Discussion Summary

Carbon sequestration was the first topic of the session. Professor Chris Pollock began by outlining that attempting to make significant savings through sequestration was not always practical. The extent of its success is heavily determined by soil type. Nevertheless it became apparent that small savings were achievable through increasing organic matter content, despite the long period of time this can take. The benefits of min-till systems were debated, with Chris outlining that whilst such systems enabled growers to reduce carbon emissions from the soil, the benefits were immediately lost once the ground is ploughed, an operation that still features periodically in many min-till systems.

A DEFRA spokesman raised the issue of how people such as themselves should be advising farmers to take the correct measures to reduce their carbon footprint. Whilst raising a few eyebrows it became apparent that regulatory bodies could merely encourage farmers "to do what they can do" to reduce carbon emissions until consistent mathematical models were available to be taken onto farms (CALM being the first of these). The need to understand other solutions, such as nitrification inhibitors and the effect of improved dairy cow fertility, is particularly important. Commitment is therefore needed to mathematical biology in farming systems. This conveniently led into the potential problem of whether regulation would be the only method by which to increase carbon savings, the fear of which was apparent among many of the speakers. A Natural England representative asked what the panellists’ views were regarding the role of the CAP in managing climate change in the future. Professor Chris Pollock outlined that this may become important and have a role, but would need to be based on evidence, thus making any action on this impossible for considerable time yet. Also the need to adopt a collaborative approach was emphasised, in terms of the challenge of co-ordinating agriculture and urban industries. Current agri-environment schemes present opportunities to make savings but the difficulty of entering into Higher Level Stewardship inhibits this at present, something emphasised by David Hugill.

The topic of "Carbon Stewardship," discussed by Jiggy Lloyd in her presentation, was then raised and whether this merely represented good farm management? Undoubtedly there is a strong link. Nevertheless carbon is often not managed as a useful resource, unlike nitrous oxide.

The discussion then turned its attention to Anaerobic Digestion (AD), with a question from the floor over the profitable scale of an AD plant. Julian Morgan outlined a number of business models, detailing the German model as a livestock farm with the plant using slurry and maize. A €2 million plant with 0.5MW capacity seemed to be the most profitable. However, rent rises have been increasing the cost of maize production and reducing overall AD returns. The opportunity to earn gate fees from waste that would otherwise be sent to landfill was plentiful despite supermarkets and food manufacturers recognising its value and driving down the price. However, to be commercially viable these need to be £50-60 per tonne. Collaboration on investment will lower the risk to individuals whilst increasing the likelihood of receiving grants under the new Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE).

The concept of organic farming as a mitigation option, particularly as fertiliser is a large contributor to green house gas emissions, was then raised. David Hugill outlined that leguminous crops do not lead to a significant reduction in nitrous oxide over the whole enterprise. The organic Vs conventional distinction becomes much greater when the energy required to produce products necessary for conventional systems (i.e. chemicals and fertilisers) are included in the emissions calculations. The embodied carbon in these products was excluded from the study (only on-farm carbon). Despite Julian Morgan discussing the opportunities and benefits of composting green waste, he outlined the problem of public opposition to composting and the need for relaxation regarding composting regulations.

The session ended with some thoughts on the next steps the industry should take. It was argued that we may be communicating the problems and impacts too much, with little thought given to presenting the opportunities. Final thoughts from the panellists were:

• David Hugill: The need for demonstration farms/trials in identifying opportunities.
• Professor Chris Pollock: The fact that everyone has a role to play, with bottom-up learning and development the most effective strategy for long-term emission control.
• Julian Morgan: The need to relax regulation (or at least reduce the imposition of bureaucracy) that inhibits the development of emission saving technology.
• Jiggy Lloyd: The need for farmers to show leadership, something which is lacking at present (shown by her difficulty of obtaining willing case studies).

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Workshop

AD - Key Messages:

• AD can be a profitable business but there are many key variables, thus making it important to undertake investment appraisals carefully. Securing external finance can be difficult when financial forecasts are based upon projected cash flow.
  
  The most important variables to consider are:
  
  
  • The price of the feedstock (increasingly there is a tendency to link feedstocks to the price of oil or other alternatives, and so as the price of oil increases so may the cost of feedstock).
  • The operational time of the plant, as the amount of time the plant is running for will have a material effect upon profitability.
  • The end price of the energy (e.g. electricity) and the value of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to supplement the income from energy sales. There could also be the potential of fiscal incentives for renewable heat within the next 5 years.
• Identifying the optimum waste stream is a further important consideration. Animal waste (slurry etc) has a low dry matter and is therefore less efficient in energy output terms. Supplementing animal waste with a specially produced feedstock (such as maize) can be a good way of increasing the energy output from the AD plant.
• Carefully consider the case for imported waste. The new licensing regulations are complicated and time consuming to comply with, whilst sourcing clean waste streams, which are not contaminated with material that might need to be treated differently (i.e. waste meat in food waste), can be problematic.

If contemplating grant support for an AD plant check the "double funding" rules, as you may have to forego your double ROCs if you receive grant support for the capital cost.

Biomass

Energy from biomass is a relatively tried and tested technology and has a lower capital cost than AD. However there seems to be question marks over the principle of growing crops specifically to feed biomass plants and the energy consumption involved. A better alternative is to use waste timber. Questions were also raised about the security of biomass supplies, considering increasing commodity prices and general increases in energy costs. The concept of "waste or surplus wood" may disappear and be replaced by a connection between wood and a potentially valuable commodity, with a consequential increase in its value.

Uplands Workshop

The session started with a brief discussion of soil carbon issues and how cultivations and cultivation equipment can influence the effectiveness of soil for storing carbon. David Hugill also explained how grazing management can also influence carbon sequestration and retention grazing grass under a strip grazing system where the grass is grazed very hard to the point where the root dies back can create increases in soil organic matter of 1.6% year on year.

David Hugill explained that he is looking to achieve a longer period of out-wintering for his cattle. To date, this has worked well and has reduced his costs considerably with no noticeable disadvantages. Adverse environmental impacts have been reduced to a minimum by supplementary feeding by rolling out hay across the hill and reducing overall stocking levels. He has also seen no reductions in profitability. He believes that profits have been maintained as a result of:

• Elimination of costs for sending cattle away over winter
• Reduced feed costs
• More efficient grass utilisation because all grass is eaten, even the less palatable bits
• Reduced welfare problems such as respiratory infections and other diseases associated with housing cattle
• Selling the cattle for finishing at 6 - 8 months old

David is now converting to organic. He will still look to selling the cattle as stores and try to secure a better price from the finisher rather than finishing the cattle himself.

The group then talked about carbon emissions from upland livestock farming. Delegates considered whether silage or hay results in higher emissions. David Hugill suggested that because silage can be more palatable and also digestible, emissions can actually be lower. The group also discussed whether moorlands should be kept as moorlands or whether a vast re-forestation programme should be initiated on the moorland to increase carbon sequestration levels. This developed into a heated debate and most agreed that the landscape value and ecological importance of moorlands had to be recognised. Furthermore, income from grouse shooting and tourism were important considerations.

Delegates considered what impact genetics might have on improving the carbon footprint of hill farming because they can enhance the efficiency of conversion of feed to meat. The general consensus was that whilst significant improvements in breeding had been achieved, even in hill breeds, most farmers placed more weight on more cosmetic factors such as appearance. It was felt that it would take some time before genetics started to have an influence over productivity.

The session ended with a discussion about the financial viability (or otherwise) of hill farming. Everyone in the audience recognised that hill farmers play a vital role in the conservation of the countryside in the hill areas and were also pivotal to the livestock industry due to their role in providing breeding stock and animals for finishing. However, most agreed (reluctantly) that very few hill farms, in their own right, can provide sufficient income for a family unless they have diversified successfully or have an income from an agri-environment scheme to supplement SPS and income from selling livestock.

Discussing the Benefits of Carbon Measurement

• Make a start by finding out what the carbon accounts for your business look like. The most comprehensive tool currently available is the CLA CALM calculator found at http://www.calm.cla.org.uk/. This will get you to think about what impact your farm business is having on the environment and how you can reduce emissions, save money and time by making changes and improvements to your energy, fertiliser and feed efficiency.
• There is much work yet to be done to improve the understanding that agriculture really is different in the Greenhouse Gases it produces and the inherent difficulty in reducing them.
• There are relatively simple things which farmers can do to reduce GHG by 3% to 10%. However larger reductions demand fundamental research and development and will take time to discover. There is no point in exporting production and therefore the pollution!
• Current carbon accounting calculators which are available to farmers do not provide all the answers, as this is a rapidly developing field. Two important steps are:
  • To provide information on the range of experience in UK farming conditions – the Natural England study is a very helpful start.
  • To relate farm business results to results for individual products.
• There was concern expressed about farmers not being recognised for the carbon sequestration benefits of the soil and established woodlands and habitats.
• In conclusion it was critical for us to collect more data on what is actually happening on farms. Then the debate must continue about what is the depth of detail needed for Carbon Accounting, what are the parameters and boundaries, and how to relate product and business accounts.
• A quick fire question around the room found that:
  • 57% had worked out their personal or business Carbon Footprint.
  • 40% said they would be doing something similar after the meeting.
  • 3% remained cynical.

Reports

Download David Hugill's report

Download Jiggy Lloyd's report

Download Julian Morgan's report

Download Chris Pollock's report