Carbon audits.

Muddyroads

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Exeter, Devon
I mentioned recently on the Tesco’s add thread that I’ve just had a go at doing a farm carbon audit.
I used the “farmcarbontoolkit” and got on reasonably well with it. The input side was relatively straightforward, though there were a few bits that weren’t very clear. The sequestration side was more of a challenge. It maybe that I was hoping for something too simplistic, but it mainly requires soil carbon measurements to have been taken last year and this. Has anyone come across a system which allows cropping and yield/grazing numbers to work this out?
If not, has anyone experience of having soil carbon content measured? We have a considerable range of soils across the farm, and I would imagine there would need to be a lot of samples taken, and presumably quite a cost?
I’m convinced this is something that many of us will benefit from doing, both in terms of improving sequestration, as well as self promotion and a counter to the vegan argument for grass fed producers of beef and lamb. In due course I suspect it will also play a part in farm payments, so good to get in ahead of the rest. I’m sure I’ve read of at least 1 of the collective doing this but can’t remember who.
Out of interest, by adding a factor (which I guessed) of increasing carbon content by 0.1%, we were carbon negative by around 960 tonnes, but I can’t rely on this figure.
 

topground

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Somerset.
Carbon footprint is probably about as capable of being clearly understood as sub prime mortgages, never the less someone will be making money out of it largely because many are frightened to stand uo and say it is nonsense for fear of looking to be an idiot.
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Frankly I'm absolutely amazed that carbon sequestration is being included at all, never mind soil carbon being measured. I'd just assumed it was yet another paper exercise paying lip service to the Holy Bureaucracy God, whilst using it as another stick to beat farmers with.

I'll not drop my total cynicism just yet though. The logical next step is for them to demand that we increase our sequestration every year rather than just admitting that we're not actually a problem whatsoever and leaving it at that. Meanwhile we continue to dig up fossil fuels and pollute the atmosphere endlessly..........
 

Poorbuthappy

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Soil carbon sequestration varies greatly, not least with grazing practice as I understand it.
Set stocking can be of zero benefit, rotational grazing of some benefit, and mob grazing the most beneficial.
Many other factors have an effect too, some of which will be relatively constant in a given environment (like climate), others can be variable.
An accurate figure is going to be difficult to achieve, but I completely agree with the op sentiments that it is going to become a useful tool in terms of rebutting the vegan argument and quite possibly for future payment schemes.
 

Muddyroads

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Exeter, Devon
I saw the end of the Panorama programme last night, and was glad that I didn’t see all of it for the sake of my blood pressure. Included in it was the carbon footprint for meat and dairy products. How can they quote a carbon footprint if carbon audits aren’t done? I also looked up the ingredients for vegan “cheese”. Not one substantive ingredient can be grown in the uk, yet they say it’s better for the environment??
I’m the last person to want more bureaucracy, I haven’t even gone down the RT route partly for that reason, but as an industry we have to be in a position to challenge these media quotes.
My stance on veganism is very simple, it’s unsustainable and unethical, but we have to be able to state why if and when we get challenged on it.
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
I remain skeptical that long-term pasture can be a carbon sink. If you start from the point of an arable field with low organic matter and grass it down then yes over a period of years you will build up soil organic matter content but I don't believe the build up or organic matter can happen indefinitely. If you plant a woodland on that same patch of land it will eventually reach carbon maturity, if a field has been grass for 30 years is it really a significant carbon sink? The current carbon footprint calculators are too simplistic to model real world situations.
 

foxbox

Member
Location
West Northants
I saw the end of the Panorama programme last night, and was glad that I didn’t see all of it for the sake of my blood pressure. Included in it was the carbon footprint for meat and dairy products. How can they quote a carbon footprint if carbon audits aren’t done? I also looked up the ingredients for vegan “cheese”. Not one substantive ingredient can be grown in the uk, yet they say it’s better for the environment??
I’m the last person to want more bureaucracy, I haven’t even gone down the RT route partly for that reason, but as an industry we have to be in a position to challenge these media quotes.
My stance on veganism is very simple, it’s unsustainable and unethical, but we have to be able to state why if and when we get challenged on it.

A lot depends on where they get their figures from too; Andrew Loftus has a good opinion piece on this here as the BBC seem keen to use incorrect figures for a lot of their reports. Pushing back against it is tiresome but necessary unfortunately otherwise the false narrative will become fact.
 

Treg

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cornwall
I remain skeptical that long-term pasture can be a carbon sink. If you start from the point of an arable field with low organic matter and grass it down then yes over a period of years you will build up soil organic matter content but I don't believe the build up or organic matter can happen indefinitely. If you plant a woodland on that same patch of land it will eventually reach carbon maturity, if a field has been grass for 30 years is it really a significant carbon sink? The current carbon footprint calculators are too simplistic to model real world situations.
I'm only a simpleton but I think the difference is grassland stores carbon in the soil and it will stay there as long as the soil is not disturbed , if it is cut/ grazed the grass needs more carbon to regrow + storing more in the soil . A tree however stores it's carbon in it's wood so at some point will be released back in the atmosphere, when it gets cut down or falls down.
I'm not a big fan of Charles Darwin but he did note that diversity of plants helped to improve yields & also as he got older he noticed his garden path had sunk but on further investigation it wasn't the path that had sunk but the amount of top soil in his garden had increased, he put it down to increased worm activity because the soil wasn't disturbed.
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
I'm only a simpleton but I think the difference is grassland stores carbon in the soil and it will stay there as long as the soil is not disturbed , if it is cut/ grazed the grass needs more carbon to regrow + storing more in the soil . A tree however stores it's carbon in it's wood so at some point will be released back in the atmosphere, when it gets cut down or falls down.
I'm not a big fan of Charles Darwin but he did note that diversity of plants helped to improve yields & also as he got older he noticed his garden path had sunk but on further investigation it wasn't the path that had sunk but the amount of top soil in his garden had increased, he put it down to increased worm activity because the soil wasn't disturbed.
Carbon is stored in organic matter, regardless of it being in wood above ground or roots and other organic matter underground. In a carbon mature woodland as old trees falls and decomposes new one are growing to replace them. Microbes decompose organic matter and release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere regardless if the material is wood above ground or organic matter in the soil. If you revert low organic matter land to permeant pasture or woodland I believe both can be carbon sinks but both will reach a carbon maturity. As the organic matter content of a soil increases the faster the rate of oxidisation becomes. A 10 year old grass lay on a dairy farm may still be sequestering some carbon but I will bet at a much lower rate than carbon is being lost though oxidisation from a cultivated field of fenland peat. If we are going to take the route of reducing atmospheric CO2 and using soil as a carbon store and increasing grassland OM by 0.01% per year then it seems pretty dumb to continue growing salads and vegetables on high organic matter land that is being oxidised as a result. :scratchhead:
 

Poorbuthappy

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Carbon is stored in organic matter, regardless of it being in wood above ground or roots and other organic matter underground. In a carbon mature woodland as old trees falls and decomposes new one are growing to replace them. Microbes decompose organic matter and release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere regardless if the material is wood above ground or organic matter in the soil. If you revert low organic matter land to permeant pasture or woodland I believe both can be carbon sinks but both will reach a carbon maturity. As the organic matter content of a soil increases the faster the rate of oxidisation becomes. A 10 year old grass lay on a dairy farm may still be sequestering some carbon but I will bet at a much lower rate than carbon is being lost though oxidisation from a cultivated field of fenland peat. If we are going to take the route of reducing atmospheric CO2 and using soil as a carbon store and increasing grassland OM by 0.01% per year then it seems pretty dumb to continue growing salads and vegetables on high organic matter land that is being oxidised as a result. :scratchhead:
Consider the great grasslands of USA, there was once metres of topsoil. How do you think that came about?

On your last point, this is why it's such a nonsense to be bashing livestock farming per se
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
Consider the great grasslands of USA, there was once metres of topsoil. How do you think that came about?

On your last point, this is why it's such a nonsense to be bashing livestock farming per se
The key phrase in your sentence is "was once" What sense is there in having payments that reward soil carbon capture if the carbon is not sequestered indefinitely? Do you then have to impose fines at some point in the future for land owners that allow previously captured carbon to escape again?

I agree on the second point, livestock farming doesn't need to be demonised for its environmental impact any more than other food production methods, but demonising it though any means suits the Vegan agenda!
 

Poorbuthappy

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
The key phrase in your sentence is "was once" What sense is there in having payments that reward soil carbon capture if the carbon is not sequestered indefinitely? Do you then have to impose fines at some point in the future for land owners that allow previously captured carbon to escape again?

I agree on the second point, livestock farming doesn't need to be demonised for its environmental impact any more than other food production methods, but demonising it though any means suits the Vegan agenda!
Point is, it's poor farming techniques that caused the loss, and good farming techniques can rebuild it.
Which is preferable?
 

beefandsleep

Member
Location
Staffordshire
Soil carbon sequestration varies greatly, not least with grazing practice as I understand it.
Set stocking can be of zero benefit, rotational grazing of some benefit, and mob grazing the most beneficial.
Many other factors have an effect too, some of which will be relatively constant in a given environment (like climate), others can be variable.
An accurate figure is going to be difficult to achieve, but I completely agree with the op sentiments that it is going to become a useful tool in terms of rebutting the vegan argument and quite possibly for future payment schemes.

Sources please to why you think set stocking as having zero net carbon gain/loss. I totally disagree with that assumption based on my thesis on soil micro arthropod abundance and diversity against grass ley age. There were huge gains in soil carbon up to 10 years in temporary grass leys set stocked.
(No I’m not taking the pee).
 
Last edited:

beefandsleep

Member
Location
Staffordshire
I remain skeptical that long-term pasture can be a carbon sink. If you start from the point of an arable field with low organic matter and grass it down then yes over a period of years you will build up soil organic matter content but I don't believe the build up or organic matter can happen indefinitely. If you plant a woodland on that same patch of land it will eventually reach carbon maturity, if a field has been grass for 30 years is it really a significant carbon sink? The current carbon footprint calculators are too simplistic to model real world situations.

As has already been said, soils just keep building and the organic matter finds its way deeper into the soil profile. I saw a plateau in soil carbon after 10 -15 years but was only looking at the top 6 inches.
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
Point is, it's poor farming techniques that caused the loss, and good farming techniques can rebuild it.
Which is preferable?
Can you tell us more about the good farming techniques that can rebuild soil OM whilst giving the producer a sustainable profit and don't rely on the import of feed or fertiliser from outside the holding? It is far easier for the Dairy farmer buying in straw, forage and concentrates to increase the soil organic matter on their holding than the arable farmer that enables them to do so. Should the dairy farmer be paid for his increasing soil organic matter if the effect of the wider production system produces a net loss?

Anyone considered why Brazil is slashing and burning as much rain forest as it possibly can right now?

Because they know short term they can get productive crops from that land and long term the rest of the world will end up paying Brazil massive amounts via carbon credits in order for them to replace the rain forest that they have destroyed.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,293
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top