On Air at Groundswell: Regenerative farming practices and lowering greenhouse gas emissions

As part of our special podcast series brought to you by the School of Sustainable Food and Farming at Harper Adams University, this episode discusses the role of data, the tools available to measures GHG emissions and the value to farmers in sharing that data. Leprino Foods' Sustainability Manger Ben Williams, Farm Manager of net zero livestock farm and current Nuffield Schold Dan Smith and Livestock Sustainability Specialist at UK Agri-Tech Centre Megan Powell look at the narrative around the livestock sector when it comes to  emissions, the idea of baselining, government policy and the financial incentives to drive the sector to make changes to reduce green house gas emissions on-farm. 

Transcript

0:04

Hello and welcome back to grounds, where we're doing another session as part of our special series on the Farmers Guardian podcast, brought to you by the School of Sustainable Food and Farming at Harper Adams University. This session is going to be about greenhouse gas emissions, a very broad topic, but I've got some fantastic panelists here who will walk us through the discussion. So first off, Ben, can you introduce yourself? Yep, I'm Ben Williams, I'm the sustainability sustainability manager Filipino foods. We manufacture mozzarella. And it's my job to make sure it's sustainable. From farmed customer and Meghan I'm Meg Palmer, livestock sustainability specialist for the UK Agritech Center. And I work on innovation R&D within the livestock sector. And I'm also from beef and sheep farm in mid-Wales. So very passionate. And then, yeah, Dan Smith, I'm a farmer and consultant from the Wye Valley and I run a farm for the benefit of the environment and young people. Perfect for those looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Would you agree the statement that the key initially is to find those, maybe say win win areas on farm and where you can not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also ensure that you're improving profitability at the same time. What would you say to discuss? from a, I mean, from a farmer's point of view, being conscious about it and really analyzing what we're doing has changed how we look at our whole, whole business. So actually making efficiencies across, across the whole board has been has been the biggest win for us, as well as the kind of public perception of what we do. So as a farmer, that's what I use it for is efficiency across the board really. And I would agree with that. I think efficiency is the really, really key message in engaging with them, with farmers. I think I saw something that, ABP sort of like posted that about 20% of emissions could be reduced from efficiency gains alone. So it's a really pretty huge kind of win there. And it's a win win for farmers. But yeah, but also R&D. And that's sort of like the next step. It does also play a huge role there as well. And sort of taking that next step further away from efficiency. Yeah. 20% is probably the figure we'd have from our baselining. I'd caution that. Absolutely. It chimes with the farmer, but I don't know any of our farmers that wake up trying to be inefficient and actually efficiency or delivering their their day to day as efficiently as possible is what they strive to do. So actually, I think what we need to do is go back and look at what is what is stopping that further efficiency on farm. And some people might have a more natural mindset or bend to it than others. But actually we as an industry need to support farmers to find that next step, that sort of jump. and what you think those challenges are? I think a lot of it can be infrastructure, like lack of like equipment as well. I know that particularly in certain supply chains and beef and sheep sectors, a lot of farmers don't even yet have weighing scales and proper handling equipment and, you know, slurry stores, things like that. They're just fundamental and actually helping to be efficient and reduce those emissions. So it's just allowing getting those farmers to have that access to the the equipment that's needed to help them be more efficient, essentially. So Magnus mentioned that infrastructure and equipment. What do you I mean, we, I'd like to think we're farming in a fairly progressive way, and we're conscious of these things, but actually really taking a deep dive in doing calculations about our emissions did actually really help on the day to day. So so it did having data, which I think comes down to weighing scales, very basic thing. You know, we might be a step ahead, but actually all of that data is power and I'm interested in it. But I learned loads as well. So, you know, I think it definitely helps that the whole the the whole model. And that's the point I really want to pick up on is data collection and how critical that is in terms of driving down greenhouse gas emissions, being sustainable on farm, how crucial is that data collection? It's massive. If you can't measure, you can't manage. so without a baseline you're going nowhere. I'd, I'd say at an industry level there are three macro barriers to change. So the elephant in the room is economics. Yeah. Yeah. That's that to be honest about it. and that's something that's come up multiple times across the session. And I'll say that as a representative of the processor, it's it is something that we, battle with. it is information. So data is worthless, but the information you gain from it. Absolutely. I agree with you is valuable. But then the skill set to deploy that some have it, some like it, some need support. And actually I'd argue the majority need support. We don't teach that skill set in colleges. We don't teach it in universities, and we don't really deliver in industry. And without that, you can throw all the technology and all the data that you want at farmers, but you might as well peer into the wind because they can't use it. You find that it's like a huge challenge, like the longevity of technology on farms. A lot of these companies, R&D companies, universities just processes are chucking money. I'm giving farmers all this technology, which last year. And then it's not like you say, for the reason of them not not knowing how to use it. It could be time for a multitude of reasons why it's not being utilized, but it's just working out, not just adopting that tech, but containing value and continuing to use it for them. Yeah, yeah. some really it's just picking up on something er, actually in terms of social goods and public services, there is people are interested in it and I think in a way of getting farming or new skill into farming, I actually think we can really use this to our advantage. And there is a skill set growing. I'm just not sure as an industry we're quite utilizing it to, to, to to its optimum at the moment. Yeah. Great. On your farm, Megan, what tools are you using to try and get a sense of kind of carbon capture, you know, emissions on your song. So I would say that, my family farm, is probably an example of a farmer that's quite a traditional commercial farmer, if I'm honest. So they would be part of that kind of demographic within the supply chain that requires that extra step to kind of engage with. So they are in terms of like efficiency is the way forward for them. And I wouldn't say that they would be very engaged with using my, like, my parents. But we've been very engaged with that sustainability word. So it's just really kind of like helping like efficiency is what kind of like is what they're interested in. So at this stage it's sort of kind of pushing it through that way. And then but yes, they're the example of kind of they're going through the journey. But I think that's really interesting because there are so many farmers starting on that journey and actually sustainability and efficiency that the same thing really. But but you know, they can be, can't they, but kind of put people off when, when you hear that term, would you say, I think it's just a bit of a stigma around sustainability. They just kind of think it means that it's reducing production, for example, when it's when it's not, it's kind of a whole conjunction of things and it's actually becoming the most resilient and economically, sustainable business. And that's. Yeah, but it is a mindset change, isn't it, for some farmers. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, if if you're not profitable then you're not sustainable. Yeah. So you have to use it in the right in the right way to make to make your farm efficient but also profitable. And that's kind of yeah, where you have to look at it. And actually where this comes in for us is it's quite a powerful selling story. So because people are interested, we talk about profitability. We can charge extra £0.40 a kilo for dead weight beef, whatever it happens to be. Well that is that's using it as part of the process for us. But in terms of your your partnership with farmers and producers, how are you engaging with them and giving them that support? So we we fund carbon audits on farms for the baseline. We do that because arguably we needed the more data, data more than the farmers did. So it felt right that we would do that. It's about 30% of our farms every year. from that we see what are the major sort of contributors to, to greenhouse gases. And then we either educate or directly fund short term where there is a small upfront cost. We develop trials where there is a lack of trust, perhaps in the solution. And then we try and, work on knowledge exchange, and we build that into, into a framework called reset. So it's a combination of behavioral levers. So what regulation is going to force you to do this. what economics are either in your benefit or actually would you lose out on if you don't? Who are your social ambassadors for change? Who do you look up to and who can we influence to make you want to do this? How do we educate which is the one that is always under resourced? And, we always assume it's easy and it's not. And then and only then do we get to the tee, which often is labeled as technology. But we call things so doing things differently, thinking of things differently. Sometimes technology and farmers tend to like Taser, but that's not very catchy. and so reset is the way it works. And it's running. It's running from stick to carrot. Because really that is what tends to drive change, but it's not biasing one or the other. And I think trials are really important, isn't it? If farmers can visually see change happening, and can see other farmers doing stuff and can learn from them, they are more likely to take on board, what would you say? Rather than being told what to do? Sometimes we did a really interesting piece of research through HDB, where obviously the Monitor Farm platform is held up and it's quite rightly a beacon of really good practice, because farmers like learning from other farmers. But the learning style is not necessarily tied directly to who is teaching. And actually we assume farmers were pragmatists. And as a learning style, I listen and get stuck in and go in the field. But actually, when we ask the farmers to audit themselves through a blind study, they told us they are theorists. They want a story first. The reason the same 30% turn up to all of them on at a farm event, so they keep turning up, is a they're the ones that do like learning that way. And the reason they keep turning up is you have to do each of the other styles to effectively learn, and they don't because there's no support coming into or out of that. So I think trials are great, but you have to be able to use the reset, you know, what is the burning platform to drive change, then move into that. Then look at your outlier, your data, your so what? And look at the allies within the industry to make sure farmers are supported through change. Because if they're not, they're not going to because that have done it on their own. Otherwise their farmers are incredibly productive people. There's no reason they haven't changed. I want to touch on the livestock sector. Obviously, when we talk about greenhouse gas emissions and livestock gets brought into it. Obviously we talk about methane. and that narrative around it. When for livestock farmers, where should they be focusing on in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? this is really clear. Was supporting feed, you know, and actually because we were lucky enough to do we've got six farms, very different locations running under similar systems. We were able to analyze that across across the board, and I was already using less feed, the most of the other farms, but it was still actually on the calculations because of other reasons, really significant. So we really basically we changed our model of how we were farming to make that more, more efficient. And any challenges come from that? Oh, loads challenges, plenty of challenges. But, you know, then you get into the bigger thing of, you know, in genetics and, you know, efficiency, housing, grass management, bad. Charlie, when, when I was talking earlier about our whole system, that's what it's all about. And really, this was just the catalyst to make a lot of those changes with actual information rather than a lot of this, which is almost anecdotally, you kind of do this and it'll be better. The fact that we would we were data driven and continue to be data driven, I think it's really, really powerful. And it means that we can now go back and analyze again. And you can you can see where those changes are. So actually I think I think it drives loads. And I you coming back to your point, I think the mindset thing is and I know that I'm not necessarily within the norm of a lot of farmers, but I think the fact that we keep pushing and can can improve some of this stuff with data, farmers will eventually come through, I hope. What advice are you giving your farmers in terms of methane? So we we operate under under four pillars for reducing overall carbon. So it's feed fertility, fertilizer and fuels with the first three being the biggest. So we had a handful of farms, audited year on year. There was a chunk of those that actually saw a 25% fall in carbon footprint year on year. Each one cut soya out of the diet. They improve their, yield from home grown forage. They cleaved off the number of replacement young stocks that were just sitting around that they really didn't need, and they cut fertilizer by 20%. Every single one of them did the same thing. And in each case, they saw a massive almost 30% by 2030 target in a year, in which case it's it's really achievable. And actually, in all of those cases, they saw a significant impact on their bottom line, positive impact on their bottom line. One of the the key focus is that in my previous role, it was for a retailer working on the beef supply chain. again, falling back to kind of efficiency. But, improved lifetime performance and Age of Slaughter was just the key kind of thing that to focus on. And it was quite a big win for farmers. And again, feed efficiency, fee conversion ratio and genetics all kind of fed into that. And and that's tangibly where we were seeing that the biggest benefits and farmers were able to kind of get to that. But then there's just such there was such challenges in facing that in terms of like actually bring that age of slaughter down. But then how do we do that in an extensive way, feeding that region to farming, for example? It kind of didn't always work. So it's just not thinking thinking about it holistically, I think sometimes broader than just greenhouse gas emissions is really important in that respect. And then that sort of help farmers get that system that does fit the the holistic view of sustainability. Talking about feed that, you know, in the pig sector, obviously there's a drive for deforestation free soya coming through. and, you know, the target is January next year isn't it. That's coming. You know, it's an ambitious target to have with, you know, the market not quite there for it. And there's some real concerns. Well who is going to pay for this. And farmers think, well it's going to be down to them to pay for, you know, for this deforestation free soil. And I just wondered what your views were on this. I don't think farmers know that it's even coming, to be honest with you. it is probably one of the biggest questions we face. Would you even so, audit it from it? Well there's that we have some solutions. And to be fair, there are systems they're delivering in six months is hard, I think from a dairy and beef point of view. The first thing to note is there's no requirements for soil palm to either of those species. Although there are challenges. We have to open our eyes up to the alternatives on on completely. Without that, there are problems and challenges. so we do have some opportunities, but the long and the short of it is absolutely. People have known about this coming for a long time. There are bodies that are elected to act in our best interests. And I think they've they've eaten skeins and drank tea and done nothing else. This might be a little controversial, but yeah, the pigs and pigs. It's a real concern, actually. And coming back to your point and challenges, even within with even within beef, you know, like when we first analyze what we are doing, reducing finishing times but also reducing feed doesn't really go hand in hand. And I think, yeah, I think the pig sector is going to struggle and it comes back to this question of do the public really care? Because if they did, they would pay for it. But the truth is, is they probably don't. And they're even less aware than the farmers that this change is coming, you know, and that's a real issue. It's comes back to education, you know, and transparent farmers are completely obviously on board with the idea that, you know, they you know, they want this deforestation free soil, but they don't want to have to pay for it. But I don't know if they do. yeah. I mean, having just spent three weeks in Brazil, I think it is it's a global issue. I think sometimes we look very at what we're doing, when actually we should be potentially broadening. It's an industry in the UK. We should really be looking slightly further afield. But yeah, I think I think farmers want to do the right thing. That's important. That's what I'm saying. They they do. Yeah. But they want to make money and they're going to be they're aware of that global scale there. I mean, the amount of farmers I've spoken to and we talk about this and they go, but China is 40% of global demand. There is a real chance the boats will just turn left and go to China, coming out of ports in South America, rather than turning in very strong chance of that. Yeah. Because, you know, a whole of Europe is 9% of total soy demand. In which case, if we make it so hard, it just won't turn up. And I think farmers are more worried about, can I feed my cows? Can I sell my milk? And can I be, you know, continue to respect that, you know, I deserve, you know, producing a really high quality product. But I think they're very aware of actually where we sit on the world stage and, and we do them at an injustice, I think have not given them credit on that. And that's that's why the conversation is so challenging, because, you know, they do feel like they're being perhaps well know, definitely disadvantage compared to a global a global market. Yeah. Yeah. And that leads on to my next question. In terms of British agriculture, British farming, you know, the pressure that's being put on them in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and kind of leading the way within this field. Do you think that other industries, other sectors are, being forgotten about and it's too much focus on agriculture, or should we, you know, stay in our lane and carry on and just know? Well, agriculture is a percentage of total UK emissions is increased, even though the total emissions from agriculture hasn't, because every other sector is doing their part. And actually if we don't move forwards, we become more of the whipping boy. Yeah, because actually we haven't done anything. We buried our heads in the sand and we just can't at the end of the day, agriculture has a crucial role to play. And we, you know, we can sit here looking out at the rolling green fields and say, how can this, how can this be blamed for destroying the planet? But when an Arctic load of nitrogen is backing into the field behind or or a load of soil is being put into the silage, you know, into a feed bin, you can't find that either. So we do have to clear up our own dirty laundry, but we also have to celebrate the good that we do. but we can't we can't rest on our laurels on that either. We do have to take action now. I think just having got the evidence behind us and with what we're doing, a lot of like farm it. I know certain supply chains communicating. Yeah. Out there and a lot of that supply chains are leading that. Dairy is leading in terms of actually carbon footprint. But I keep going back to beef and sheep. Obviously it's kind of well I know, but they are falling behind in terms of actually measuring their emissions in some in a lot of cases. And the supply chains is quite fragmented. It just makes it a challenge to really get to the first part of the supply chain in a way. So it's just, you know, it's evidence your previous at your previous major actually. Then show what to show the benefits and yeah like, yeah. Just to turn it around from my point of view, we're, you know, we're facing a global issue. Like why shouldn't we be the best industry. You know, we're often talked about like we need to do this. We need to actually let's say we want to do this and we want to be the best at it and kind of celebrate that. And then hopefully other stuff falls into place around, I think celebrate that, but also what agriculture does. So we have various conversations, particularly further up the supply chain. And we always talk about agriculture as a food supplier, for agriculture, as a food on your plate, the fuel in your car, the heat in your homes, the fiber in your back. When done right, the ecosystem services that literally keep the planet spinning, in which case we have such a pivotal role to play in those fields as well as food. We should celebrate those. But we need the data and the evidence of action to be allowed to come and play in those spaces, and a consistent way of measuring that data, I think consistent measuring, we get bogged down with this. Are we all need to use the same tool and various other bits and pieces, even though they're all wrong, but they're all right enough to the same international standards that pick a tool and measure it. Because whatever you're doing, you'll have to read baseline multiple times of bits and pieces. Nobody really cares except about the direction that data is moving. It's the trend over time, and the longer you leave it, the longer it takes to have a trend. And so just get on with it. I also think we need a bit competition in that area as well. I think if it was too uniform, I think it benefits from a bit of a bit of competition in that way. You know, I think that that helps. Yeah, I think it stagnates innovation if we don't. I think having these consistent methodologies though is really important. Obviously, Defra commissioned the work with Das to look at, the carbon calculators and kind of provide recommendations around how they can ensure the most accurate and consistent results. I think having that, is important and like you say, which tool the farmer uses is based on their own business and what's most important to them. But I think industry reporting perspective eventually would be great for farms, for individual farmers to feed their data into the industry reporting system in some way to be able to like for collective reporting. And if we are aren't confident in the results, then we can't do that. So from a benchmarking perspective, industry reporting but from individual farm, yes, it's still there. Still seeing that most important hotspots and mitigation mitigation area. So yes, that's important on a global scale as well. So we already say that we can be in Asia, pack with sort of New Zealand industry, with US industry. And actually at the moment the direction of travel and the plan behind it is what wins contract wins the right to supply, which obviously then affects our, you know, positively our milk price. It will come to a point where actually cold, hard numbers are okay, and you will have to have trust that the New Zealand model and the Irish model and the, you know, UK models are comparative enough that you're comparing apples and apples. Otherwise we start to lose business because some are more creative than others, maybe. And just, again, from a farmer point of view, I hear an awful lot about data. Now, a lot of a lot of farmers are very skeptical about where data goes and who owns data. And I think there is a bit of a I think there's a bit of tidying up to do in that area, I think is really highlighted in the SFS scheme when, when, you know, the Welsh Government were looking for benchmarking and looking for these calculations and a lot of farmers might well actually whose is this data is it should be mine, I should own it. But it's kind of being put out there. Is it. And I think there is a bit of something to do there to give confidence. It's transparent today how that data is being utilized, that and demonstrating value for it. I mean, the SFS is a great example. You know, all farmers supply any three pieces of data into an unknown tool that will give an unknown thing back. I mean, just terrible, terrible sort of pace. What is the value for the farmer in doing that? We supply benchmarking platform free of charge to every farmer and pay them to move their data, because there is a small amount of value in it, but it's worthless until it comes together, and then it's only really a benefit to them. But there's a huge amount, a huge amount of transparency. But also what is the value in doing it? Because otherwise why would we need it? And I think as an industry, we need to be honest about why we want the data. We keep telling farms, you need this data and that data and not farmers don't. They're awash with it. They have too much of it, actually. We want the data and we need to be honest about that. And that point there when is too much? Oh, it's far too much. So it's coming from all directions. You know, if you're a dairy farmer, you've got your milk processed and you've got banks now asking for data, you've got, you know, so many you've got you got your red tractor there. It's coming from all angles. And I think that is not helping things. I think it's really important. Like you say, let the farmers need that one sort of space where they can report their data and it all kind of goes, I know the HDB have been trying to work on the livestock for a long time. It hasn't really. But that theory is has that it has so much potential and it has been done that. Yeah, it should be met in this help. For example, it's starting to kick off now and all of the data in in the Welsh Welsh fats is being put it automatically onto the med hub, something like that for other sort of like environmental reporting and greenhouse gas reporting. It would be like really, really useful. I still think we as the industry are benefiting more from the farmer. So we did an exercise with the pig industry. There were 150 things that pig farmers were measuring, and none of them were key performance indicators. And actually, if you can't if you can't understand whether your business is is operating across sort of those those key pillars of business with between 4 and 8 KPIs, then then there's a deeper problem of sort of being able to understand how your business runs, because and that's the difference. I think farmers need KPIs. We as an industry need to be able to say, look, we're safeguarding your reputation and I need a bit more depth to this, or I need more context, or I have to be able to demonstrate more trust. And then we show you and the value through the access to the markets, the farmers themselves. We need to be really honest with them. They shouldn't be measuring all of this stuff. There should be eight maximum eight key figures across any agricultural business. So profitability, productivity, yields and health. And if you can't understand your business from those there's a deeper problem. Yes that's that's it simple. It's not the farmers skill set. Farmers have to be enough things. You know they don't have to be a data analyst as well. Yeah I think that's one of the challenges, is that it's the time that it takes up, but also it's not something that comes natural to some farmers. The accessibility is a real problem. I mean, the reason we put the benchmarking platform together is we give farmers loads and loads of information and a lot of averages, and the average human being has got one breast and and one other reproductive organ. And obviously, you know, that's only me. so it's, it's, you know, it's just not realistic to, to use, but for farmers to find that information is a whole nother skillset. It's a whole nother time allocation. So we need to make it easy. You know, if you want somebody to push the door, take the handle off. Yeah, yeah. Make it easy. Yeah, yeah. Make it so obvious to do what they need to do. And I think that's how we need to move with data. Stop talking about data and start talking about information. I'm just going to say that it's still a big challenge logistically. And and loads of parts of rural areas in the UK. So I'd like to. Yeah. Don't even have network for to say all this tech and data about it. But but it's very true. You know, the ability to even submit to data online. The technology isn't there. And that's a fundamental that's needed. So I think the thing we've proved with the engagement with farmers so far to ourselves, and I say praise because we've got our own little echo chamber of self-affirmation. So use it loosely is sustainability and progress and speed is a close contact sport. If you want to move fast and you really want to influence human beings because it's human beings that make the change, you need human beings to influence. They learn best from peers. They're motivated by peers or allies or sort of compatriots in the industry, in which case there is a role for digital. But I'd argue we've we've over eggs because it tends to be cheaper, it tends to be less labor. And we put a lot of hype into it. But you want to move hard and fast by 2030, you've got to put boots on the ground and that is an investment. As an industry, we have to make. Yeah, because I think there is definitely a danger that you also you get the same audience with you, which you've touched on, but often that audience might be in a very different place to the average. And I think there, you know, there is a there is an issue that I think actually when you look really well, we're going to have to wrap up. But one question I wanted to end on, and it's quite a broad question, but where do you see the future of British agriculture? Who's best I mean, I'm currently doing enough field on how do we get, young people involved in agriculture from, through conversations like this and, and I have a worry that we don't have enough young people driving innovation. I think we really need to look at recruitment technology. All of those things are actually kind of growing in other industries. And I think we're leaving it behind slightly. And I think that's that's where I is going. just I'm not sure it's going there fast enough. So I'm more focused on innovation and technology in general. I think for me that is driven by by the people working within the industry. And I just don't think we focus enough on getting getting good people in and who can drive that change people, that key. Yeah, people 100%. And I think we've we've let that go for too long. And I ask everybody whose responsibility that is and everybody says it's everyone else's. So I think yeah, I think that's the biggest piece. Yeah. I'll be interested to bring to Nuffield once it's finished. And Megan, so, I, you know, that the industry will always be racing food. So we're still going to be producing food, but hopefully in a way that sort of benefits the whole secular systems. So livestock a bit more mix sort of farming systems, region principles. But obviously if they're built on the sort of these 100 year old principles that have been going on utilizing innovation and technology to really take farming that step further. But bringing is that that step back in the I think livestock are really part of the part of the solution and kind of bringing that more diverse, mixed farming systems is something I'd really like to see. Yeah, I mean, it depends really much on on the attitude that Dan sort of mentioned in the industry that, you know, there's there's the old parable of the three people, anybody somebody's a nobody at the moment. We say that, you know, there's jobs, any doing anybody could do them, somebody should do them. And nobody actually is. I think if we carry on like that, yeah, we'll still be producing food, but we'll start to lose market access because we're not doing the minimum requirements expected by the consumer or legally. That said, if people step up, they stand up and be counted. And we see some real leadership, particularly from those who are meant to be supporting us, actually we will see ourselves not only thriving in our own industry, but generating the fuel in cars and the heat in homes and the fiber on back profitably and actually starting to see a return for that. And that's a very different narrative. It's very, very difficult to withdraw that that sort of engagement with food across the sectors, when actually it's making sure your Amazon delivery turns up the next day still and it's carbon negative. for any change, I think we don't need one leader. We need multiple leaders in the sector. We need to be driving it forward. That was really insightful discussion. Thank you so much for your time and enjoy the rest of day groundswell. I think you.