Tag: sequestration

Using Trees to Grow Resilience

Posted on September 25, 2026 by - Case Studies, Insights

An agroforestry case study from Mingoose Farm, Truro, Cornwall

By Jemma Morgan, Farm Carbon and Soil Project Assistant

Richard Trevethan is an organic farmer of pedigree Shorthorn beef cattle – his family have been managing the land at Mingoose Farm since 1991, with Richard holding the reins for the past 20 years. In 2024 Richard engaged with the AgriCarbon Kernow project which offered Cornish farmers the opportunity to have a Farm Carbon Footprint completed.

As part of the project a de-carbonising plan was developed. In addition, a biodiversity survey conducted by Cornwall Wildlife Trust and a water resilience survey conducted by the Westcountry Rivers Trust were completed, with associated recommendations from both. As a result of this multi disciplinary approach, Richard decided to increase the number of trees at Mingoose which he hopes will lead to improvements in all aspects of the farm’s future resilience.

Creating a plan

With ideas proposed at the end of the AgriCarbon Kernow project in his mind, Richard linked up with Forest for Cornwall who were able to visit the farm and start the process of turning his ideas into a planting plan. 

Context is crucial, but almost more important, when devising an agroforestry plan, is what the farmer wants the new trees to achieve for the farm system. Mingoose Farm sits high up near the coast and is exposed to the wind, so shelter for his livestock is an important welfare consideration. With neighbouring farms not being organic, Richard has also noticed the drift of agrichemical sprays onto his land, so building up the height and density of his boundaries to ‘catch the drift’ was also a role he wanted trees to help with. Knowing that tree fodder can be a valuable addition to the diet of cattle, species selected needed to be suitable for browse and appropriate to the predicted future climate.

A public footpath crosses the farm and Richard is not alone among farmers in wanting to ensure the public stick to the path. Pasture fields may appear as ‘just grass’ and if people don’t understand that it’s a crop just as much as a field of wheat is, a visible marker can help to keep walkers off his fields. He has therefore chosen to plant fruit trees, specifically rare Cornish apples, pears and plums, in the hope that this will increase biodiversity, preserve genetic diversity which is at risk, encourage pollinators and provide tasty snacks for those who enjoy our public rights of way.

Spring 2025 – Planting begins…

The hard work of planting started in January of 2025 – not a conventional time for tree planting, but the trees were ready and so were Richard, his (retired) parents, and other invested parties.

In one 9 acre field, 5 mini copses have been planted, with 44 trees in each. They were then fenced off to allow grazing to continue around them while the trees got their roots down and became established. A second field of 4 acres is almost completely subdivided by a single line of 56 trees, but with gaps at either end allowing space for farm machinery to pass through.

Two other fields each had four shorter strips of trees planted within them which can be used to create smaller paddocks for rotational grazing and will grow to provide more shade and shelter for the stock. 

Summer 2026 – Reflecting on progress

I enjoyed chatting with Richard about his trees and his experience of increasing the amount of agroforestry at Mingoose. He says he can see no disadvantages to having the trees in the farm system and only wishes he had planted them 5 years ago… Everything on the farm takes that long to really get going, he reckons, so he’s happy to give them time to make themselves at home. However the labour involved in growing trees has turned out to be a greater consideration than he’d bargained for.

It is often said that planting trees is easy, but growing them is hard and Richard is not the only farmer I’ve spoken to who confirms it. Fortunately, Richard has a teenaged son who was after some cash and could be deployed to watering and weeding during the first summer: this proving necessary despite mulching the tree whips when they were planted.

This summer the trees are showing signs of struggle – they have not been watered and the current drought is seeing green leaves turn brown. Are they dying or is this a ‘forced’ early autumn with the trees shedding leaves as a survival tactic? Time will tell.

The traditional stone and earth Cornish hedges which prevail in the landscape locally are not particularly high, so another tactic Richard is trying is planting a single row of trees just a metre into the field from the hedge. In time these should grow much higher than the stone hedge, providing a wind break but also improving the water holding capacity of the soil and increasing the beneficial underground web of connections which improve carbon sequestration and storage.

His choice of species have included the english oak, sycamore and several different willows as well as rowan, (which seems to be coping with the heat better than some others), holm oak (an evergreen oak seen in mediterranean environments) and holly.

He is concerned about the challenges of our changing climate on the trees and wonders if he might gap up the almost inevitable losses with species that originate further south and can tolerate the saline air such as sea buckthorn or tamarisk.

Thinking about the future

I asked Richard if he’d consider planting more trees – as if 4,200 isn’t enough… His answer was ‘Yes’, but with the caveat that he’d have to think about the labour. 

One of the difficulties with trees on farms is that we know they are really important, and we know that the maintenance and care of them is crucial as a meaningful  investment in the future viability of our farms and our planet, however, their demands are rarely urgent. Cattle can make a noise, sheep can start limping, but trees can’t yell ‘I’m thirsty’, or ‘I’m bleeding – a squirrel is chewing off my skin’. 

Perhaps future planting plans should include the feasibility of getting water to new planting and maintenance planning – how many hours or days you should expect to need to give to checking, pruning, removing tree guards, gapping up, etc. and in what months that should be. This may allow land managers a more realistic expectation of the ongoing labour necessary and to allocate time for it in advance.

After seeing what has been achieved at Mingoose so far, I hope that the potential benefits, in terms of animal welfare, carbon sequestration, increased biodiversity (he already has a barn owl who’s enjoying the extra food options which are probably scurrying around in the longer grass beneath the trees) and more living roots supporting soil health may convince Richard it’s worth planting more trees, even if he leaves it for a couple of years… 

If you yourself are a farmer or grower who would like to learn more about agroforestry and explore how trees might boost your own lands’ future resilience, you can contact us and chat with Jemma here.

Case study written by FCT’s Jemma Morgan

Soil Farmer of the Year 2026 finalists announced

Posted on June 22, 2026 by - News, Soil Farmer of the Year

Five farmers from across England have been shortlisted for the Soil Farmer of the Year 2026 competition, recognising practical approaches to soil management that are improving resilience, reducing costs and supporting profitable farm businesses.

The finalists are Paul Baker from Devon, Colin Chappell from Lincolnshire, Chris Mighall from Surrey, Chris Molyneux from Lancashire and Tom Fairfax from Northumberland.

Together, the finalists represent a wide range of farming systems and enterprises, from field vegetables and organic production to conventional arable and mixed sheep and beef enterprises, demonstrating that good soil management principles can be applied successfully across very different businesses.

Head of soil and natural resources at Innovation for Agriculture, Deborah Crossan, one of the judges for the 2026 competition, shares that the farmers selected as finalists were all able to demonstrate how soil management was delivering tangible benefits for their farm businesses. 

“Across the entries we’ve seen reductions in fuel and input costs, greater resilience to drought and wet weather, and systems that support both livestock and crop performance,” she says. “These are practical changes that are making a real difference to profitability and long-term resilience.”

The winners of the 2026 competition will be announced at 4pm on Wednesday 1st July in the Grass Tent at Groundswell, where all five finalists will share the management decisions, challenges and lessons that have shaped their soil health journeys.


“Anyone interested in improving soil function, reducing inputs or building resilience into their farm business will find plenty of practical ideas to take home,” says Ms Crossan.


“The Awards Ceremony provides a rare opportunity to hear directly from farmers working in very different systems but united by a common focus on healthy, functioning soils. It is also an excellent opportunity for anyone considering entering the competition in future years.”

The Soil Farmer of the Year competition is run by Farm Carbon Toolkit and Innovation for Agriculture, and is sponsored by Cotswold Seeds and Hutchinsons. The winning farms will host a series of farm walks later in the year, giving farmers the opportunity to see the practices discussed at Groundswell in action and hear first-hand how they have influenced business performance.

Farm walks with Soil Farmer finalists of 2025

Posted on May 27, 2026 by - News, Soil Farmer of the Year

By Stefan Marks, Farm Advisor

This May we completed the final two farm walks with finalists from the Soil Farmer of the Year 2025 competition – and visiting Trecorras Farm and Glebe Farm, both share the same core conviction: that healthy soils and healthy margins go hand in hand.

We will be announcing the winner of the 2026 competition at Groundswell in a little over a month so keep an eye on our socials to meet this years finalists!

Trecorras Farm, Herefordshire — hosted by John Joseph

The first of the events was hosted by last year’s winner of the competition, John Joseph at Trecorras Farm. Farming 220 acres on the edge of the Wye Valley with his wife Julie, John has spent the past 15 years rebuilding a system that was, by his own admission, heading in the wrong direction. In their early years at the farm, poor soil structure and heavy cultivation were causing serious erosion which inspired a shift to direct drilling, wider and more diverse rotations, integrated livestock, and a strong focus on soil biology and crop nutrition.

Walking the farm, you see these principles in action at every turn. We started with the herbal leys containing a diverse mix of grasses, clovers, plantain and chicory. These have become part of the rotation, providing a break with diverse rooting – building soil structure whilst providing forage for a herd of Red Poll cattle that have been brought back into the arable rotation. Sheep are also used on tack to graze established winter cereals, stimulating tillering and reducing the need for early-season fungicides. This is another key component to John’s low intervention farming, which focuses on crop requirements to maximise margins. SAP testing guides nutritional decisions, with agrochemical intervention reserved for when the crop genuinely demands it.

Companion cropping runs through the entire rotation. This was clearest in the winter wheat planted with vetch and returning borage volunteers. John explained how the vetch formed a symbiotic relationship with the wheat — roots intertwining below the soil just as the tendrils do above benefitting both plants. John also showed us his Wildfarmed spring wheat accompanied by home-saved winter beans, further enabling him to keep costs low and prioritise margins.

Soil biology is fed through what John describes as green, brown and black inputs — living roots from companions and cover crops, retained stubble and debris, and farm-made bokashi-style compost produced from cattle manure, woodchips and added microbes. Andrew Sincock from Agriton joined us to explain the science behind the approach: cultivating facultative anaerobes that thrive in the heap, but switch to aerobic respiration once applied to the soil.


Back in the yard, John’s direct drill — modified by Landwrx with a pump and tubing system allows compost to be applied directly to the seed at planting. Fermented molasses, used as a carbon source alongside nitrogen applications, and wood vinegar, which doubles as a fly treatment for cattle, were among just a few tools in the armoury.

Glebe Farm, Bedfordshire — hosted by Andrew Mahon

Later in May we travelled to Glebe Farm in Bedfordshire, where Andrew Mahon farms 800 hectares of heavy Hanslope clay. Andrew’s journey began in earnest after the disastrous 2012 harvest — wet, low-yielding and poor quality — which prompted a fundamental rethink. A move to strip-till in 2013 was followed by zero-till. We began the farm walk in the farm yard looking at the direct drill Andrew now uses, developed partly in collaboration with Horizon to optimise the design for his conditions.

Also in the farm yard was a range of different composts being experimented with in order to introduce biology to the system wherever possible. The main method on show was a Johnson-Su compost which Andrew has been producing since 2022 training with soil ecologist Nicole Masters. Unlike traditional compost teas, compost extracts are used to multiply the target bacteria directly before application providing greater confidence in the biological activity being delivered. Walking the farm Andrew explained how the farm operates with a dual focus: with the arable ground producing premium wheat and oats for Warbutons and Wildfarmed, and the remaining land utilising environmental schemes in sympathy with his rotation. This model operates on the principle of financial resilience as well as delivering a host of ecosystem services.

As we walked the fields, we learnt about Andrew’s flexible approach to cropping and heard about the tools he uses to inform his crop nutrition approach. Most interesting among these was a hand held SAP tester which could provide tissue analysis in the field, enabling much more timely applications to directly target crop requirements. We also saw nature based farming in practice, not only through the stewardship schemes but with 3,000m of new hedgerow running the length of the farm and roughly 6,000 trees planted in rows as part of an agroforestry scheme developed in conjunction with the University of Reading. Woodchip composts were applied to these rows as a weed suppressant using a feeder wagon.

Our thanks to John and Andrew for opening their farms so generously. Both walks were a reminder that the most progressive thinking in agriculture is often already being implemented on farms by farmers.

Soil Farmer of the Year is an annual competition run in collaboration with Innovation for Agriculture. Winners are announced at Groundswell each summer.

Bulk density: how to do it and why it’s important

Posted on May 27, 2026 by - Insights

By Joe Jones & Becky Willson

    Bulk density: how to do it and why it’s important

    Bulk density is a soil property commonly measured when soil testing, particularly in relation to measuring soil carbon. An important component of measuring soil health, it can provide farmers and growers guidance on what to focus on following testing.

    What is Bulk Density?

    Bulk density measures the mass of a known volume of soil, including the pore space – i.e. how tightly or loosely it is packed together – which has a huge impact on important soil processes. For example, if a soil is unusually tight it can affect porosity, which in turn affects water infiltration and soil aeration. Consequently, when these processes are inhibited it can negatively impact soil and plant health, reducing farm productivity. This is why compaction issues are a key focus of soil health discussions.

    Soil Texture and Bulk Density

    In order to understand what the bulk densities of our soils should look like, we also need to understand how soil texture plays an important role in determining the natural range of bulk densities.

    Peat generally has a very low bulk density (as low as 0.2 g/cm3) due to its high organic matter content, allowing for a high amount of porosity. Cultivated fine textured soils, such as clays and silt loams, often have bulk densities in the middle of the range (between 0.9g/cm3–1.5g/cm3), whilst cultivated sandy soils tend to have higher bulk densities (1.25g/cm3–1.75g/cm3). To give you an idea of what an extremely high bulk density looks and feels like, concrete has a value of 2.5g/cm3.

    The key part to remember is that each soil type has an inherent bulk density range, and while occupying a lower or middle part of the range is generally desirable, this is heavily context dependent. 

    Bulk Density and Management

    Although bulk density is determined by soil texture, how soil is managed will also contribute to the final figure. Heavy equipment, cultivation or grazing in unsuitable conditions and unsuitable nutrient management can all drive up bulk densities into ranges that will cause problems later on. Avoiding these practices – whilst increasing soil organic matter (SOM) and optimising soil health – will help to keep bulk densities in a range suitable for optimal productivity. If in doubt about what your range should be on farm, finding and examining the soil in undisturbed areas that share the same soil texture as your main cropping or grassland areas (such as in hedge bottoms) can help to give a baseline.

    Bulk density and carbon

    Although bulk density can reveal insights into soil structure and health, it is most commonly measured in order to quantify carbon stocks. When carbon samples are taken and analysed they are expressed as a carbon concentration (C%) of the soil sample, but in order to quantify the amount of carbon in the specific field we must know the mass of soil within a given volume. If soil carbon is being measured at different depths, then a measurement of bulk density must also be taken at those depths.

    How do we take it?

    There are different approaches to taking bulk densities. The most common method used is the intact core approach, which is what we use at FCT. For each depth being sampled, we use a core of a known volume, insert it into the soil at the depth and then carefully remove it to be sent away for lab analysis. When we receive the data back we can then use a simple formula to calculate the carbon stock.

    SOC stock (tC/ha) = Bulk Density g/cm³ x Depth (cm) x OC(%) x 10

    Conclusion: Key points about bulk density 

    On farm sampling is a balance between scientific rigour, cost and practicality. In order to help farmers with this, we offer the following guidance on bulk density sampling:

    • Measuring Carbon Stocks – When sampling for carbon, bulk density should also be taken to enable carbon stocks to be quantified
    • Accounting For Depth – Bulk density will change at different depths, so taking at least a sample per depth per field is necessary in combination with the sampling for carbon at different depths
    • Choosing Location – The location for a bulk density sample should be representative of the primary field conditions. As with sampling for other soil properties, atypical areas such as gateways and headlands should be avoided 
    • Stony Soils – If you have stony soils, you may be required to take multiple bulk density measurement as stones can introduce variability that requires more data to overcome

    If you’ve read this article and still feel overwhelmed by the information about soil sampling, please feel free to contact us with your questions. As the science evolves and new technologies develop, more user friendly and practical approaches are emerging for farmers and growers to use.

    Contact us here

    Willow for livestock

    Posted on July 17, 2025 by - Case Studies

    By Anthony Ellis, Senior Advisor at FCT

    Growing willow on farms

    Pensipple Farm is our 200 acre mixed, family farm in South East Cornwall which has been in the family for 84 years. We have a small flock of NZ Romney sheep, grow winter wheat and spring oats with herbal leys and currently winter bird food in the rotation, as part of a substantial Countryside Stewardship and SFI agreement.

    10 years ago, my father and uncle entered an agreement with a solar company and 37 acres of solar panels were installed on the farm. In the decade that followed, parts of the farm which became less accessible due to the solar farm perimeter fence started to sprout willows along the 650m fence line. As they grew higher the solar company asked if they could be managed so they didn’t shade the panels out. 

    Having read about the positive benefits of willow as a forage source I decided to see what would happen if I coppiced the tall growth and threw it in for the sheep. The result has been dramatic – the sheep absolutely loved it! I now pollard, rather than coppice, the fence line in a 3-4 year rotation all year round – carefully checking for nesting birds. The branches are thrown in for the sheep to browse, and allow them to graze the lower branches as they rotate through this part of the farm.

    Sheep grazing on freshly cut willow at Pensipple Farm

    Sheep eating willow

    The majority is Grey WIllow and is self seeded, although I have planted more saplings this winter in other parts of the farm where the sheep graze.

    The leaves contain good levels of Zinc and Cobalt, both of which are important for animal health but, cobalt in particular is very important for growing lambs. The bark contains salicin which is a precursor that allows the body to produce salicylic acid, a natural form of Asperine which has anti-inflammatory and pain relieving properties, and has been used for centuries for just this purpose.

    I try, but don’t always succeed, in giving them fresh growth to browse two or three times a week from May to October; they will eat leaves and bark. Observing which parts of the plant they are eating can give clues as to their health and what they are looking for. If there is excessive stripping of the bark, this can suggest that some individuals might be looking for pain relief for example, and we can focus our checks accordingly.

    The joy of willow is that pretty much all grazing livestock can eat it and, if we observe livestock entering a new field, we often see them move to the hedge rows to seek it out, among other trees and herbs. This suggests there is an innate understanding of what their bodies need and where they can find it in the landscape.

    Wider benefits

    Apart from the feed benefits of willow, it can also provide shade in summer and shelter in winter, potentially stretching the grazing season and increasing DMI on hotter days. On top of this, strategic planting of willow can reduce flood risk, provide a habitat for birds and insects, as well as increase soil health and sequester above and below ground carbon in significant quantities. Willow coppice has been shown to sequester 16.33 tonnes of CO2e/ha/yr (source: Farm Carbon Calculator).

    In the future, I’d like to look into chipping the remnants of the grazed branches and compost them, or extract the growth promoting compounds from them to produce a soil drench or foliar feed. The possibilities are quite exciting!

    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