Tag: sequestration

25 Years of Rethinking Soil with Simon Cowell

Posted on May 21, 2025 by - Case Studies, Insights, Soil Farmer of the Year

On a sunny day at the end of March, farmers gathered with Simon Cowell to take part in a farm walk with our Soil Farmer of the Year Winner from 2018. Thanks to funding from the AFN+ network, we have been able to revisit two farms this year to understand how their farm and management systems have evolved since being awarded.

Simon farms 400 acres of heavy clay with a large acreage below sea level. He has been working on improving his soils for the last 25 years, and moved to a no-till system in 2006, being flexible with both management and rotations to prioritise soil health. 

Originally starting as a dairy farm, Simon converted his farm to arable cropping. At that time, it was full cultivation and deep topsoil ploughing, year after year. For 15 to 20 years, it seemed to work. But then something shifted — yields dropped, costs rose, and the soil stopped cooperating, as Simon reflects here:

“The farm is on heavy clay with high magnesium content. It became impossible to make a workable seedbed. The soil was either too wet and smeared or too dry and baked hard. I’d tried gypsum, but nothing made a lasting difference. Eventually, it became obvious: the more I left the soil alone, the better it behaved.”

During the walk, lots of different topics were discussed — from rotations, cultivation choice, to measuring soil health and the value of organic matter. Below, Simon shares some of his reflections on how his management has evolved over the last 25 years:

Direct Drilling

In 2004, Simon bought his first direct drill and hasn’t looked back since. Establishing crops became more reliable and consistent, especially on the heavy land.

He uses two drills — a disc and a tine drill. The Moore disc drill is brilliant when conditions are right but struggles in extremes (too wet or too dry). The tine drill, on the other hand, works in almost anything. He will often alternate depending on soil conditions, and finds that flexibility is incredibly important to meet the different challenges that may occur.

Building Soil Organic Matter — and Balancing It

Simon reflects:

“One of the biggest long-term wins has been improving soil organic matter. After years of minimal disturbance, my soil tests show I’m adding roughly one tonne of carbon per hectare per year. That’s a big win for soil structure, biology, and long-term fertility.

But there’s a catch. For every tonne of carbon stored, about 100 kg of nitrogen gets tied up—because carbon to nitrogen ratio is about 10:1. That’s nitrogen that doesn’t go into the crop, at least not right away. It’s a good sign environmentally (less leaching), but it forces us to think differently: we’re not just growing a crop above ground — we’re also feeding the soil. And both require nutrients.”

Managing Fields and Staying Flexible

Simon reflects:

“No two fields are ever the same. One of my best lessons has been to stay flexible — don’t do anything out of habit. For example, I never drill straight up and down the slope anymore. In one field, I direct-drilled linseed straight after the previous crop, no cultivation. Most fields still get a roll or a harrow to cover the seed, but only when needed.

Gypsum? I applied 4 tonnes per acre, three times over eight years. The results? Minimal. The Albrecht soil tests showed no real change, and when you do the chemical maths, you’d need unfeasible amounts to really shift the needle. Direct drilling — now that showed results. That’s what made the difference.”

Surprising Soil Behaviour

“One thing that constantly surprises me is how the soil handles moisture. When it’s dry, it goes rock hard. But once it wets up—even a little—it becomes crumbly and friable. That resilience has improved massively since adopting no-till.

In one field, I remember ploughing up an old meadow and seeing just two inches of dark topsoil over clay. The plough buried all the goodness. That was a turning point. Twenty years later, I believe I’ve rebuilt that topsoil layer—just through direct drilling and patience. It’s a stark contrast to where I started.”

Nitrogen, Legumes, and Root Systems

“There’s no denying it: crop yield still relates closely to the nitrogen you apply. Yes, legumes help. But the better the crop above ground, the better the root system—and that means better soil structure, more exudates, and more microbial activity. It’s a feedback loop.”

Straw and Worms: A Change Over Time

“For 15 years, I chopped and returned every bit of straw. The worms loved it at first. But more recently, it’s been sitting on the surface all winter, forming a mat that small seeds like linseed can’t get through. Now, I bale most of it. I’ve realised: the soil doesn’t need more carbon—it needs nitrogen to break down what’s already there.”

Rotations and Crop Choices

“Rotations? They’re always changing. I try to keep about 50% in wheat, with some barley, linseed, beans, and lucerne. About a third of the farm is spring-cropped. I treat each field on its own merits and decide what’s best for it next—nothing is fixed.”

Drainage, Moles, and Water Holding

“Drainage remains a challenge. I’ve started doing some moling to improve water movement. Last winter killed most of the wheat due to waterlogging. Mole drains helped, but only in the mole line—the soil in between takes years to catch up. So I cross-moled with a tine as an experiment.

On some fields, I now get lovely crumbly tilth after winter even with no plant cover, just from natural wetting and drying. But I still wonder: is my soil becoming hydrophobic, in a good way? That is, allowing water to drain through rather than sealing up. That’s the goal—especially on clay.”

Sheep and Grazing in Rotation

“Sheep are a handy tool, especially for cover crops and herbal leys. But I’ve learned to be very cautious—they can damage soil structure quickly, especially in wet weather. Just one day too long, and the field can end up full of holes that hold water into spring.”

Plough Trials

Despite the benefits min till has produced on his farm, Simon is beginning to experiment with ploughing this year to see whether it is possible to mineralise some of the nutrients within the soil. There are two trials going on, one looking at autumn ploughing and other, spring ploughing.  He explains:

“The trial with autumn ploughing started in September. It was too dry and hard to plough at first so only a proportion of the field was ploughed. The other half of the field was direct drilled in October when the weather came good, and was no problem. On the ploughed side, I had to wait another two weeks to get on the land as it held all of the water.  Although it is an interesting trial, it is going to be difficult to compare due to the delay in drilling the ploughed side. Establishment has been less good on the side which was ploughed compared to the direct drilled.”

The trial confirmed what Simon had been thinking: for his land, direct drilling is the way forward. 

“It’s made my soil ploughable again.”

Undeterred, a second ploughing trial has been underway this spring, where a field was ploughed, power harrowed and rolled and then drilled two weeks later. Simon has been impressed with how the field has performed so far. The next door field has been direct drilled, so it will provide a good comparison to look at performance through this season to see how they grow!

“We’ve proved that we can build organic matter through our system, we are now looking at how we can balance occasional disturbance. I’ve been against it in the past because of protecting the soil structure that I have built up and not wanting to lose it, but I’m hoping that because it was in a good state before, it will recover quickly and be back to how it was before.”

I’ve done all the biological products, the trials, the tweaking. In the beginning, you throw everything at the problem. Over time, you start asking: what actually made the difference? I’ve spent years building organic matter. Now it’s time to start using it.

Many thanks to Simon for an inspirational walk and for sharing his knowledge so freely; it gave everyone lots to think about on the drive home!

Can GWP* Have a Role in Farm Carbon Reporting?

Posted on April 29, 2025 by - Insights

Cows

An overview of GWP* and the Farm Carbon Toolkit position on alternative metrics for carbon footprinting.

Methane plays a crucial role in climate change, but accurately measuring its impact has long been a challenge. The most commonly used metric for measuring its impact is GWP100, which calculates its warming effect over a 100-year period. However, GWP100 does not fully reflect the gas’s short-lived nature in the atmosphere, potentially misrepresenting its impact compared to other greenhouse gases.

As a result, an alternative approach, known as GWP*, has been developed to address the challenges of measuring methane using GWP100, while offering a more dynamic picture of the gas’s real-time warming impact. At Farm Carbon Toolkit, we recognise the growing discussion around methane reporting and the potential benefits – as well as limitations – of using GWP*. This article explores the differences between GWP100 and GWP*, their implications for farmers, and how GWP* could be responsibly integrated into emissions reporting.

What is Global Warming Potential and How is it Measured?

Global Warming Potential is a measure used to compare the impact of different greenhouse gases on atmospheric warming over a specific period, relative to carbon dioxide. Since each greenhouse gas varies in how much heat it traps and how long it remains in the atmosphere, Global Warming Potential provides a standardised way to assess their contribution to climate change.

Carbon dioxide is used as the baseline because it is the most abundant greenhouse gas. GWP100 is the most widely used version of the Global Warming Potential metric, measuring the average warming potential of a gas over 100 years. This approach is the international standard used in greenhouse gas reporting, including in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines.

Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for the longest – up to a thousand years – but has the smallest warming impact of greenhouse gases and a GWP100 score of 1. However, as it is the most abundant and long-lasting GHG, this does not diminish its warming impact. In comparison, other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have significantly higher warming effects over shorter timeframes. The GWP100 for nitrous oxide is 265, meaning that one tonne of nitrous oxide causes the same amount of warming as 265 tonnes of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. This is calculated with consideration for nitrous oxide’s 100-150 year lifespan.

GWP100 Limitations

While GWP100 is a useful tool for measuring the impact of different greenhouse gases, it has limitations. For gases like nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, which persist in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years respectively, GWP100 works well, providing an accurate comparison of their long-term warming effects. However, for methane – a potent greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for only about 12 years – GWP100 fails to capture its true impact on climate change. Methane’s potency is not fully reflected when assessed over a 100-year period. While it persists for a short time, it traps heat much more effectively than carbon dioxide, significantly contributing to warming during that period.

As the science of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions evolves, it’s clear that alternative metrics will be necessary to provide a more accurate picture of methane’s role in climate change and to guide effective mitigation strategies.

GWP*: A New – but Incomplete – Approach

One such alternative metric is GWP*, which has been developed to better reflect methane’s global warming impact. Unlike standard GWP100, which assumes that emissions remain constant over time, GWP* accounts for methane’s faster breakdown in the atmosphere. As a result, GWP* can provide a clearer picture of how changes in methane emissions affect the climate in real-time, rather than assuming the gas has the same long-term impact as carbon dioxide.

Given the limitations of GWP100 in accurately reflecting methane’s warming impact, it may seem logical to switch entirely to GWP*. However, GWP* cannot be used to create a carbon footprint on its own.

One of the main reasons for this is that GWP* is not yet an internationally recognised reporting metric. While it is gaining traction in climate science discussions, it has not been formally adopted by key regulatory bodies such as the IPCC.

A further challenge of using GWP* alone is that it can cause confusion for emissions reduction efforts, especially at the farm level. GWP* measures the relative change in methane emissions over time, rather than just the total emissions. This means that small, natural variations in factors like herd size or crop activity can cause large fluctuations in carbon footprints from one year to the next. For example, a change in management practices can result in higher methane emissions, causing a spike in the carbon footprint. Conversely, a reduction in emissions, for example, from improving the efficiency of livestock production, has a greater immediate impact on reducing a farm’s reported warming contribution. These fluctuations can make emissions appear inconsistent, even if the farm’s overall environmental impact is improving. The danger is that such variability can make it harder to track long-term progress and could undermine efforts to reduce emissions.

Because of this, GWP* is most effective when applied over longer timescales and at larger scales, such as national-level carbon accounting over several decades. At this level, GWP* helps provide a more accurate picture of methane’s true warming potential, without the misleading volatility that occurs when used for annual farm-level reporting. 

For these reasons, while GWP* offers important insights into methane’s role in climate change, it should be used alongside existing GWP100 calculations rather than replacing them entirely. Employing GWP* in a way that accounts for long-term trends, rather than short-term variability, ensures that methane’s impact is assessed more accurately while still maintaining consistency in emissions reporting.

How Could GWP* be Applied to Farms?

In theory, GWP* could be used alongside GWP100 to provide a more accurate representation of a farm’s long-term methane emissions. However, applying GWP* in a practical and reliable way would require specific data and methodologies that are still under development.

To integrate GWP* into farm-level carbon footprinting, methane emissions would first need to be separated from other greenhouse gases in the emissions inventory and treated differently. Unlike GWP100, which applies a single factor to all emissions, GWP* relies on understanding the historical emissions data of methane — typically covering at least 20 years. This historical data is essential because GWP* calculates methane’s impact based on its rate of change over time, rather than treating all emissions as having an equal long-term effect. 

For an annual carbon report, the current year’s methane emissions would be adjusted based on the historical trend in emissions and a GWP* constant that scales the calculation to methane’s lifespan. However, this GWP* constant is still under development, with debates over the extent to which methane should be scaled, and, as such, has not yet been universally accepted. Once adjusted, the GWP* methane value would then be multiplied by the GWP100 emissions factor to integrate it into the overall farm footprint.

Essentially, this approach modifies a farm’s yearly methane emissions based on historical trends, scaling them to better reflect methane’s atmospheric lifespan before incorporating them into a GWP100-based report. While this suggests that GWP* could theoretically be applied in annual farm reports, it requires two critical components: comprehensive legacy data on methane emissions and an agreed-upon GWP calculation constant – both of which are still being refined by climate scientists.

The use of GWP* will show the most dramatic impact on the carbon footprint of extensive ruminant livestock farmers, where a high proportion of their emissions come from enteric methane emissions. Currently, for these types of systems, under the current footprint methodology, there remain limited management options for mitigation of emissions other than reducing stock numbers.

Until these foundational elements are fully developed and standardised, GWP* cannot yet be seamlessly implemented into farm carbon footprinting. However, as research continues and reporting frameworks evolve, there may be future opportunities for farms to integrate GWP* into their emissions assessments in a way that balances accuracy with practical usability.

Distinguishing Between Methane Sources

While GWP* offers a more nuanced way to assess the impact of short-lived greenhouse gases like methane, it is equally important to differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic methane sources when applying this metric.

Biogenic methane – produced naturally through biological processes such as enteric fermentation in livestock, wetlands, and peatlands – should be adjusted using GWP*. This is because biogenic methane is broken down in the atmosphere at roughly the same rate that it is produced, meaning that when emissions remain stable, there is no net increase in atmospheric methane levels. This natural balance is an essential factor in ensuring that methane’s impact is not overstated when using GWP100.

Anthropogenic methane, on the other hand, originates from human activities such as fossil fuel extraction, waste management, and slurry management. Unlike stable biogenic methane sources, anthropogenic sources add to the atmospheric methane stockpile, meaning these emissions accumulate over time rather than cycling naturally. Because of this, applying a GWP* adjustment to anthropogenic methane could underestimate its long-term climate impact, as it does not break down at the same rate that it is emitted. 

Another key consideration is that as anthropogenic methane breaks down, it eventually converts into carbon dioxide, contributing to the long-term stockpile in the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide persists for thousands of years, this means that anthropogenic methane has a dual impact – it plays a role in short-term warming as methane and then adds to long-term warming through its carbon dioxide byproduct.

These distinctions raise important questions about how GWP* should be applied. Should emissions from degraded peat bogs or residue burning be classified as natural or human-driven? Should increasing herd sizes in agriculture be considered an anthropogenic influence? The way these questions are answered will determine which methane emissions qualify for GWP* adjustments and which should be assessed using traditional GWP100 methods.

To ensure accurate and fair carbon footprint assessments, clear guidelines on how to apply GWP* in different contexts are essential. As the science behind methane accounting evolves, so too must the frameworks that determine when and how GWP* is used in emissions reporting.

Looking Ahead: The Role of GWP* in Farm Carbon Reporting

The debate around GWP* reflects its potential to improve how we account for methane emissions, particularly for livestock systems that feel misrepresented by GWP100. While it offers a more realistic view of methane’s short-term climate impact, its sensitivity to year-on-year changes can create volatility in farm-level reporting and complicate efforts to track progress reliably.

There is also a risk that GWP* could be misused, allowing businesses to claim emissions reductions without making genuine changes, or pressuring farmers into quick fixes like reducing herd sizes. To avoid these outcomes, any use of GWP* must be transparent, grounded in science, and applied fairly across all sectors. Done well, it could become a valuable tool – alongside GWP100 – for building a more accurate and trusted approach to agricultural carbon footprinting.

At Farm Carbon Toolkit, we remain committed to exploring how GWP* can be integrated responsibly into emissions reporting, ensuring that any changes reflect both scientific accuracy and practical fairness for farmers. We are exploring how GWP* can be appropriately implemented alongside the current GWP100 reports as part of a dual reporting system. With this in mind, we recommend continuing to produce reports using GWP100 now, as these will provide a valuable baseline to support dual reporting in the future. Given the significant impact of timespan on GWP* data, we are considering solutions based on multi-year reporting to improve accuracy and consistency. 

As research progresses and reporting frameworks evolve, clear guidance and safeguards will be essential in ensuring GWP* supports effective, fair and transparent carbon reporting across the farming sector.

Craig Blyth-Moore is a sustainability communications professional with over a decade of experience turning complex environmental issues into clear, compelling narratives. He has written extensively on energy efficiency, renewable energy, the energy transition and sustainable logistics, helping organisations communicate their sustainability strategies with credibility and impact. 

Craig holds an MSc in Environmental Sustainability and brings both subject matter expertise and strategic insight to his work. His writing has appeared on leading global platforms including Economist Impact and the World Economic Forum, helping to inform and inspire meaningful climate action.

Oxton Organics – pushing the boundaries of soil health

Posted on April 23, 2025 by - Case Studies, Insights

“Had we still been ploughing now, we would’ve had two or three terrible seasons and lots of soil damage. The way I farm now has softened that blow. I wouldn’t want to be cultivating the land like we used to.” 

Jayne Arnold is a grower who is really pushing the boundaries of soil health and management. Based on a 12-acre organic vegetable farm in Worcestershire, she is constantly striving to find ways to improve the diversity, depth, quality and carbon content of their soils. Growing for their own veg box scheme, the farm also has a few sheep, an orchard, agroforestry and makes plenty of compost.

In this new Case Study, we learn how Oxton Organics is balancing a productive farm, producing local food, whilst constantly improving soil health and quality through a voracious appetite for knowledge and an approach.

Click here to download this case study as a PDF.

Drilling green manures between salad crops

Whilst the farm has been organic for a long time, it’s only in the last 7-8 years that this new approach to soil management started, producing some really impressive results. The approach is underpinned by applying high quality compost, biostimulants, and covering the soil as much as possible through mulches, compost and green manures.

The sheep play an important role, and the pastures they’re on have improved significantly since the species mix and stocking regime has changed. This has resulted in not just better pastures and better soil helath, but much more biodiversity too, as Jayne notes:

“In the years after sowing the pasture, it was predominantly grasses, white clover, and yarrow, with a little ribwort, burnet and yellow trefoil. Now there is much more diversity, there are flowers throughout summer and autumn, including dandelions, wild carrot, yarrow, knapweed, oxeye daisy and much more. A few bee orchids and pyramidal orchid appeared four years ago and returned every year since. We had never seen orchids on the farm before! Butterflies and other pollinating insects are also more abundant.”

Biodiverse pastures at Oxton Organics

Wildlife abounds above and below ground, from the tall hedges and lines of willow coppice to the flowers of the pastures and the cropland soil teeming with life. “There are so many worms in the soil, it’s hard to avoid them when transplanting crops!” Jayne says.

Soil Organic Matter levels are rising and distributed more evenly through the soil profile. Structure is improving, soil colouration is more even and deeper through the profile. The action of worms and perennial plants helps to draw carbon down in the soil profile – and that means it is also more stable. Carbon sequestered into the soil like this is a proper drawdown of atmospheric carbon; if it’s not released then it is stable and locked away.

An example of a deep rooting and diverse green manure mix, in one of the polytunnels

Jayne notes that weather patterns have changed, with more frequent extreme rainfall events. “The up and downness of the weather has changed a lot“, she says. Building resilience in the stability of farm soils is essential in helping to mitigate such risks that all growers are experiencing from a changing climate. Soils that are higher in carbon, have a mulch or living cover, and have better structure will be much more resilient to the effects of both heavy rain and drought.

The farm’s focus on soil management underpins all the positive aspects outputs of the farm – quality food, flood resilience, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and indeed sheer enjoyment and intrigue that gets growers out of bed in the morning. A refreshing look at green manures, founded on experience and observation, demonstrates one example of this: “you won’t build a fungal dominant soil with legumes. Plants will reject mycorrhizal associations if there’s too much Nitrogen in the system. You need to build bacteria that naturally fix Nitrogen and be more balanced. You don’t see many legumes in the hedgerow – yet that’s all green” says Jayne. 

Mycorrhizal fungi associating with a radish

Managing carbon is also part of the business strategy, using an electric van for deliveries, minimising any cultivations, ensuring lots of carbon sequestration, and reducing inputs. With so much carbon being absorbed on the farm and being turned into soil organic matter, the farm is really demonstrating how to grow in a way that builds capital for the future, whilst producing great quality food and continuing to explore and push the boundaries.

Sheep grazing in the pastures at Oxton Organics

With thanks to Jayne Arnold for the photos and the interview. Written by Jonathan Smith.

https://www.oxtonorganics.co.uk

Supporting Innovation in Soil Health: Our Collaboration with LandApp

Posted on March 24, 2025 by - Calculator, News

At the Farm Carbon Toolkit, we’re excited to share news about our recent collaboration with Land App to support the development and launch of their new Soil Survey feature on Land App Mobile.

As part of the Agri-Carbon Kernow project in Cornwall, our team played a role in helping develop and test this tool, which is designed to help farmers and land managers record, report, and review both lab and in-field soil measurements. 

A Collaborative Effort

Working closely with the Land App team, we brought together our expertise in soil health and carbon to create a digital soil sampling solution that meets real-world needs. 

By integrating the robust soil survey methodologies we advocate in our projects into Land App’s platform, we’ve enabled farmers to gain deeper insights into soil health and carbon sequestration potential. The new feature not only helps users assess soil conditions with greater accuracy but also supports more informed decision-making for sustainable land management, as well as the evidence required for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI).

The new Soil Survey feature enhances Land App Mobile’s suite of data collection tools—joining the General Data Collection survey and PTES’ Healthy Hedgerows—to provide reliable insights into soil health, which are essential for informed land management and funding applications.

Why It Matters

  • Digital Efficiency: Easily record and review soil sample data on the go, including the ability to support evidence required for SFI.
  • Sustainable Impact: Empowering better land management decisions through accurate, real-time data.
  • Collaborative Innovation: A tangible outcome of our work in the Agri-Carbon Kernow project, highlighting the benefits of cross-sector collaboration.

We’re proud to have supported Land App in bringing this feature to life and look forward to further innovations and collaborations. This includes using the Land App API to help users seamlessly manage their soil data within each platform.

Thank you to the team at Land App for their partnership—and for the opportunity to help shape tools that support sustainable land management!

Find out more

For further details and to see the Soil Survey feature in action, please refer to the Land App’s guidance.

Reflections on the 7th Carbon Budget from the  Climate Change Committee

Posted on March 19, 2025 by - Insights, News

By Liz Bowles, CEO, Farm Carbon Toolkit

Every five years, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)1 publishes a statutory report detailing the UK’s ‘carbon budget’ for a future five-year period. The 7th Carbon Budget covers the period 2038-2042. It is a stock-take of UK GHG emissions (current and future) and provides advice to the Government on how and where these emissions will need to be reduced (‘the pathway’) if the UK is to meet its legal obligations to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. 

This report came out with other reports and consultations such as the Defra Land Use Framework Consultation and the IGD’s Net Zero Transition Plan for the UK Food System. Certainly how we produce food and look after agricultural land in the UK is coming more and more under the spotlight.

Within the 7th Carbon Budget report, it is good to see that the role of land use change in removing carbon is now being linked to agricultural land which gives a truer picture than was previously the case, when land use change was in a separate silo.

It is clear that the carbon budget is very high level, focussing on climate impacts only, with little reference to the impacts of the proposed changes on biodiversity across the UK’s agricultural land. In reviewing this budget, FCT has taken a very practical viewpoint and has reflected on areas where the budget could have helpfully provided more detail and looked at how to fully engage with farmers and growers across the land who are on the delivery frontline.

As other sectors decarbonise, the proportion of total emissions arising from agriculture will increase, putting more pressure on the sector to make progress on emissions reduction and carbon removals. In 2022 the contribution of agriculture to overall UK emissions was 12%. By 2040 this is predicted to rise to 27%, after the activity to reduce emissions set out in the carbon budget and it will be the second highest emitter after aviation even with the target action outlined in this carbon budget.

The report proposes a pathway for agriculture to reach net zero by 2050. Not surprisingly woodland creation, peatland restoration and other land use changes are highlighted as mechanisms to sequester more carbon. There is significant reliance on carbon sequestration into land sinks through the 2040’s but little reliance on any level of carbon sequestration into soil itself. 

There is a reliance on increased tree planting from the late 2020’s onwards as trees will only start to sequester larger volumes of carbon from 15 years of age onwards. According to the UK Woodland Carbon Code, sequestration rates for woodland increase dramatically during the “teenage years” of woodland establishment. In total, woodland creation has been modelled to contribute 15% to emissions reduction by 2050 . This will require an additional 1.1 million ha of woodland to be planted by 2050. In addition some 300,000 ha of lowland peat and 970,000 ha of upland peat will be returned to natural/ rewetted condition by the same time.

For agriculture the reduction in overall GHG emissions is targeted at 45% by 2050 compared to 2022, coming primarily from a reduction in livestock numbers (38% by 2050) with a relatively small contribution from the adoption of low carbon farming practices. These reductions are significant, reducing the breeding flock of sheep from 15 to 11 million ewes and the breeding cattle herd from 3 to 2 million head.

The reduction in grazing livestock numbers will release land for tree planting. The combined effect of the changes to farming practice and tree planting is to suggest that the sector will become a net sequesterer of carbon by 2048.

There are a number of important assumptions included within this budget which bear further scrutiny:

  • Crop yields will increase by 16% by 2050. Presumably this increase is deemed necessary to ensure adequate plant based foods to replace the current levels of meat in our diets. However it is questionable whether this will be achievable in practice, even if gene editing technologies are successful and fully deployed as more adverse weather events are already affecting yield levels in the UK and across the world. It is not clear how critical to successful achievement of the overall plan this is.
  • Stocking rates for grazing livestock on lowland will increase by around 10% with stocking rates in the upland reduced. Presumably the former is to allow for more land to be released to grow crops for human consumption and the latter to reflect the current over-grazing in parts of the upland and to reflect rewetting of upland peatlands and the proposals for tree planting. Targeting increased stocking rates for lowland livestock could require additional artificial fertiliser inputs which would seem counter intuitive, though the increased stocking rate could potentially be achieved through improvements in grassland utilisation efficiency.
  • Consumption of meat products (primarily beef and lamb) will fall by 35% by 2050 compared to 2019 levels. On first sight it would appear that changes in consumption are mirroring proposed reductions in livestock numbers, however, no mention is made of any changes in dairy cow numbers, but since the majority of beef produced in the UK comes from the dairy herd this will also impact milk production. Consideration is also given to replacing meat in ready meals with plant based alternatives which will negatively affect carcass balance, with lower value “cuts” often used for this purpose at the moment. This would put further pressure on sector profitability. The targeted reduction in ruminant livestock numbers would lead to a lower requirement of permanent grassland for grazing of a similar order to the reduction in livestock numbers. This would amount to around 3 million ha which could be diverted for other use, where this is possible. Tree planting would be a key use for poorer quality ground (topography and stoniness) with better quality grassland moving to arable cropping where this is possible. This would probably lead to loss of carbon from soils, especially when permanent grassland is first transitioned to arable cropping2. It is not clear whether this has been accounted for within the overall budget. 
  • The carbon budget includes a very low value (0.5Mt CO2e per year for carbon removed by grassland soils). This appears to be low and seems to take little account of the ability for well-managed livestock systems to bring multiple benefits beyond reducing emissions including carbon removals into soils and enhanced biodiversity.

    More research and data analysis is required urgently to inform us of the ability of the soil to permanently and reliably store more carbon and how best this can be done. We have some information as do others, but as yet this is not a body of evidence which the CCC can use as part of its carbon budget.
  • Returning around 300,000 ha lowland peat to a rewetted state will impinge upon its current use for growing vegetables, fruit and arable crops. The report does mention that some 10% of horticultural production will move indoors, which is likely to focus on leafy salad type crops. However for field scale vegetable production left to be grown outdoors the question remains as to where they will be grown. Moving vegetable growing to other parts of the UK will require careful site selection if current levels of margin (currently pretty low) are to be maintained and consideration of the infrastructure required, such as pack houses and cold stores.

There were also a number of notable omissions from the budget:

  • Whilst the pathway to reduce nitrous oxide emissions are recognised as coming primarily from agriculture, there is no mention of the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuel based N fertilisers. For arable cropping, up to 75% of total emissions arise from the production and use of artificial N fertiliser. Great work is being done to produce low carbon alternatives, but further information on the likely “winning technologies” in this space would have been helpful.
  • The level of efficiency of the UK to produce food at a lower GHG intensity than some other nations, utilising fewer arable resources (land and feed) and with lower supply chain discards through a circular feed system provides the nation with a competitive advantage in terms of overall emissions per unit of home grown food. This could be better recognised within the budget report.
  • There is no mention of any target to reduce numbers of pigs and poultry within this 7th Carbon Budget. Whilst the animals themselves do not emit methane, their manures do and their reliance on imported soya has a significant impact on overall UK agriculture emissions as well as the soil degradation associated with cereal production to grow the cereals they wholly rely on. We have estimated that reducing reliance on imported soya by 50% and moving to feeding UK grown beans and pulses will reduce the emissions from agriculture by 7% (primarily due to reduced reliance on artificial N fertiliser and to removing deforestation emissions on 50% soya supply).

Reliance on land use change to enable agriculture to reach net zero by 2050

In the period from 2043-2050 agriculture and land use are budgeted to contribute the largest share of net emissions reduction (35%) – see figure 2 below from the Carbon Budget report, and to reach net zero emissions by 2050 as a result of increases in carbon sequestration into land sinks (primarily increased areas of woodland and reduced emissions from peatland due to changed management) with emissions of around 25Mt CO2e and sequestration of around 26Mt CO2e per year. Current emissions from UK agriculture are around 48Mt CO2e per year.

Distribution of emissions reductions during each carbon budget period (Climate Change Committee, Seventh Carbon Budget, 2025)

At FCT, we are in agreement with the Agriculture Advisory Group of the UK Climate Change Committee and its report in calling for more nuanced targets which better reflect the benefits of UK livestock production, especially when it is primarily based on the consumption of forages. We also agree with their view that it is important to reflect on the impact of the different gases on warming aligned to the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Both GWP100 and GWP* metrics are important and could already be reported in concert to inform on both GHG accounting (CO2e) for national inventories and impact of different GHGs on climate warming (CO2e) important for the Paris Agreement. 

We believe that the report could be much more positive about the contribution that resilient farming businesses, agricultural land and farmers can make to meeting the climate change challenge. Positive engagement and empowerment of farmers, growers and land managers are critical elements in building confidence and encouraging investment but is currently patchy, with beacons of good practice such as the Farm Net Zero project in Cornwall, which is delivering change on the ground and practically supporting farm businesses to transition towards net zero.

Footnotes

  1. A body set up to hold the government to account on their progress towards net zero and reducing emissions
  2. The UK GHG inventory suggests that the average change in non- organic soil carbon density (to 1M deep) from converting grassland to cropland in England is -24 tonnes C/ ha, in Scotland is -101 tC/ha, Wales -39 tC/ha and NI -68 tC/ha

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from grassland

Posted on March 17, 2025 by - Insights, News

The key areas of grassland management that are known to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions are fertiliser application and management of applications, grazing management, introduction of more diverse species into grassland including legumes and herbs, and correct use and application of farmyard manures and slurries

Effective, efficient use of artificial N fertilisers

Greenhouse gas emissions from synthetic fertilisers is a significant emissions source on grassland farms. 50% of emissions come from the production of the synthetic fertilisers and about 50% from the processes that take place in the soil after application. Estimates suggest that 10-30% of all applied nitrogen fertiliser is lost to the crop or grassland to which it is applied; use efficiency is influenced by application method and environmental conditions at the time of spreading. Make sure soil pH is above 6.5 if possible, soils are not compacted, that soil temperature is warm and rising and that soils are not not waterlogged. Do the basics well and you will get better yield response from your fertilisers and lower GHG emissions.

Reliance on Inorganic N fertiliser usage can be reduced through incorporating more legumes into swards. Establishing clover within temporary leys has additional benefits of higher protein forage and also a more diverse rooting system which can aid production in adverse climatic conditions. Typically grass clover swards containing around 30% clover by DM can fix around 120Kg – 180 Kg N /ha/ year. When they are in the sward, this is free nitrogen fertiliser!

As we are coming to appreciate that the nitrous oxide emissions associated with inorganic N fertilisers are a huge part of agriculture’s total emissions, improving N fertiliser use efficiency is critical.  Saving 170kg N/ ha across 50ha will reduce emissions  by around 58 tonnes CO2e which is more carbon than is sequestered annually in 10ha of broadleaf woodland.

Grazing Management

Grazing rotation is an excellent way to increase grass utilisation and reduce GHG emissions. Ensure there are adequate rest periods between grazing cycles to allow the sward to recover to optimise soil and plant health. Consider sub-dividing fields further to  allow for more regular livestock  movement. The long term effect of increasing rest periods and grazing taller grass is improved soil organic matter and soil structure. This will aid in reducing weed burden, lengthen the grazing season and improve resilience to flood and drought.

Including deeper rooting and more traditional species will increase above and below-ground biodiversity which may increase productivity alongside potential carbon capture and sequestration deeper into the soil profile. Ensure that grassland species composition supports production goals, soil type, soil pH and climatic conditions and consider overseeding where required. 

Overseeding permanent pasture with improved diversity can provide a wide array of benefits.  If 5 ha permanent pasture was over-seeded or re-seeded to create a herbal ley (consistent with SAM3 SFI) it could provide an additional -15.68 t CO2e of carbon removed per year. This will also build soil health and resilience by optimising the above ground canopy increasing the surface area of leaves for photosynthesis and supporting a greater below ground biodiversity responsible for cycling nutrients.

Accurate consideration of manures and slurries

Sampling and analysis of your farmyard manures and slurries will enable optimal accounting for the nutrients in them. Knowing what you are applying will enhance the accuracy of nutrient management planning and could reduce the requirement for synthetic N fertiliser. Consider the application method when applying organic manures to avoid nutrient losses and if possible cover muck heaps like silage heaps where possible to avoid dilution and runoff of nutrients. 

Cornish farm cuts artificial fertiliser use by 60%

Posted on March 17, 2025 by - Case Studies, Farm Net Zero

At Tregooden Farm in Cornwall, farmers Malcolm and Catherine Barrett are pioneering ways to take their farm to net zero carbon and beyond. With a 150 strong beef herd on 300 acres, the couple have transformed the way they farm by focussing on soil health, biodiversity and animal health.

Catherine and Malcolm Barrett

On this Duchy of Conrwall farm, the livestock graze on the pastures, but are also fed on maize. The maize is being farmed in a very different way to how they used to work in an intensive dairy system. Across the farm, the huge drop in artifical fertiliser use (by 60% over 4 years) has had significant cost and carbon benefits. Malcolm said:

 “We went quicker than we might have done, but it seems to have worked. No yield deficits are showing yet! I want to move to a point where we’re not applying artificial fertiliser, relying on biological foliar feeds.” 

By adding green waste compost and manure at rates of just a few tonnes per acre, they concentrate on feeding the soil biology to stimulate improved soil health and carbon sequestration. As Malcolm says “We’re farming livestock both above ground and below”.

Maize growing at Tregooden under the low fertiliser approach

Fuel use has fallen to just nine litres per hectare, due to the cultivations changing to a system based on discing and a direct drill. “We used to beat the living daylight out the soil – there’s no need to do that now” says Malcolm. In addition, he realises the changes are spreading through the community: “Our son is 20 and works for a local contractor. Last spring he asked  – ‘why do they work the fields so much?’ It was a lightbulb moment!”

Grazing has changed substantially by grazing more instensively over shorter periods. There are 80 acres of green manures including Westerwolds, rape, stubble turnips, black oats, crimson clover, winter vetch, beans, designed by FCT’s Hannah Jones.

Green manure mix on the farm

Biodiveristy is improving below ground, with good dung beetle and earthworm activity obvious, and soil sampling showing that Soil Organic Matter is rising across the farm – which means carbon is being sequestered. Above ground tree planting, hedge management, wetlands and improved pastures have led to noticeable improvements in bird and insect populations.

Wetland, and mature trees – great for biodiversity and sequestering carbon.

The Barretts are enjoying showing people around the farm, and are invlovled with Farm Net Zero, Innovative Farmers and the Duchy of Cornwall. They want to inspire change in others – farmers, agronomists, community, researchers and more.

Looking forward, Malcolm said “I’m excited about the future, we’re working with soil and nature again.”

It’s clear this farm is a really embracing the change towards net zero, and coming up with an innovative approach to farming. The farm and farmers are demonstrating tangible environmental and social improvements, an inspiration to others.

See more

Watch a video by Catherine of the farm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR-2mdhnqZE

Read the full case study here on FCT’s website https://farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk/toolkit/case-studies/

Award-Winning Low Carbon Farming in Action: Lessons from Andrew and Claire Brewer

Posted on January 27, 2025 by - Carbon Farmer of the Year, Case Studies

Written by Alex Bebbington, Project Officer, Rural Business School, Duchy College

In November 2024, a farm walk was hosted by Andrew and Claire Brewer, winners of the Carbon Farmers of the Year 2024, as well as being a Farm Net Zero Demo Farm.

The Farm Net Zero (FNZ) project was very proud of Demo Farmers Andrew and Claire Brewer of Ennis Barton for winning the 2024 Carbon Farmer of the Year competition. Carbon Farmer of the Year is run by the Farm Carbon Toolkit and is sponsored by HSBC Agriculture UK. It aims to support farmers on their transition to low-carbon farming by championing farmers who are successfully on that transition and creating a network to learn from.

On Friday 8th November 2024, Andrew Brewer hosted a farm walk to explain some of the practices that led to him winning this year’s Carbon Farmer of the Year competition.

Andrew and Claire farm 1,000 acres at Fraddon, near Newquay, milking 450 autumn-calving Jersey cross cows to supply Arla. Cows calve in late summer and are milked twice a day, sometimes in a 10 milkings in 7 days system. Land is let for field vegetables and potatoes as part of the rotation. Andrew is a Demo Farm for the Farm Net Zero project and carbon footprinting from this has shown that the farm is emitting 0.67kg CO₂e per kg of Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM). Andrew puts this down to maximising milk from forage, feeding little concentrate, and farming without any fertiliser on grass for the last four years. As well as working to reduce emissions, Andrew is optimising sequestration in hedges and soils.

Grazing management and herbal leys

The dairy herd grazes for as much of the year as possible, where conditions allow. Sometimes this may only be for a few hours a day, but Andrew feels this is an important part of his farming practices. Grass is the cheapest feed available and if the cows can harvest it themselves (aiming for 90% of the cow’s feed intake from grazed grass) then this not only reduces costs, but also reduces emissions from tractor diesel. Similarly, letting the cows out to pasture means that they can “spread their own slurry”, further reducing costs and emissions (both from diesel use and from slurry storage).

Herbal leys are used extensively across the grazing platform. Their deep, diverse roots help to improve soil health, potentially capturing carbon into the soil, and access minerals and nutrients deep in the soil profile, allowing for good growth without artificial fertiliser. The impact of the herbal ley on milk yield and quality is being assessed through a Farm Net Zero Field Lab, comparing cow performance on herbal leys and ryegrass/white clover swards. The results of this study will be available soon.

Calving

Cows calve outside in late summer, with the calves then reared in batches in a woodchip bedded shed. The woodchip creates a very clean environment, eliminating the need for bought-in straw. All calves are taken through to finish, with beef bulls kept entire and finished at 12 months and beef heifers finished at 17 months. Youngstock are grazed on a mix of pasture, cover crops and the leftover vegetable crops after the human-grade plants are harvested. This integration of farm enterprises helps to fully utilise nutrients across the farm, reducing the need for buying inputs in.

Soil health: the basis of the farm business

Andrew did a Nuffield Scholarship in 2015 and attributes this to changing his views on soil health as the basis of the farm business. Through the Farm Net Zero project, soil carbon has been monitored over a number of years and the carbon sequestered into these fields has halved the farm’s carbon footprint. Andrew acknowledged that the carbon sequestration is variable, with not all fields capturing carbon, but will continue to monitor soil carbon in the future to identify the long-term trends.

Farm trails

As part of the FNZ Demo Farm work, Dr Hannah Jones of Farm Carbon Toolkit has assisted in the development of a variety of soil-focused trials. When fields are let for vegetables and potatoes, the soil can require assistance back to optimum status. Trials to reduce the negative impacts of these practices have included intercropping between cabbages to reduce bare soil and the risk of runoff. Another trial has followed methods to restore soil health after potatoes. Different mixes were planted after potatoes to assess the improvements to soil structure, stability and worm content. Results from this suggested that Westerwolds ryegrass had the greatest positive impact on soil health, possibly because of its rapid growth creating a large root mass, so Andrew now grows Westerwolds following veg crops. This fits well with the dairy as the Westerwolds produces excellent feed for strip-grazing dry cows before calving, another example of how the whole farm system is integrated to minimise the need for emissions-intensive inputs.

In all, Andrew and Claire focus on running a simple system well, integrating enterprises across the farm. This allows them to minimise emissions from inputs, as well as maximising sequestration into soils and hedgerows. 

How Introducing Pulses into UK Arable Crop Rotations Could Reduce Emissions

Posted on January 22, 2025 by - Insights

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

Download this post as a PDF here.

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

The impact of expanding pulse cropping

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

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

Reducing fuel usage

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

Reducing fertiliser reliance

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

Substitution of imported soya feed

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

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

Conclusion

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

Sources:

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

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

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

Written by Becky Willson, Business Development & Technical Director

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

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

Alex explained:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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