial partial budgeting we carried out, we found a potential for margins to be maintained if not improved, from the adoption of some of the regenerative farming practices we looked at. Mainly though, only if SFI payments are included where they could be available.
Table 1: Regenerative farming practices and their financial viability, including external support where available (organic maintenance payments not included). Source: Farm Carbon Toolkit (2024), Understanding the financial and climate impacts of regenerative farming practices. Report available here.
Typically, the adoption of more regenerative farming practices can result in lower yields, lower livestock stocking rates and lower output (without external support), especially where land is turned over to fertility building leys and reliance on artificial fertilisers is removed. Many studies in recent years have evidenced this, including the National Food Strategy. The extent of the challenge is unclear and from our assessment of the research; the current evidence base for any estimate on this is poor.
However, reducing input use can reduce business risk (vulnerability to input costs changes reduced with lower use). As more farmers learn how to implement more regenerative farming practices effectively the risk of reduced output will drop.
Confirming what is often cited anecdotally, there is also evidence that a transition period is required to allow soil and ecosystem health to improve so that it can function effectively with reduced or no chemical inputs. Depending upon the starting point, this can be up to five years, which highlights the need for support to bridge the financial gap, alongside other support for farmers as they acquire a new range of skills and knowledge. In England, the introduction of the Environmental Land Management Scheme provides financial support for the introduction of some key regenerative farming practices, such as growing cover crops and herbal leys. However, for more holistic changes to farming systems, such as moving to longer and more complex rotations including grass leys, it is less evident that the current financial support will facilitate this transition unless the farm has a profitable use for the grass and the individual crop gross margins are not compromised significantly.
There is also a cultural and social aspect to the acceptability of a transition to more regenerative farming systems which should not be underestimated. For instance, a more regenerative farm is often considered to be less “tidy”. Acceptability is increasing, especially where farmer networks exist to reinforce decision-making in favour of more regenerative farming practices.
Practices which reduce greenhouse gas emissions
In the previous article, we introduced some of the broad sustainability impacts of different regenerative farming practices. Specifically on greenhouse gas emissions, many of the recommended ways to reduce farm greenhouse gas emissions are part of the suite of more regenerative farming practices, e.g.
Reducing the use of cultivations
Reducing reliance on artificial fertiliser (which can only be achieved when other more regenerative farming practices are in place which support enhanced soil health and fertility)
Changing feed sources for livestock away from reliance on imported protein sources such as soya- this is easier for ruminants than for young monogastrics
Maximising use of forage for livestock feeding
Adopting these practices generally reduces the emissions per hectare, due to various factors such as reduced synthetic fertiliser and fuel use, improved soil health and more efficient use of resources. However, lower yields and lower livestock stocking rates are a trade-off and this will ultimately impact the carbon footprint of the end product unless any associated increases in soil carbon removal are factored in.
Typical, more regenerative farming practices include replacing fertiliser with legumes within cropping rotations and grassland; reducing cultivations for crop establishment; growing herbal leys; challenging received wisdom on the level of artificial fertilisers required by crops1 and the requirement for the use of insecticides. For livestock farmers, typical regenerative farming practices being adopted include reducing the use of supplementary feeds and keeping livestock grazing longer into the autumn, alongside practices to improve soil health and structure.
Financial viability of more regenerative farming practices
In our recent work with SOS-UK, we created partial budgets for the majority of the regenerative farming practices across a range of typical farm types: dairy, arable, mixed (non-dairy livestock and arable), lowland livestock and upland livestock.
In all budgets, costs were calculated on an annual basis. Input and sale values reflect prices in 2023 and are drawn from reliable industry sources. For future years the actual impact will be affected by changing prices and costs.
Whilst we are finding out more every year about the impact of many regenerative farming practices, which is helping to fill the information void, machinery manufacturers are also coming to market with improved equipment to enable some of the machinery linked regenerative farming practices such as reduced cultivation and intercropping/ companion cropping. These innovations are both reducing the cost (in some cases) for practice implementation and also improving the effectiveness of the practice itself.
A number of key issues surfaced which have a significant bearing on the introduction of these practices:
Capital investment required: This is particularly relevant where specialist machinery and/or equipment is required. For instance, adopting minimum cultivations, intercropping and holistic grazing. For reduced cultivations, the need for more specialist drills is sometimes balanced by the ability to reduce the overall machinery inventory. In addition, Defra has made a capital grant available for some innovative items of machinery and equipment through the Countryside Productivity Scheme in the past, which reduces the initial capital required to adopt these practices. Other mechanisms to support access to appropriate machinery and equipment might be through machinery rings or syndicates or through third parties such as landlords underwriting the capital costs for these investments, or use of contractors.
New technical skills required: It is clear that some practitioners have acquired the necessary skills to adopt regenerative farming practices with little or no yield penalty, which increases the financial viability of their adoption. As these skills become more common the adoption of these practices should increase. However, supporting a wider understanding of the skills and techniques required will accelerate adoption alongside an inherently better understanding of their financial viability.
Linkage of the value of regenerative farming practices to the price of farm resources and inputs: Many of the regenerative farming practices described in our report involved a reduction in farming intensity. However, this can be difficult to implement when the cost of the key resources required (especially land) is high. There is no easy answer for this challenge, but many farmers will cite their need to finance their ongoing business to their adoption of more intensive farming practices, although external support for more sustainable farming is bridging this gap for some practices.
With support from SFI (in England), over 50% of the practices we budgeted show a neutral or positive financial impact, which is largely due to this support. The full report includes partial budgets for each practice together with the assumptions used to arrive at the budget outcome shown. It is intended that these budgets can be adapted to fit individual farm circumstances to enable farmers and growers to better estimate the impact of adoption on their holdings.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are aimed at researchers, the Government and the industry itself:
More research is required to provide clearer evidence of the impact of the adoption of regenerative farming practices on yield and output as this is seen as a key barrier to adoption by many farmers
Increased support for farmers to build the confidence, skills and knowledge required for effective adoption of regenerative farming practices
Institutional Landlords provide transition support to tenants undertaking a whole farm approach to the adoption of regenerative farming systems, especially where more complex and longer arable rotations are a central theme of the transition
Support the development of Machinery Rings or Syndicates to facilitate access to the type of equipment required to facilitate the transition to more regenerative farming systems
Footnotes
It has been estimated that £397 million of artificial fertiliser is wasted each year in the UK due to over-application. AHDB Research suggests UK farmers could potentially reduce up to 50% of the nitrogen fertilisers on specific crops without seeing a significant reduction in yield.
In the first of this series of three articles, we discussed the need to better understand the financial and climate impacts of regenerative farming practices. In this article, we summarise our recent work with SOS-UK (report available here), to contribute to this understanding. This article focuses on the practices themselves and the state-of-the-art regarding what we know about their impacts on farms.
What practices are we talking about?
We started with a focus on the five commonly cited principles of regenerative farming practice:
Minimise soil disturbance
Keep soil covered
Maintain living roots in the soil as much as possible
Maximise plant diversity
Integrate livestock
Then we assembled a list of typical farming practices which can support these principles, supporting a more regenerative farming system. In practice, we are clear that where these practices are adopted together, the impact will be greater.
Reduced tillage
Introduction of Silvopasture
Enhanced hedge management
Introduction of herbal leys
Replacement of monoculture ryegrass swards with grass/ clover swards
Holistic grazing
Maximisation of forage in dairy cow diets
Improved use of manures and composts
Introduction of cover cropping
Introduction of longer crop rotations
Retention and incorporation of crop residues
Introduction of Agroforestry
Intercropping/ companion cropping
Use of living mulches
Winter grazing of cereals
What’s the evidence for their impacts?
We assessed a range of evidence for the sustainability and financial impacts of the farming practices described above. Of the various papers and reports we assessed, we highlight two reports in this article, which we felt were helpful in bringing together evidence on sustainability impacts. First, the recently published paper by Maskell et al. 2023, Functional Agro Biodiversity: An Evaluation of Current Approaches and Outcomes. This paper contains some of the most up-to-date analysis of the state of the art and contains two key tables which are reproduced here. The first table assesses the strength of the evidence for the impact of key practices which are considered to support enhanced Functional Agro Biodiversity (FAB). This list shows that the strongest evidence for the impact of these practices is on soil health (>60% of practices have strong evidence for impact). By contrast, less than 20% of practices have any evidence of impact on crop yield. For water quality, biodiversity and control of pests and weeds more than 50% of the practices listed have strong evidence of impact.
Table 1: Strength of evidence for the impact of practices designed to improve functional agro-biodiversity (FAB). Source: Maskell et al. 2023.
The second table brings together findings from a wide range of research in recent years to identify the contributions of these farming practices to ecosystem service provision and farm management. Again, what stands out is the low level of reporting of any improvements in crop yield from adopting these practices. In general, the reverse has been found more commonly. Similarly, conflicting findings on the impact of these practices on GHG emissions are present. However, there is a clear consensus for the positive impact of the vast majority of the practices listed on pollination, biodiversity, soil and water quality, alongside flood regulation. In fact, all the elements of ecosystem service provision are enhanced through the adoption of these practices.
Table 2. Selected FAB measures and their contribution to ecosystem service provision and farm management. GHG = GHG emissions. Source: Maskell et al. 2023. Table notes: GHG= GHG emissions, SOC= Soil Organic carbon, ↓=Decrease; ↔= no significant effect, ↑= Increase. The cells have been shaded green (positive effect on ES), red (negative effect on ES), orange (mixed). Presence of multiple arrows indicates good evidence for different effects, often depending on specific context.
As a follow-up to the likely impact of these practices on soil carbon sequestration, we carried out desk research to identify the likely range in potential for some of these practices. We reviewed a report produced in January 2022, led by the Green Alliance for the Oxford Farming Conference, which reviewed the evidence for soil carbon removals and reduction in emissions following the adoption of some “more regenerative farming” practices and land management changes. The authors reported a relative scarcity of robust data for the impacts on soil carbon stocks arising from a shortened range of farming practices. In addition, a large range of results was found from some practices (see Table 3), which makes it difficult to assign any specific level of carbon removal or reduction in emissions without measurement.
Practice
Land efficiency tCo2e/ha/yr
Source of data
Total UK potential MtCo2e/yr
Assumptions
Paludiculture
19.0 – 39.0*
C Evans et al, 2017
2.0 – 4.1*
25% of lowland peat drained for agriculture becomes paludiculture to meet CCC targets
Halving drainage depths for arable on peat
12.7 – 18.9*
C Evans et al, 2021
5.3 – 7.9*
Drainage depth halved on all drained lowland peat
Agroforestry
4.4 – 10.0(mainly tropical data so likely a lower range in the UK)
D Kim et al, 2016
1.8 – 4.2
Adoption at 416,700 hectares, A Thomson et al, 2018
Hedgerows
3.1 – 7.3
S Drexler et al, 2021
0.5 – 1.2
Adoption at 168,200 hectares, A Thomson et al, 2018
Organic matter incorporation from residues or amendments
-0.9 – 2.3 depending on clay content in soil
C Poeplau et al, 2015
-1.1 – 2.8
Mid – range rate, adoption at a third of arable area
No till system as part of conservation agriculture
0.3 – 0.6
S Jayarama et al, 2021
0.4 – 0.7
Mid – range rate, adoption at a third of arable area
Table 3: On-farm measures and their carbon sequestration land use efficiency. Source: Green Alliance (2022). The opportunities of agri-carbon markets. Available online.
Agroforestry and hedgerows are the best on-farm measures for carbon sequestration but will need management of woody biomass to sustain sequestration as the trees and hedges reach maturity. While soil carbon measures have low potential per hectare, and appear to be limited in terms of the length of sequestration possible, they have perhaps the highest potential for adoption whilst also keeping land in food production.
In the next article, we focus on what we found out: which regenerative farming practices have the most potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions together with the financial impact of their adoption. You can also read the previous article on this topic here.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes analytics cookies to understand website traffic and how users interact with our website. We do not use any advertising cookies.
You may accept or refuse our use of cookies, or learn more at the link provided.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Recent Comments