Carbon footprint /offset

N.Yorks.

Member
@Soil Capital out of interest, what type and roughly how many farms do you think are carbon negative in the UK and therefore might have carbon credits available?
Could you modify the question to @Soil Capital a bit and ask their estimate of how many of the farms in the UK have soils that are "Net Positive or Zero Effect from GHG Emissions"?

ie. what is the balance in soils between C sequestered and all CO2 emitted/CH4 (methane) emitted and NO2 (nitrous oxide emitted) from the OM breakdown and cultivations associated with managing the soil in a particular way?
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
"The conversion of native forest or grassland to broadleaf deciduous tree plantation had no effect on soil carbon stocks," from your post...... so planting deciduous trees on grassland would in time sequester more carbon than grassland alone as the tree grows over 100+ years. If it's not burnt and used in construction then that's C locked up even longer.
Tree roots can also push far deeper into the ground than grass roots. So while the carbon in the tree roots is not in the soil, until the tree dies it’s still in the ground. The carbon content of the land after the tree dies increases massively as the tree roots are broken down, and at depths far deeper than grass can do, if you pick deep rooted trees.
 

yellowbelly

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
N.Lincs
Lets say you take a 10% commission, then you've made a nice €50k. But nothings actually changed except a movement of money so some industry can carry on polluting but "look good" to it's customers for saving the planet 🤦.
Money for old rope*/Emperor's New Clothes*/Ponzi Scheme*/Business Opportunity*

*delete as appropriate. Or at which side of the fence you stand on.
 

Still Farming

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South Wales UK
How are mixed farms planning to deal with this?
If you are owner occupier there are more options I think like planting poorer ground with trees etc. What would you do as a tenant when all woods trees etc belong to the land owner estate etc. I am struggling to know what to do here 🤷🏻‍♂️
Questions asked to Defra Women on here too?
 

Soil Capital

Member
Location
United Kingdom
Apologies for the delay in replying.

Youve obviously not listened to it all as I decided to listen to it all again and I'm half way through and you've replied at my half way point.

Listen to the arguments and stop trying to protect your own interests...... Just because it's live and happening doesn't mean it is actually correct or the right direction to go in.

Could you modify the question to @Soil Capital a bit and ask their estimate of how many of the farms in the UK have soils that are "Net Positive or Zero Effect from GHG Emissions"?

ie. what is the balance in soils between C sequestered and all CO2 emitted/CH4 (methane) emitted and NO2 (nitrous oxide emitted) from the OM breakdown and cultivations associated with managing the soil in a particular way?

Correct - I got to around 15 minutes in but had other commitments but didn't want to leave without reply. I have now listened to it all whilst driving and watched the second half on the computer.

The model which we use is based on the latest IPCC emission factors; I want to stress that we do take into account N2O emissions, and the certificates which we generate are derived from CO2 equivalents, which takes into account methane and nitrogen emissions balanced against carbon sequestration. The driving factors behind nitrous oxide emissions highlighed in the video you shared are taken into account in our tool; soil type, organic matter, drainage, pH levels, fertiliser inputs, organic manure inputs and so on. We have a simulation calculator on our website which is entirely free to use, if you would like to see some of the factors we take into account - https://soilcapital.com/.

The drivers which lead to increased carbon sequestration are linked to those that reduce nitrous oxide emission; increased use of legumes, reduced use of nitrogen fertilisers, nitrification inhibitors and so on. Our progamme does not have the aim of moving one carbon storage area to another area.


@Soil Capital out of interest, what type and roughly how many farms do you think are carbon negative in the UK and therefore might have carbon credits available?

I really can't answer this accurately. The type of farm which we can take onto our programme (the type of farm that our calculator has the ability to calculate) are arable farms and the potential for some livestock. We don't take into account hedgerow sequestration or permanent forests (we do take into account agroforestry). A regional baseline of carbon emissions which we use is 0.25t of emissions per hectare per year (read; similar farms in the area we have assessed are emitting 0.25t per hectare per annum).

Your second point about having carbon credits available to sell, isnt that straight forward. In a programme such as ours you don't need to be carbon negative to produce carbon certificates.

  • Our programme works by assessing (calculating) a farms carbon baseline; be it sequestering or emitting, and generating carbon certificates based on improvements or maintenance of current ability to sequester.
  • If your baseline assessment shows that you are already sequestering carbon overall, your annual GHG balance will be compared to a fixed regional reference (+250kg CO2e/ha for regions assessed so far) and the difference between your annual performance and this regional reference will be translated into certificates. For example, if your farm is sequestering 1t of carbon per hectare, you can generate 1.25 certificates (1t = 1 certificate).
  • If your baseline assessment shows that you are a net emitter of GHGs, your annual GHG balance will be compared to your own baseline assessment and you will therefore have to improve your practices to create a differential that will be translated into a number of certificates. For example, if you are emitting carbon at a rate of 1t per hectare, but you choose to reduce inputs and plant a cover crop resulting in a 0.8t/ha improvement, you will still be emitting 0.2t/ha, but will be able to generate and sell 0.8 certificates per hectare on completion of the next full harvest year, based on your improvement from 1t of emissions.
  • You cannot join the programme and immediately have certficates to sell, even if you are carbon negative, a full completion of the next harvest year is required.

Lets say you take a 10% commission, then you've made a nice €50k. But nothings actually changed except a movement of money so some industry can carry on polluting but "look good" to it's customers for saving the planet 🤦.

Yes, we are a business and we don't hide the fact. The movement of money is towards the farmer from a different business in the supply chain e.g. processor to farmer. As you outlined, we are paid as a commission or, as an upfront cost (£980 per year, drop out at any time); and of course our value to the farmer comes from using our platform, support (agronomist and technical), certificate generation and handling the sales process.

Certainly, the buyers of the certificate may use it for marketing purposes, many of them will. However certificate generation is based on change. To be able to generate certificates (sequester carbon or reduce emission) relies on changes being made to farming practice. A step towards reducing tillage, starting cover cropping or reducing tillage are strong drivers for carbon sequestration - and this is what you can be paid to do.

Our programme is not for everyone, but the option is there. Our aim is not for people to shift their entire focus to carbon; but to add it as a consideration. If a farmer is thinking of making a step to a more regenerative practice, a programme such as ours can help remove some of the financial risk; or reward those early adopters.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
Apologies for the delay in replying.





Correct - I got to around 15 minutes in but had other commitments but didn't want to leave without reply. I have now listened to it all whilst driving and watched the second half on the computer.

The model which we use is based on the latest IPCC emission factors; I want to stress that we do take into account N2O emissions, and the certificates which we generate are derived from CO2 equivalents, which takes into account methane and nitrogen emissions balanced against carbon sequestration. The driving factors behind nitrous oxide emissions highlighed in the video you shared are taken into account in our tool; soil type, organic matter, drainage, pH levels, fertiliser inputs, organic manure inputs and so on. We have a simulation calculator on our website which is entirely free to use, if you would like to see some of the factors we take into account - https://soilcapital.com/.

The drivers which lead to increased carbon sequestration are linked to those that reduce nitrous oxide emission; increased use of legumes, reduced use of nitrogen fertilisers, nitrification inhibitors and so on. Our progamme does not have the aim of moving one carbon storage area to another area.




I really can't answer this accurately. The type of farm which we can take onto our programme (the type of farm that our calculator has the ability to calculate) are arable farms and the potential for some livestock. We don't take into account hedgerow sequestration or permanent forests (we do take into account agroforestry). A regional baseline of carbon emissions which we use is 0.25t of emissions per hectare per year (read; similar farms in the area we have assessed are emitting 0.25t per hectare per annum).

Your second point about having carbon credits available to sell, isnt that straight forward. In a programme such as ours you don't need to be carbon negative to produce carbon certificates.

  • Our programme works by assessing (calculating) a farms carbon baseline; be it sequestering or emitting, and generating carbon certificates based on improvements or maintenance of current ability to sequester.
  • If your baseline assessment shows that you are already sequestering carbon overall, your annual GHG balance will be compared to a fixed regional reference (+250kg CO2e/ha for regions assessed so far) and the difference between your annual performance and this regional reference will be translated into certificates. For example, if your farm is sequestering 1t of carbon per hectare, you can generate 1.25 certificates (1t = 1 certificate).
  • If your baseline assessment shows that you are a net emitter of GHGs, your annual GHG balance will be compared to your own baseline assessment and you will therefore have to improve your practices to create a differential that will be translated into a number of certificates. For example, if you are emitting carbon at a rate of 1t per hectare, but you choose to reduce inputs and plant a cover crop resulting in a 0.8t/ha improvement, you will still be emitting 0.2t/ha, but will be able to generate and sell 0.8 certificates per hectare on completion of the next full harvest year, based on your improvement from 1t of emissions.
  • You cannot join the programme and immediately have certficates to sell, even if you are carbon negative, a full completion of the next harvest year is required.



Yes, we are a business and we don't hide the fact. The movement of money is towards the farmer from a different business in the supply chain e.g. processor to farmer. As you outlined, we are paid as a commission or, as an upfront cost (£980 per year, drop out at any time); and of course our value to the farmer comes from using our platform, support (agronomist and technical), certificate generation and handling the sales process.

Certainly, the buyers of the certificate may use it for marketing purposes, many of them will. However certificate generation is based on change. To be able to generate certificates (sequester carbon or reduce emission) relies on changes being made to farming practice. A step towards reducing tillage, starting cover cropping or reducing tillage are strong drivers for carbon sequestration - and this is what you can be paid to do.

Our programme is not for everyone, but the option is there. Our aim is not for people to shift their entire focus to carbon; but to add it as a consideration. If a farmer is thinking of making a step to a more regenerative practice, a programme such as ours can help remove some of the financial risk; or reward those early adopters.
Ok I read that I it’s my worst fears, this is a scam from one end to the other, it masquerades under the guise of selling something that sounds green and good while in fact it’s doing neither.

what your trading, by your own statement, things that don’t exist, I have a net Co2 consumption of 1t /ha I make adjustments to reduce that to 0.2 so I have 0.8 certificate to trade, the next year. No you still have zero to trade, and I very much doubt even those you class as negative take the owners actual full foot print, you dance around the word farm and I can guess why, what about the people running the farm, and their carbon foot print?
It’s not real unless it’s real, if the farm makes a true 0.25t per ha and is 100 Ha so 25t but the owner consumes personally is about 12.5 t so he and his wife consume his entire net negative what’s left to sell if they have 2 children, they are still consuming a net 25T/ year. They should be buying certs from you not selling.

this is the worst form of green washing I have ever heard of, it’s stupidity and greed like this that will doom us all.
:mad:
I hope the letter of the law catches up to this scam and you get locked up.
Ps I have reported this thread as an advertisement and scam.
 
Last edited:

puppet

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
sw scotland
You say your average farm is sequestering 0.25t/hectare. We are emitting 4.5t/ha on a 100% pasture with all muck and slurry returned to fields.
In the example you state that you sell certificates based on the change in sequestration but surely if I start at minus 1t, get to minus 0.2t but sell 0.8t I am still minus 1t. Ryanair then benefits even though they are still burning fuel.
I am also minus £980 of your fee which may not buy those credits back as Ryanair won't sell them and I will be hit by a carbon tax and have to sell my polluting cows to get to a zero balance again. Then I am left with a farm but no production possible and big emitting corporations are advertising carbon neutrality using my credits.

Hang on, I've just written UK government policy.
 

Muddyroads

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Exeter, Devon
In a programme such as ours you don't need to be carbon negative to produce carbon certificates.
This demonstrates what a complete and utter farce this is. Other than potentially creating a profit for yourselves, what would you achieve? Simple answer: Net nothing.
If you are successful I suggest you reinvest your profits in selling sand to the Arabs and ice to Eskimos.
 

N.Yorks.

Member
Apologies for the delay in replying.





Correct - I got to around 15 minutes in but had other commitments but didn't want to leave without reply. I have now listened to it all whilst driving and watched the second half on the computer.

The model which we use is based on the latest IPCC emission factors; I want to stress that we do take into account N2O emissions, and the certificates which we generate are derived from CO2 equivalents, which takes into account methane and nitrogen emissions balanced against carbon sequestration. The driving factors behind nitrous oxide emissions highlighed in the video you shared are taken into account in our tool; soil type, organic matter, drainage, pH levels, fertiliser inputs, organic manure inputs and so on. We have a simulation calculator on our website which is entirely free to use, if you would like to see some of the factors we take into account - https://soilcapital.com/.

The drivers which lead to increased carbon sequestration are linked to those that reduce nitrous oxide emission; increased use of legumes, reduced use of nitrogen fertilisers, nitrification inhibitors and so on. Our progamme does not have the aim of moving one carbon storage area to another area.




I really can't answer this accurately. The type of farm which we can take onto our programme (the type of farm that our calculator has the ability to calculate) are arable farms and the potential for some livestock. We don't take into account hedgerow sequestration or permanent forests (we do take into account agroforestry). A regional baseline of carbon emissions which we use is 0.25t of emissions per hectare per year (read; similar farms in the area we have assessed are emitting 0.25t per hectare per annum).

Your second point about having carbon credits available to sell, isnt that straight forward. In a programme such as ours you don't need to be carbon negative to produce carbon certificates.

  • Our programme works by assessing (calculating) a farms carbon baseline; be it sequestering or emitting, and generating carbon certificates based on improvements or maintenance of current ability to sequester.
  • If your baseline assessment shows that you are already sequestering carbon overall, your annual GHG balance will be compared to a fixed regional reference (+250kg CO2e/ha for regions assessed so far) and the difference between your annual performance and this regional reference will be translated into certificates. For example, if your farm is sequestering 1t of carbon per hectare, you can generate 1.25 certificates (1t = 1 certificate).
  • If your baseline assessment shows that you are a net emitter of GHGs, your annual GHG balance will be compared to your own baseline assessment and you will therefore have to improve your practices to create a differential that will be translated into a number of certificates. For example, if you are emitting carbon at a rate of 1t per hectare, but you choose to reduce inputs and plant a cover crop resulting in a 0.8t/ha improvement, you will still be emitting 0.2t/ha, but will be able to generate and sell 0.8 certificates per hectare on completion of the next full harvest year, based on your improvement from 1t of emissions.
  • You cannot join the programme and immediately have certficates to sell, even if you are carbon negative, a full completion of the next harvest year is required.



Yes, we are a business and we don't hide the fact. The movement of money is towards the farmer from a different business in the supply chain e.g. processor to farmer. As you outlined, we are paid as a commission or, as an upfront cost (£980 per year, drop out at any time); and of course our value to the farmer comes from using our platform, support (agronomist and technical), certificate generation and handling the sales process.

Certainly, the buyers of the certificate may use it for marketing purposes, many of them will. However certificate generation is based on change. To be able to generate certificates (sequester carbon or reduce emission) relies on changes being made to farming practice. A step towards reducing tillage, starting cover cropping or reducing tillage are strong drivers for carbon sequestration - and this is what you can be paid to do.

Our programme is not for everyone, but the option is there. Our aim is not for people to shift their entire focus to carbon; but to add it as a consideration. If a farmer is thinking of making a step to a more regenerative practice, a programme such as ours can help remove some of the financial risk; or reward those early adopters.

Your counter claims are really at odds with the research findings that are ongoing....... utter stupidity!!

The jury is very much out in terms of net GHG emissions from soil and the current evidence is starting to nudge the verdict towards the view that you won't be able to manage all soils to the extent that they will have zero net contribution to GHG emissions. You can certainly manage them to decrease the emissions, so like most things there is less bad and bad management outcomes.

Carbon and nitrogen cycling through soils emits these gases naturally and to claim agricultural soil management is up to the job of actually contributing to reducing GHG emissions to the extent that you can sell the benefit to polluting industries is scandalous. This is more than just carbon and I would ask you to stop framing this all around carbon, it should be total GHG emissions from CO2, CH4 and NO2.

Doing otherwise is plain wrong and immoral!! I wonder if trading standards should be asked to have a look at this?
 

Soil Capital

Member
Location
United Kingdom
You say your average farm is sequestering 0.25t/hectare. We are emitting 4.5t/ha on a 100% pasture with all muck and slurry returned to fields.
In the example you state that you sell certificates based on the change in sequestration but surely if I start at minus 1t, get to minus 0.2t but sell 0.8t I am still minus 1t. Ryanair then benefits even though they are still burning fuel.
I am also minus £980 of your fee which may not buy those credits back as Ryanair won't sell them and I will be hit by a carbon tax and have to sell my polluting cows to get to a zero balance again. Then I am left with a farm but no production possible and big emitting corporations are advertising carbon neutrality using my credits.

Hang on, I've just written UK government policy.
This demonstrates what a complete and utter farce this is. Other than potentially creating a profit for yourselves, what would you achieve? Simple answer: Net nothing.
If you are successful I suggest you reinvest your profits in selling sand to the Arabs and ice to Eskimos.

A couple of points here @puppet & @Muddyroads I hope I can clear up.

On carbon markets, offsets and trading...
  • Carbon certificates are traded on the voluntary carbon market (a quick google will reveal more and much better than I can explain), but basically as its name suggests, its when companies voluntarily purchase carbon offsets for social, environmental and economic reasons.
  • I can't emphasise enough that carbon certificates do not allow pollution companies to offset their emissions to claim they are carbon neutral. Mr airline or manufacturer cannot buy a carbon certificate on the voluntary market and claim carbon neutrality.
  • Buyers of the carbon include supply chain companies looking for evidence of supply chain emission reductions (e.g. a food company); or companies with no supply chain relationship who can make an "impact claim" i.e. for a company to publicly talk about the difference that farmers have made that they have supported but they cannot use it for carbon offsetting, or to claim carbon neutrality/net zero.

On emission reduction generating certificates rather than being net zero...
  • It is not our decision to reward emission reductions with generating carbon certificates; that is the stance of the voluntary carbon market and is 'industry-wide'
  • Many defintions will go along the lines of 'a carbon certificate represents the avoidance (reduction) or removal (sequestration) of a ton of CO2.'. To use the example previous, if a farm emits 100t of carbon, but an incentive in the form of a certificate encourages an 80t reduction in that, then 80t of carbon is saved from being emitted in the next year - rather than the farm continuing to emit 100t in the following year.
On livestock...
  • @puppet you say your farm is emitting 4.5t/ha, and you say you have 'polluting cows' - this is one of the reasons we cant take farms with a high number of livestock into account. Current calculators available all say livestock farms are highly emitting. It's something we don't believe and we're working to find a comprehensive and correct calculator that takes a more fair and balanced view of livestock that we can integrate into our system.

I want to add that many in Soil Capital are farmers, have agricultural backgrounds and we originate from an independent agronomic advisory background - we aren't market fanatics. Its not my aim to exclusively advertise us here either, much of what I said will be applicable industry wide. I appreciate all your views and feedback even if it is negative, its good to hear the opinions from farmers on a subject which is controversial for many.

 
A couple of points here @puppet & @Muddyroads I hope I can clear up.

On carbon markets, offsets and trading...
  • Carbon certificates are traded on the voluntary carbon market (a quick google will reveal more and much better than I can explain), but basically as its name suggests, its when companies voluntarily purchase carbon offsets for social, environmental and economic reasons.
  • I can't emphasise enough that carbon certificates do not allow pollution companies to offset their emissions to claim they are carbon neutral. Mr airline or manufacturer cannot buy a carbon certificate on the voluntary market and claim carbon neutrality.
  • Buyers of the carbon include supply chain companies looking for evidence of supply chain emission reductions (e.g. a food company); or companies with no supply chain relationship who can make an "impact claim" i.e. for a company to publicly talk about the difference that farmers have made that they have supported but they cannot use it for carbon offsetting, or to claim carbon neutrality/net zero.

On emission reduction generating certificates rather than being net zero...
  • It is not our decision to reward emission reductions with generating carbon certificates; that is the stance of the voluntary carbon market and is 'industry-wide'
  • Many defintions will go along the lines of 'a carbon certificate represents the avoidance (reduction) or removal (sequestration) of a ton of CO2.'. To use the example previous, if a farm emits 100t of carbon, but an incentive in the form of a certificate encourages an 80t reduction in that, then 80t of carbon is saved from being emitted in the next year - rather than the farm continuing to emit 100t in the following year.
On livestock...
  • @puppet you say your farm is emitting 4.5t/ha, and you say you have 'polluting cows' - this is one of the reasons we cant take farms with a high number of livestock into account. Current calculators available all say livestock farms are highly emitting. It's something we don't believe and we're working to find a comprehensive and correct calculator that takes a more fair and balanced view of livestock that we can integrate into our system.

I want to add that many in Soil Capital are farmers, have agricultural backgrounds and we originate from an independent agronomic advisory background - we aren't market fanatics. Its not my aim to exclusively advertise us here either, much of what I said will be applicable industry wide. I appreciate all your views and feedback even if it is negative, its good to hear the opinions from farmers on a subject which is controversial for many.
The last bit …..you’ve already rumbled us so we’ll take this bullshite elsewhere…..
 

Muddyroads

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Exeter, Devon
A couple of points here @puppet & @Muddyroads I hope I can clear up.

On carbon markets, offsets and trading...
  • Carbon certificates are traded on the voluntary carbon market (a quick google will reveal more and much better than I can explain), but basically as its name suggests, its when companies voluntarily purchase carbon offsets for social, environmental and economic reasons.
  • I can't emphasise enough that carbon certificates do not allow pollution companies to offset their emissions to claim they are carbon neutral. Mr airline or manufacturer cannot buy a carbon certificate on the voluntary market and claim carbon neutrality.
  • Buyers of the carbon include supply chain companies looking for evidence of supply chain emission reductions (e.g. a food company); or companies with no supply chain relationship who can make an "impact claim" i.e. for a company to publicly talk about the difference that farmers have made that they have supported but they cannot use it for carbon offsetting, or to claim carbon neutrality/net zero.

On emission reduction generating certificates rather than being net zero...
  • It is not our decision to reward emission reductions with generating carbon certificates; that is the stance of the voluntary carbon market and is 'industry-wide'
  • Many defintions will go along the lines of 'a carbon certificate represents the avoidance (reduction) or removal (sequestration) of a ton of CO2.'. To use the example previous, if a farm emits 100t of carbon, but an incentive in the form of a certificate encourages an 80t reduction in that, then 80t of carbon is saved from being emitted in the next year - rather than the farm continuing to emit 100t in the following year.
On livestock...
  • @puppet you say your farm is emitting 4.5t/ha, and you say you have 'polluting cows' - this is one of the reasons we cant take farms with a high number of livestock into account. Current calculators available all say livestock farms are highly emitting. It's something we don't believe and we're working to find a comprehensive and correct calculator that takes a more fair and balanced view of livestock that we can integrate into our system.

I want to add that many in Soil Capital are farmers, have agricultural backgrounds and we originate from an independent agronomic advisory background - we aren't market fanatics. Its not my aim to exclusively advertise us here either, much of what I said will be applicable industry wide. I appreciate all your views and feedback even if it is negative, its good to hear the opinions from farmers on a subject which is controversial for many.
So given all of the above, which is very well written, what’s the point of it all?
 

puppet

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
sw scotland
If you buy a Ryanair ticket to Barcelona then for an extra €4-28 it will be carbon neutral. That sounds like green washing.
My carbon audit shows GHG emissions are 75% related to enteric fermentation and slurry management. 3% fuel, 1% electricity, 10% fertiliser, 10% bought-in feed.
An arable farm will have huge % of fuel and energy compared to me yet seem to have a positive balance of 0.25t/ha?
 
If you buy a Ryanair ticket to Barcelona then for an extra €4-28 it will be carbon neutral. That sounds like green washing.
My carbon audit shows GHG emissions are 75% related to enteric fermentation and slurry management. 3% fuel, 1% electricity, 10% fertiliser, 10% bought-in feed.
An arable farm will have huge % of fuel and energy compared to me yet seem to have a positive balance of 0.25t/ha?
How did they arrive at the 10% figure for fertiliser?
It should be remembered why the British government gave a large amount of cash to CF to resume production because it wasn’t the fertiliser that they were desperate for.
 

puppet

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
sw scotland
Just been at a Zoom farming discussion on climate change where this was highlighted.
You pay for the emissions of the inputs such as energy, feed, straw, fertiliser but if you have a turbine producing 'green' electricity then whoever buys it gets to put it against their carbon footprint so we lose both ways.
The carbon calculator currently does not credit you with sequestration from grass and most trees
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
If you buy a Ryanair ticket to Barcelona then for an extra €4-28 it will be carbon neutral. That sounds like green washing.
My carbon audit shows GHG emissions are 75% related to enteric fermentation and slurry management. 3% fuel, 1% electricity, 10% fertiliser, 10% bought-in feed.
An arable farm will have huge % of fuel and energy compared to me yet seem to have a positive balance of 0.25t/ha?
If you use proper science to assess your enteric fermentation instead of the comical GWP100 methodology then you will arrive at a very different destination. How many of these calculators use GWP*? I'm guessing every single fekking one of them use GWP100.
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
Just been at a Zoom farming discussion on climate change where this was highlighted.
You pay for the emissions of the inputs such as energy, feed, straw, fertiliser but if you have a turbine producing 'green' electricity then whoever buys it gets to put it against their carbon footprint so we lose both ways.
The carbon calculator currently does not credit you with sequestration from grass and most trees
I mean seriously, you're having an actual laff right?!?
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 35 16.6%
  • Sage

    Votes: 20 9.5%
  • Xero

    Votes: 97 46.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 59 28.0%

Man fined £300 for bonfire-related waste offences

  • 259
  • 0
Written by William Kellett from Agriland

court-640x360.jpg
A man has pleaded guilty at Newtownards Magistrates’ Court to waste offences relating to a bonfire next to the electrical sub-station on the Circular Road in Newtownards, Co. Down.

Gareth Gill (51) of Abbot’s Walk, Newtownards pleaded guilty to two charges under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, for which he was fined £150 each and ordered to pay a £15 offender’s levy

On June 25, 2018, PSNI officers went to Gill’s yard, where they found a large amount of waste consisting of scrap wood, pallets, carpet and underlay.

Discussion with Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officers confirmed the site...
Top