5 minute read
Unlocking pathways to profitability with farm carbon footprinting
JULIAN BELL, PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT, AGRECALC (PART OF SRUC)
While few people are now arguing whether climate change is happening, many are still wondering whether it's up to them to do anything about it. There are also many out there - such as governments and buyers - asking others to act. Often, this is directed at the farmer.
The question as a farmer, and as an individual, is what action should you take? This is not about whether you believe in climate change, it is about whether taking action is going to make you better off. And this means that tackling climate change on your farm is increasingly a business issue.
At SRUC, we are seeing a wide range of business use cases, for undertaking carbon audits and to further manage carbon emissions. But what is driving different users to ask for farm carbon footprints and what can farmers achieve from undertaking them?
Some general objectives might include;
• Government: Reducing National Inventory GHG emissions, supporting the wider economy
• Supply chains: Reducing product emissions, sustaining their farmer supply base, managing costs
• Farmers: Maximising financial and business benefits through increased market or subsidy income, reducing costs.
To make the most of this, farmers need to further define what they personally want to achieve from carbon footprinting and particularly how this impacts their wider business objectives. This could be to save costs, improve profitability, protect/maximise subsidy income, reduce staff workload, reduce risk or diversify income.
It could also reflect existing planned business changes such as
• When it comes to farm output, do they want to maintain, reduce or increase it?
• Which carbon emissions to reduce? Is it whole farm emissions or emissions per unit of product?
Working through these different aspects, farmers should be able to distil these down into a clear rationale. This can then be applied in many different ways; to measure and reduce emissions per unit of product (e.g. per kg of beef, tonne of potatoes) to secure supply chain contracts, to increase output to meet buyer requests, to secure subsidy income, to maintain output, to reduce emissions, or save costs to support profitability.
Measure twice, cut once
The drivers may be different, but they all depend on getting the carbon report right in the first place. Consistency of data collection is essential, and it can be achieved by capturing data as closely as possible the same way between years on individual farms. If it’s not, it will be difficult or even impossible to identify the impact of any changes on emissions. Farmers can collate this information themselves or work closely with a knowledgeable advisor familiar with the farm, who can guide them through this process.
Investing time in getting that first baseline carbon footprint correct and making notes about the key assumptions will pay off in the long run. It can then meet what is required to fulfil supply chain and government support requirements.
Finding the gains
Once an accurate and comprehensive carbon report has been prepared, this forms the baseline upon which different future actions can be assessed for their effects on carbon emissions and in meeting the farm’s business objectives.
From an emissions point of view, targeting the farm’s largest sources of emissions is the place to start. It is also likely to reflect some of the main farm costs such as livestock, fertiliser or fuel, and can therefore be used to direct actions at the highest farm costs.
Emissions vs Comparison
Agrecalc sources of emissions in beef production versus comparisons.
The range of mitigation actions farms can consider is wide. The farmer can do this themselves or they can choose to draw on the support of a trusted adviser. Our consultants are experienced in this and work with the farmer to understand current practices, interests and abilities to implement new practices. In every case, practices are only considered that are practical to achieve and will enhance the financial performance of the farm in the short to longer run. It also has to be recognised that all farms face constraints; staff time and knowledge, and capital with existing farming systems all having their limits.
The best mitigations are no-regret solutions that work well for the farm irrespective of any carbon impacts. These generally revolve around improving productivity, gaining more output for the same purchased inputs with less waste. While higher output does not necessarily mean higher profitability, greater efficiency of input use nearly always does.
For example, on grazing livestock farms, improving the management of pasture and grazing while limiting the use of inputs such as feed and fertiliser has been shown to reduce emissions per unit (beef/dairy) by up to 10-20%. Purchased fertiliser can be displaced by clover and by making better use of manures, while purchased feed can be reduced through better forage quality. This often requires more management time and investment in learning new techniques or equipment that not all farming businesses can spare, but over time can be repaid.
Understanding in greater detail where inputs are being used and what is being produced as a result can help direct efforts across arable units. Taking care not to compromise the yield and quality of crops is paramount when reducing fuel, fertiliser and spray applications. Trialling any changes at a smaller scale first before wider adoption are recommended.
Implementing changes to reduce carbon can be difficult, especially for businesses that are already under strain, yet we know that the financial savings can be significant. The market is also increasingly looking for farmers who can demonstrate their carbon efficiency in producing food. The key for farmers when cutting carbon emissions is not simply to try and meet the many demands others are making of them, but to meet their own objectives, building a better business as a result.
