Today the Farm Carbon Calculator has gone live with a major upgrade. As part of our development cycle, every few months we deliver updates to ensure our calculator keeps up with the latest science, while also improving its features and usability. As the number of users continues to rise, we regularly update the tool to ensure it’s the best it can be and matches our users’ expectations.
The recent COP26 exemplified how carbon has shot up the agenda for everyone in societies across the world, and this fact is reflected in the number of farmers and growers we are engaging with at the Farm Carbon Toolkit. We have been advocating for over ten years that farmers and growers have a key role in cutting emissions and indeed in sequestering carbon in their biomass and soils, and we provide solutions for users to measure and manage carbon in their businesses.
Farms are one of just two industrial sectors that can not just reduce emissions but also sequester carbon (the other being forestry). This means farming can play a positive role in the climate crisis by potentially drawing down atmospheric CO2 into its soils and biomass. Facing the climate crisis, we are here to support farmers and growers to make a positive contribution, as we all must do.
What’s changed
In this upgrade we have updated a wide range of emissions factors based on the latest research; including in Fuels, Livestock, Fertilisers, Crops, and Materials. This means up-to-date figures, more categories and therefore increased accuracy.
Major changes include a larger range of fertilisers, a huge range of branded sprays to choose from, a new way of recording livestock numbers – giving much more useful outputs, more animal feeds, new animal bedding section, a much greater range of bought in manures, and upgraded factors in fuels, electricity and travel.
There are new user features including an improved way of recording yields of crops, more FAQs to help you through the process, and videos to support you in filling in the Calculator.
On the Report Summary page, the emissions are now broken down into Scopes 1, 2 and 3, which makes Company Reporting easier and clearer. We’ve also separated results for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, so users can understand which greenhouse gases make up their total carbon footprint.
A brand new feature, and a great compliment to Carbon, is a way to measure Nitrogen. Thanks to funding from the WWF, and in conjunction with the Soil Association, our new ‘Nitrogen Module’ allows users to visualise the nitrogen flows in and out of their farm system. Nitrogen (N) inputs are built up from biological fixation, synthetic fertilisers and organic manures as well as purchased livestock and animal feeds. The N output is calculated from in-field N2O emissions as well as crops, milk and livestock sold and the N balance calculation provides an overview of the net change of Nitrogen over the year.
The new Nitrogen Module shows overviews and details of the flows of N in and out of the farm
The process
It takes several months of work to prepare for an upgrade. We plan, prioritise, research, extract figures, build new functionality, review, then test, test and test again!
The Calculator team is already planning the next update, which is scheduled for late February 2022. We will be working to update a raft of more emissions factors, reviewing the latest science (which is changing quite rapidly), and working on even more user features. Which all means that in another three months the Calculator will take an even bigger leap forward!
The Calculator can be used on all types of farms, including livestock, arable and horticulture
Working with consultants, larger companies and organisations
The Calculator will always be free for farmers and growers to use. But increasingly we have a new group of users who want to use the Calculator within their supply chains and as part of a consultancy service.
For consultants advising farmers, we offer a licensing service, where they can receive training and access to the Calculator to calculate the carbon footprint of their clients, and deliver advice upon the results. For businesses and organisations managing groups of farmers and growers – such as buying groups, co-ops and larger food businesses, we offer a white label version of the Calculator. This is branded and tailored to the user, along with support from us, and a group admin function to manage and compare group users’ data.
Finding out more
We hope you find the Farm Carbon Calculator useful for your business, and take steps to reduce your carbon footprint. You can use the Toolkit for further help, advice and case studies https://farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk/toolkit.
We’re pleased to announce the launch of a new guide for monitoring soil carbon. This practical field, farm and lab guide aims to answer key questions for robust on-farm field monitoring of soil carbon and associated indicators of soil health.
This guide has been produced as part of the Soil Carbon project and written in collaboration with Duchy College, Plymouth University, Rothamsted Research and the Farm Carbon Toolkit. It is designed and printed with kind support from the Farm Net Zero project, funded by the National Lottery Climate Action Fund.
Who is it for?
This practical guide is relevant to farmers seeking to measure and understand their soil carbon stocks – as well as landowners, advisors and researchers.
Supply chains and organisations seeking to reward farmers for improving soil carbon stocks will also find this guide helpful. However it should be noted that it’s not written as a formal standard or detailed protocol. The guide will be accompanied with detailed supplementary materials stemming from the ERDF Agri-Tech Cornwall funded “Soil Carbon Project”(2018 to 2021).
Why is this important?
Robust estimates of soil carbon stocks can be complicated. Not least because soil carbon levels are constantly in-flux with in-field variation. Estimates are also heavily influenced by the way in which we collect, process and analyse soil samples. In the Soil Carbon project, we’ve been working with research partners to investigate how soil carbon estimates are influenced by variables such as when the samples are taken, how many samples are taken and at what pattern across the field.
What does the guide cover?
The guide consists of answers to the following core questions:
When to conduct your soil carbon sampling?
What fields to select on your farm?
How to sample within those fields?
At what depths should samples be taken?
How often should you repeat your sampling?
How to collect and prepare your samples?
What are the options for the lab analyses?
What are the main soil health indicators that should be monitored?
There’s a rise in farmers and landowners interested in getting paid for carbon sequestration. Yet in the UK, an absence of robust guidance, protocols and industry experience makes this space feel like the “wild west”. Farmers are at risk of being misled, while NGOs and industry groups are struggling to form clear positions in what’s a fast-moving and confusing landscape.
At the Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT), we help farmers to measure, understand and act on their greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). It’s our mission, as a farmer-led organisation, to help farmers become knowledgeable and empowered on this topic, building profitable and resilient businesses that also help to restore our fragile and deteriorating ecosystems. Reducing GHG emissions from farms is a priority and all farmers can begin now.
Therefore we take a close interest in the emerging opportunities for farmers and landowners to access payments for carbon sequestration and storage on their farms. Through our work, we are witnessing more carbon payment opportunities coming through supply chains, grant-funded projects, as well as future options within ELMs and in voluntary carbon offset markets.
With our deep understanding of GHG emissions in agriculture, combined with on-the-ground experience of measuring farm and soil carbon, we are helping to inform various schemes and start-ups. What we witness is mixed. Some schemes are well-designed and robust in their approach to supporting farmers and having impact. While some are less carefully designed, with limited transparency and a possibility of unintended consequences. Farmers, landowners and organisations have limited guidance on best practice and a lack of standards make comparison between schemes challenging.
Context: how a Net Zero paradigm is renewing interest in offsets
As climate breakdown becomes ever more visible, many people and organisations are scrambling to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of “net zero” carbon commitments from some of the world’s biggest companies and institutions. To meet these ambitious targets, organisations will need to use every tool at their disposal. This means not only reducing emissions as far as possible, but also investing in activities such as “nature-based solutions” to cover any residual emissions.
Achieving net-zero across society means a gigantic shift in business practice; reinventing business models and shifting the products and services available to citizens. Culturally, industries are in different places on what this means. Some industry leaders are recognising and preparing to implement radical changes, yet can often be working alongside others who are constrained by a tendency towards business-as-usual. What many companies have in common though, is a desire to buy offsets in the short-term to help achieve net zero faster – and many are now turning to farm carbon.
For example, Microsoft recently purchased $500,000 of soil carbon credits from Wilmot Cattle Company, who own an 11,000 acre farm in New South Wales. In the US, various brokers exist to pay farmers for carbon, many using an agreed protocol and a proposed Growing Climate Solutions Act may require the USDA to help farmers access these carbon markets in the future.
Why Offset Schemes Require A Special Scrutiny
There are various ways in which farmers can be supported to shift towards more regenerative agricultural practices. For example, via government subsidies, philanthropic projects, landowner initiatives and through supply chains taking an “insetting” approach. The selling of carbon or biodiversity offsets is another route, coming with a greater need for accurate, trusted measurement and verification.
There is currently a lot of excitement around farm and soil carbon offsets in the UK and various new schemes are launching. A recent farmers’ attitude survey we conducted suggested that 30% of farmers are “very keen and willing” to partake in offsetting schemes. Meanwhile, 27% of respondents were uncomfortable and suspicious about this topic.
FCT survey results from May 2021: farmers’ attitudes towards selling carbon or biodiversity offsets
We urge farmers to recognise the risks that exist around these schemes and ask tough questions to any organisation seeking to “buy” your carbon. To support a more credible and robust environment for farm and soil carbon payments, we are part of a consortium of organisations working towards a UK Farm and Soil Carbon Code.
With carbon offsets – and any other mechanism to support change – there can be risks of driving unintended consequences, especially if we only focus on a narrow goal of carbon reduction. Instead, taking a “food systems” lens to the way we design projects can help us in building a healthier, more socially just food system.
3 Watch-Outs for Farmers Selling Carbon Offsets
To ensure farmers are empowered and clear on the terms in which their whole-farm or soil carbon credits are being sold, we believe farmers should demand the following from organisations seeking to pay them for carbon offsets:
1) What claims can you make in the future about your carbon footprint?
In a carbon offset, the sequestered carbon being sold is effectively taken off the farm or landowners carbon balance sheet and appears on the balance sheet of another business or individual: the “buyer”. This means that the buyer has an exclusive claim to the carbon reductions or removals made by the farm.
What is often overlooked or missing in the marketing materials of offset intermediaries, is that the farm may no longer be able to make claims about any associated produce being “low carbon”. While the farmer may be doing all sorts of positive practices, some or all of their sequestered carbon is on the balance book of the “buyer’ of carbon credits. A farm claiming it is low-carbon could be misleading, amounting to double claiming, propagating a false view of our overall progress against climate change.
For illustration, if all farmers in the UK sold their sequestered carbon via offsets to private companies (that often operate beyond national borders), then the NFU’s Net Zero farming ambition may become impossible to reach, as would the climate pledges of many food retailers and brands who have made Net Zero pledges covering their Scope 3 emissions.
This is a challenge and risk for farmers. Those selling direct-to-consumer may talk about their positive practices but may feel in a tricky position when explaining their carbon credentials, especially if their sequestered carbon has been purchased by an oil or airline company, who are some of the more prominent industry groups currently seeking offsets.
Farmers selling through their supply chains may also be in a weaker position. Retailers are increasingly wanting to buy low-carbon produce and cannot do this if the farm has sold much of it’s sequestered carbon via a private offset. If the farm carbon offset sector follows the recommended principles around double-counting and double-claiming, then farmers may find themselves less desirable to customers.
2) Does the scheme have a transparent, robust methodology on permanence, additionality, measurement and verification?
The credibility of a high quality offset can be tested through its approach to:
Permanence: In the ideal offset project, reversals of carbon emissions are physically impossible or extremely unlikely. Standard convention in offset markets has been to guarantee that carbon is kept out of the atmosphere for 100 years. Yet, this is not practical for soil carbon, which is considered as “short-lived” storage carrying a higher risk of reversal. In the USA, Nori manage permanence by offering short-term credits that expire after 10 years. In Europe, Soil Capital has a 5 year crediting period, in which farmers can earn and generate credits, followed by a 10 year retention period. Carbon Farmers of Australia must choose between 25 and 100 year permanence guarantee.
Additionality: This is about whether the payment the farmer receives plays a decisive role in helping remove carbon from the atmosphere. Additionality is essential for the quality and credibility of the carbon offset market. Yet, especially in farming, its determination is subjective and deceptively difficult. Is this payment providing the make-or-break difference?
Measurement, verification and scope: This is a complex area. For example, what’s included in the scope of the carbon footprint? Is the scheme considering the whole-farm’s carbon balance, or is it based on a per-hectare field basis? For example, in the USA, White Oak Pastures received scrutiny last year as their claims about having carbon negative beef neglected their wider, whole-farm footprint and landuse.
For measurement and verification, what protocols and tools are being used to measure and verify the sequestration? Is the payment based on actual field measurements (and if so, to what depth, to what lab test, resolution and frequency), or are they computer models of how carbon stocks are expected to change with different practices? How much of a buffer is in place for uncertainty? Can we trust those models, given how nascent our understanding is around soil carbon sequestration? Are they based on the UK context?
3) Demand transparency and having a choice in “the buyer“
It’s a common principle that organisations seeking to offset through farm and soil carbon should prioritise cutting their own emissions: minimising the need for offsets in the first place. As outlined in the Oxford Offsetting Principles, buyers of offsets should also publicly disclose their current emissions, accounting practices, reduction strategies and targets to reach net zero.
Furthermore, for the sake of the seller’s reputation, we believe farmers and landowners should also have some say or agreement to who’s buying the carbon offset. We believe geographically local carbon offsets are preferable, as it further assists with transparency and can provide an opportunity for the wider public to understand offsetting.
What next?
We are keen that farmers are incentivised and rewarded for farming sustainably. This may include payments for carbon reduction, building soil health and increasing sequestration. To this end, we’re aware our Farm Carbon Calculator is beginning to be used as a helpful tool to help guide such payments.
We will continue to draw on our practical, on-the-ground experience and expertise to contribute to projects in this space – always keen to support and advocate for robust and credible projects, schemes and marketplaces. Looking ahead, we have various innovations and services in the pipeline to support better, more accurate and meaningful carbon assessment. We’re also keen to continue contributing to the science and understanding of GHG emissions in agriculture. There’s lots to crack on with!
On a muggy evening, and in a COVID compliant way, a group of farmers gathered in Buckinghamshire to hear more about why Antony Pearce was awarded runner up in this year’s Soil Farmer of the Year competition.
Antony started the evening giving an introduction to his journey into regenerative agriculture, explaining that his first inspiration was from reading David Montgomery’s book. It was this book that helped to transition from a ‘safe and conventional system’ to a place where he was focused on advanced soil health. This provided a lot of food for thought and alternative ways of thinking about some of our traditional management practices. A key example of his questioning, he explained to the farmer attendees came from the nutrient availability and soil pH graph, that depicts the amount of a nutrient that is available depending on the soil’s pH.
“It just seemed counter intuitive,” Antony explained, “how could a plant growing in a soil of pH7 never manage to access sufficient quantities of iron?”. He went onto share his experiences of attending Elaine Ingham’s soil health course which allowed him to satisfy his previous dissatisfaction. Through learning undertaken within the course, he started to understand the importance of the plant root zone and the ability of plants to create the right environment around the root zone for accessing nutrients, through microbial activity.
“Plants are able to secrete 30-40% of their energy through their roots to feed the bacteria and fungi in the soil, which is why I started to get concerned about the impact of fungicides. If we are relying on the soil fungi to feed the plants, what negative impact are the fungicides having to this relationship?”
As such, Antony started on a quest to remove fungicides from his crop protection programme, instead investigating the use of genetics and varietal choice to ensure that his crops has the best chance to ward off disease pressure. This started with a reduction in applications and now no fungicide is applied on the 150ha of the farm which is managed in a regenerative manner. However he wasn’t planning on stopping there, the next aspiration was to drastically reduce (and eventually eliminate) Nitrogen fertiliser). Again he credits this decision to learning from the soil food web course – explaining that the application of Nitrogen requires a carbon source for the microbes, and the most readily available carbon source is the liquid carbon being pumped out of the root exudates. He has started dramatically reducing the amount of Nitrogen that he is applying.
Antony has split the farm in half and manages 150ha of it in a regenerative, low input manner and 150 ha of it conventionally. This provides the opportunity for him to analyse the financial performance of each systems and also see whether there are visual differences in weed pressures, yields and soil health. Initially he was relying on organic manures to provide some nutrients, however it is proving an expensive method of importing nutrients and organic matter; as such, he is looking to move away from organic manures to including more cover crops.
“My original reason for looking at low input system was after some conversations that were showing the yields that organic farmers expect. My 10 year average from the conventional system is 9.1t. Comparing the numbers, I was spending £130 per tonne for every additional tonne over organic yields. This seemed like something to focus my attention on.”
At this point we left the barn and started to head towards some crops to see the philosophies in action!
The first field that we stopped in was a field of oilseed rape. Immediately the discussions turned to the amount of Nitrogen that had been applied. This field has had no soil applied bagged Nitrogen; it has received 30kg of Nitrogen from digestate and 15kg applied through a foliar application at flowering. The field has also had no fungicides or insecticides. Antony explained that last year he had grown some zero nitrogen wheat which had yielded 6.5t. Discussions soon moved onto blackgrass control, as there were some plants visible in the rape crop. The field has an understorey of clover that was blown into the standing rape crop. Antony shared some thoughts about whether clover was a useful control measure for blackgrass as in his experience “they don’t seem to get on very well together.” The clover covers the gaps and provides ground cover and weed suppression, and that is the main reason for it. He explains, “whether it helps my rape yield is immaterial, I don’t want a carpet of blackgrass!”
Antony is planning on utilising more cover crop and spring cropping options through stewardship, as such, is not massively worried about current blackgrass levels, as he feels there are options that allow his to deal with it. His clover understory was blown into the previous wheat crop in April, and when the wheat was harvested, the clover went from something that looked a bit poorly established to a thick mat of cover. In July a rape / fenugreek mix was blown into the standing wheat before it was combined.
“Weeds wise we vary across the farm, but I seem to find there is a direct relationship between soil health and the length of time since the field has been in grass. The longer it has been out of grass the less vigorous the seeds establish.”
The soil type across the farm is heavy clay. As Antony has transitioned to this farming system, he confesses to being ‘less scared of his land than he used to be’. He is also starting to see results, with last year being the first year that he didn’t find a crack across the farm. The heavy clay soils bring their own challenges, in terms of being able to get on the land and trafficability. He has been improving his soil in the past with the use of compost and is positive about the benefits that compost brings, not just in terms of organic matter, but also in terms of available nitrogen over the longer term. He has worked out that if he regularly applies compost over 5 years, then the following wheat crop will be able to access 200kg of Nitrogen, which provides an interesting experiment to see whether it persists to become available. Compost is made ideally from a 50 / 50 mix from woodchip (Antony runs a free tip service for local tree surgeons) and cow manure.
Ideally all the straw from the farm is chopped and returned, but occasionally there is a swap for some manure with a neighbouring beef farmer.
Being heavy land, (and still including rape in the rotation) the discussion inevitably moved onto slug control and the measures that were in place on the farm. Antony stubble rakes after the rape has been drilled potentially up to 5 times, starting at cotyledon stage. He admits that it is a challenge, which is exacerbated by his desire to get a cover crop in. “It’s a balancing act,” he explains, “ if you need to go for slug control, you need to rake, rake, rake, but you then forego your ability to have a cover crop. Sometimes we manage to get cover through the rape volunteers, and it fulfils the function at the same time.”
Another aspiration for Antony is to start to be able to hold water across the farm. When he was visiting Gabe Brown in America a lasting memory was discussions about holding more water and providing cover – which gives the rain time to percolate into the soil. He has found a similar experience on his farm, “back in the winter we had a big crop of mustard, and there was a big rainfall event (around 100ml), the field walked beautifully – it managed to hold onto the water and soak into the soil.”
One of the other benefits of the transition has been the ability for the rotation to be more flexible. “Originally the risk factors for me to start to adopt spring cropping was the potential for a spring drought,” Antony explains, “if we can now start to develop a system where we can effectively capture water over the winter through the use of a cover crop which lets the rain work its way into the soil, then I don’t need to worry about spring droughts as the water reserves are there.” The ultimate aim is to transition 100% of the farm onto this system.
After the rape field, we crossed the road to go and visit some wheat which has been managed conventionally. The wheat was spring sown and drilled on the 15th March, and was used as a comparison. Across the farm, the aim is always to have a conventional versus low input to be able to scrutinise the results, and look at the costs. The reasoning behind the comparison, is so that Antony can assess the regenerative practices from a cost benefit perspective. The ultimate aspect of success is if these practices are then undertaken on the conventional land. The field had a mustard cover crop that was spun on with a fertiliser spinner which was then grazed with sheep in early winter before the crop was drilled. The ability to conduct such large scale trials is brilliant in terms of the ability to provide the direct comparison across half the farm. Antony is doing it to show other people what is possible and what isn’t, and he documents his journey through his You Tube channel where he is keen to not just show the successes but also the times where it doesn’t go so well.
The benefits of livestock were then discussed and whether the benefits could be seen immediately. The wheat field had 1000 sheep on it over the winter that were moved regularly, and Antony was keen to point out that on the heavier land, there was a need to leave a rest period between the sheep leaving the field and drilling the subsequent crop.
“I had a go with a range of options this year from drilling straight behind the sheep, to leaving it up to 2 months, and where the land was left, the crop came better. Without a doubt we need to leave at least a month between the sheep coming out and us drilling. The soil needs time to recover, the worms need to come up to grab the muck and reintroduce the air into the soil.”
In the field that we were looking at, the sheep had come out on the 20th December and the wheat had been drilled in mid March. “We want the sheep to hit it hard and then move on,” Antony explains, “which sometimes can take some explaning. Its worked quite well and I worked together with the shepherd to explain what we wanted and to come up with a system which benefited everyone, and meant as few logistical challenges as possible. We try and design it so the sheep are hitting the mustard stands earlier in the season and then move onto the vetches later.”
The final fields to look at were a comparison of two fields of oats, The first field has been in long term arable, and was direct drilled. It was visibly different compared to the following field which had been in arable for 3 years after grass. The oats are the Elianne variety and are grown on a gluten free contract for human consumption. Again the oats are managed using a low input system and had only had 15kg of foliar N. They had been stubble raked to liberate some Nitrogen.
Antony is experimenting with different Nitrogen products to see what the best format is for his system, and explains how he ensures that there is a control strip so that a direct comparison can always be made. He then summed up the importance of trialling things out.
“There is a need to provide the evidence as to what works on your farm.”
This epitomises the system that Antony has developed; not just the visual differences in the crops, but the numbers to back it up and an ability to try new things and continue to innovate.
On the walk back to the farmyard, there was an opportunity to see some of the farm’s other diversification projects to ensure future resilience, including turkeys, sloe gin, and the creation of dog arenas.
A fantastic and thought provoking walk which provided lots of new ideas. Thank you so much to Antony for a brilliant evening. To follow Antony’s progress make sure to subscribe to his YouTube channel here.
Duchy College, part of The Cornwall College Group (TCCG), has been awarded almost £1.3 million from The National Lottery Community Fund to run The Farm Net Zero project, which aims to help the farming community move towards net-zero carbon emissions.
The project which is running for the next 5 years, aims to help the farming community in East Cornwall to move towards net zero carbon emissions. There will be opportunities for farmers to access bespoke carbon footprinting, soil carbon testing and support networks which target practical actions that can be taken on farm to reduce emissions and improve sequestration.
Activities will include the setting up of net zero demonstration farms which will showcase practical actions that can be taken and the impact of management changes on emissions, farm profitability and natural assets. There will be opportunities for farmers to learn more about the sources of emissions on farms and the ways that they can be reduced as well as understanding how soil health is pivotal not just to resilient farming systems but to delivering climate change solutions for society.
Becky Willson project manager for Farm Carbon Toolkit explains:
“We are thrilled to have been given the opportunity to build on our existing work with farmers. This funding allows FCT to support communities of farmers within Cornwall to understand the key issues concerning climate change and agriculture, and develop farming systems that are fit for the future.
“Agriculture has a major role to plan in achieving our net zero targets, as well as being in the unique position of providing a climate solution. Involving farmers in the discussions and empowering them to rise to the challenge through enhancing knowledge and opportunities will enable real change. Reducing emissions and improving sequestration on-farm requires skills development, measuring, monitoring and working together, all things we are able to do within this project. This project will allow us to engage with a wide range of communities and share best practice and knowledge from other sectors.”
“This is a fantastic opportunity for Cornwall to be at the forefront of developing net zero farming systems and we can’t wait to get started.”
The project is a partnership between Duchy College Rural Business School, The Farm Carbon Toolkit, The Soil Association, Westcountry Rivers Trust, and Innovation for Agriculture. The project will involve working with farmers and the wider communities across East Cornwall to pioneer new approaches to low carbon food production.
More information about the farm walk which took place with 2020’s Arable winner Jake Freestone.
On a cold but bright day after months of lockdown, a few intrepid farmers gathered to attend the first of 2020’s Soil Farmer of the Year Farm walks with Arable winner Jake Freestone.
Introduction
Jake has been managing Overbury Farms since 2003. The farm sits within the wider business of Overbury Enterprises on the Gloucestershire / Worcestershire border and is a mixed farm with 1600 ha of farmland, both permanent pasture and arable cropping, some land let out for vegetable production and a flock of 1000 ewes. The soils are incredibly varied on the farm from Cotswold Brash to an Evesham Clay series, and the farm has a diverse and wide rotation to help deal with the variety. The rotation includes wheat, spring barley, oilseed rape, peas, beans, linseed and quinoa. Jake started focussing on soil health and looking at adapting management following his Nuffield scholarship, working on a reduction in cultivation, improving organic matter and diversifying the rotation.
The first step on the tour was to see a new experiment of Jake’s which he has developed recently with the aim of growing a fungally dominated inoculum to treat the seed with. He has three IBC’s currently in use, for the three different soil types that are found on the farm. Within each one there is a mix of woodchip, FYM, poultry manure, hay, straw and grass clippings, which should create a fungally rich seed dressing. Each IBC can do 250ha worth of seed dressing, which should be a fine crumbly dark structure which is applied at 1kg/ha. It is mixed with molasses (for an energy source) and milk (a food source) and put into a specially adapted front mounted tank and sprayed in the furrow. The IBCs need a watering system set up to keep it moist and the temperature is monitored with a probe. Jake reckons that it will take about a year to make, which will then be trialled on next years crops. He is planning to make another two over the winter for application in spring 2022.
Video on biological seed dressings
“Its so important to ensure that we are putting enough back,” explained Jake, “being able to identify what are producing would be very exciting, however the worth of it is to improve the fungal levels within the soil. It should last a long time depending on how good what we make is. If it’s good enough quality then we can keep some back and add some more base material. What’s great is that we are using the biology that is born and bred on our farm so is hopefully adapted to our conditions.”
After looking at the bioreactors, the group moved to the drill and the brewing shed. Jake is brewing mixed which are applied from a tank and pump that he has fixed to the drill. The preparations are brewed for 24hours before they are used. Jake explains that timing is everything – “It can be hard work with the logistics! It needs to be used on the day of manufacture and temperature is critical, as ideally the water should be 22 – 24 degrees C. The mix includes molasses, amino N which is a bacterial feed, and Nitrogen fixing and phosphate releasing bacteria which are introduced to aerobic water which is bubbling constantly. The IVCs are on a trailer and taken out to the field and pumped into the tractor.”
Although it can be tricky logistically, Jake is seeing financial benefits from this system. “Its costing about £15 per hectare, which when compared to DAP at £40/ha is better. From an economic point, its halving the seed cost per ha.” The improved soil health is also providing biodiversity benefits, Jake has a local bird ringing group which has found huge numbers of skylarks on the farm. He credits the increase to not disturbing the soil and not using insecticides, as well as the increased amount of food present for wildlife due to keeping the fields covered.
After looking at machinery, the group got on trailers and went to look at some of the crops on the farm. The first stop was a cover crop full of sunflowers. This mix was a 16 species mix, including clovers, sunflowers, linseed, millet, buckwheat, phacelia and stubble turnips. The mix has been selected as it provides multiple functions for soil health and biodiversity but also has great nutritional qualities for the sheep enterprise.
“Its important to allow our permanent pastures time to rest,” Jake explains. “This field had 450 ewes on it and they need to come out in good condition. The sheep did brilliantly on it, and we had the benefit of the manure on the field.”
The importance of living cover video
Jake is also using a range of other organic materials on the farm to help feed the soil and build organic matter which includes chicken litter and biosolids.
Cover crop costs
Jake always ensures that there is a good level of diversity within the cover crops chosen, which allows for resilience if the weather conditions are less than ideal. He selects his mixes based on %ge of different species rather than number of seeds / ha and admits that these covers aren’t the cheapest. The mix that was in the field being discussed has cost £70/ha which Jake admitted was a big cost, however he explained that there were multiple benefits that come from this expenditure. “We need to look at what we now don’t have to put into the following wheat crop since we have had the cover crop in. We can cut Nitrogen and not apply any phosphates. Its important to ensure that we have some C4 species within the mix to really supercharge the carbon.”
Jake was so impressed with the way that the sheep performed on the cover crops this year that he is considering finishing the lambs on them next year. He is currently using 40 ha of herbal leys which are being rotationally grazed again providing that rest period for the permanent pasture which is predominantly parkland.
There are big strides being made on the elusive goal of reducing Nitrogen applications at Overbury. Historically more Nitrogen was applied on this farm, however rates are reducing and the overall goal is to use it as efficiently as possible.
The use of other inputs on the farm is dropping. Insecticides haven’t been used for 4/5 years on rape, and Jake has been experimenting with companion cropping with rape. The companion cropping has replaced the pre-em herbicide, but the timing of terminating the companion crop can be tricky to balance.
Following the cover crop the group moved up the hill to look at a trial that Jake has been running on some of his rape. The soil was alive, full of worms and in great structure. Jake is starting to see the difference in how the soil functions – the soil is sticking to the crop roots.
Opportunities to reduce inputs further video
The group then moved to look at a field of wheat which was drilled on the 28th September. The field had an application of biosolids and was drilled into a crop of peas which weren’t harvested.
“This soil has responded so well to the change in system,” Jake commented, “the heavy land has responded but in a slower manner, whereas this lighter land is doing brilliantly.”
Questions were asked around the yield implications of the change in management to a direct drill system, and whether Jake had experienced the infamous dip in yield in years 3 and 4.
“This year wasn’t anything to shout about, but for winter cropping I haven’t seen that dip in yields. The last 3 years have been very difficult dry springs and yields have suffered as a result, but with lower growing costs and reduced blackgrass pressure, due to direct drilling, the margins have remained the same..”
The final stop was a field of barley where a soil pit revealed a good number of worms despite the cold temperatures.
Digging holes video
Jake explains:
“Ultimately we are trying to use all the tools that we have to improve soil organic matter, water infiltration and wider water management, soil structure and soil biology to achieve the long term goal of improving our resilience both for our crops, our business and our soil.”
Thank you to Jake and his team for an absolutely brilliant socially distanced walk.
Tom Sewell, an arable farmer from Kent and Sam Vincent, a dairy farmer from Dorset have been awarded the 2021 Soil Farmer of the Year as joint winners.
The competition aims to find famers and growers who are engaged with, and passionate about managing their soils in a way which supports productive agriculture, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and builds soil health, organic matter and carbon.
The Winner
Tom farms around 500ha across Kent running a simple low cost arable system focussing on building soil health, maintaining production and regenerating the landscape. An early pioneer of reduced cultivation, Tom’s Nuffield scholarship in 2013 ignited his enthusiasm in soil health and the system has grown from strength to strength.
Tom has been chosen as the winner for this year due to his enthusiasm, attention to detail and fantastic soil and crop health. He is constantly questioning his system and looking to innovate and focus on improving soil health and building resilience.
Second Prize
Sam Vincent farms 130ha in Dorset, running a dairy herd of 100 cows and followers. He transitioned to organic in May 2018, and all of his land is down to permanent pasture. Sam impressed the judges with his ability to make a regenerative system work on a dairy farm with permanent pasture. Using the cattle as a tool, he has improved the diversity in his pastures by adapting his grazing management from a traditional New Zealand paddock grazing system to a mob grazing approach which he follows now. This has improved his soil health, the resilience of his fields and the ability to provide grazing for extended periods.
Sam impressed the judges with his determination to make a system that worked for his soil type, system and livestock. The soils on the farm were well structured and pasture quality and species diversity was abundant.
Third Prize
The accolade of third prize was taken by Anthony Pearce from Buckinghamshire. Anthony is transitioning the whole farm to regenerative and is trialling a range of different techniques including no till, cover crops, integration of livestock and the use of compost. Anthony has spent the last 3 years learning about soil health, travelling to the states to take part in the Soil Health Academy and learning under Elaine Ingham. He also records his transition on the farm through his YouTube channel where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities and a chance for sharing of ideas with other farmers.
The competition is kindly sponsored by Hutchinsons and Cotswold Seeds, with the top three farmers being awarded prizes from Cotswold Seeds in the form of fertility building, cover crop or green manure seeds.
Becky Willson, FCCT Technical Manager said “Yet again we have been totally blown away by the quality and calibre of the applicants for this year’s competition. The finalists were all achieving amazing results and showing a diversity of approaches to building soil health and so the decision was incredibly hard. However our winners this year stood out in their ability to challenge themselves, continue to innovate and to achieve high quality production from fantastic soil management. Congratulations to all of the finalists.”
Ed Brown, Head of Agroecology for Hutchinsons says “It’s great to be involved with some of the best soil managers in the country. The entrants show how a profitable and sustainable business can put soil health and improvement at the very heart of the enterprise, showcasing industry-leading practices and techniques.”
Seven farmers were shortlisted as finalists as part of this year’s competition. These included, Casha Bowles-Jones who runs an organic farm with a pasture fed dairy in Shropshire; Jack Martin an arable and sheep farmer from Stafforshire; Mark Oldroyd, who manages a mixed farm estate in Oxfordshire; and Rob Raven who runs an arable farm in Suffolk.
All of the finalists were presented with their awards at Groundswell 2021 which provided a fantastic opportunity to meet all of the finalists and see them rewarded for their efforts.
The top three farmers will also all be hosting farm walks who are open to anyone who is interested, where there will be a chance to see, understand and dig a bit deeper into what they are doing. Further details on these walks are available on the FCT website.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. You may accept or refuse our use of cookies, or learn more at the link provided.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Recent Comments