Terminology or Profitability?

Farmers would say that the most they have in common with net zero is their cash flow, and offsetting bills would be preferable than emissions.  Businesses are now looking in some form or another at what emissions they are producing.  Some see this as a burden, an additional paper exercise, from an ever increasing out of touch bureaucracy forced upon them.  Some see it as an opportunity to market an unvalued commodity or to promote their enterprise and educate the public.  There is however a lot of confusion when talking about the same topic, the environment.  Farming has always been about efficiency and by looking at ways to improve will help financially and environmentally.

The terms -

Net Zero is the term thrown around to define a target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases produced by human activity, to be achieved by reducing emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Oxford English Dictionary).

The UK signed up to achieving its net zero goal by 2050.  In practice to achieve this means a massive shift for business and society.  Radically changing people’s behaviour and industry investment practices takes a lot of time and money.  This is getting to be a hard sell to the public who feel cash poor and political suicide for policy makers.

Carbon Foot Printing is the term used to describe the amount of carbon an individual unit is producing.  The measurement of the unit might be a person, business or industry, a litre of fuel or milk.  All the different schemes look at:

• The direct emissions – produced.  Methane from livestock and manures.
• The indirect emissions – this is usually energy purchased.  Feed, fuel, electricity and fertiliser.
• Other – emissions that occur in a company’s value chain.  Depending on the business and model this may include additions or subtractions from other enterprises.

In practice this still means there is quite a lot of room to manoeuvre when collecting the information and presenting it.  The term green washing has been used to describe the efforts of some companies when trying to explain greenhouse gas emission drops, without any robust evidence.

Larger firms are using ISO standards 14064-1, and ISO 14065.  Within this the business determines the boundaries of the entity being verified.  In practice it’s the verification that matters and data is now being collated and measured so in theory the structure should follow as the arguments are being had.

Nutrient Offsetting has become a hot topic over the last three years.  The implementation of Nutrient Neutrality to house builders reduced the number of houses that are being built because the amount of land needs to offset the nutrients used in the projects was unavailable.

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is a latecomer to the environmental terminology scene.  BNG is seen as a way of quantifying the creation and continued improvement of a piece of land.  This is done through calculations on where the piece of ground is at the start and what measures must be done to improve it.  A hectare of bare grassland would have a low value (in biodiversity) and an oak woodland would have a high value.  The transformation from one to the other is the gain and the calculation between the two is the monetary value to the farmer.

So what!
All the terms have cross overs that are confusing.  Net zero is different from carbon neutral, but methane is one of the largest parts of a carbon audit.  Offsetting implies you carry on as normal if you find a way to reduce the impact someone else is making.

It would be easy to pick holes in all these schemes and there are many, but what they all have in common with farming is they are based on the long game.  The disagreements come at who pays that cost and the initial value.

Like any farming enterprise they require a base measurement of where we are now.  It is important to understand how much of an impact a business is having now to decide over a period on whether to continue or change direction.  Methane will still be coming out of livestock because of the way it is produced, but the farming system can mitigate the amount the business produces, and all these efficiencies can improve financial and physical performance.

Livestock Improvements – fertility, growth rates, genetics, and feed efficiency.

Nutrient Planning - soil sampling can help build up a picture of soil fertility, organic matter, pH and impact crops in the short term, improving yields and reducing bought in feed.

Renewable Energy – solar, wind and anaerobic digestion reduce the amount of electricity being used on farm from other sources.

Once a business knows how much it is producing and how much it can save then it can look at further possibilities of selling to others.  Do you know where the improvements are within your business efficiencies?  What are your base line measurements?  How efficient is your nutrient use on farm?  To look at these areas which will help your carbon footprint and your business profitability, contact Allaster at allasterdallas@fcgagric.com or Tel: 07496 760242.