Farmers are facing increasing pressure from banks, regulators and supply chains to demonstrate sustainability credentials, but confusion reigns over which tools to use and why carbon audits matter.

Speaking during a recent webinar hosted by agri-data specialists Map of Ag, George Badger from Ceres Rural highlighted the growing demand for robust on-farm carbon data – and the challenges this creates for farmers.

"Supply chains, auditors, regulators are all demanding more information (from farmers), and there's a lot of confusion if you're a farmer, as to which tool you should be using if you're looking at carbon auditing. Many are also asking why they should be carrying out a carbon audit," explained Mr Badger.

While some farmers are motivated by financial incentives, such as grants or supply chain requirements, others are introduced to carbon audits through funded support schemes like the Defra Farm Resilience Fund. But for those not directly involved in these routes, uptake remains limited.

The webinar drew on real-life case studies from emissions reviews carried out under the Resilience Fund in collaboration with Map of Ag. These focused on emissions within farmers' control – such as fertiliser use, fuel consumption and livestock fermentation – rather than sequestration.

"Too often we see farms getting distracted by sequestration. We would rather help a farm be more efficient in what they are producing than necessarily trying to mask those emissions by increasing their sequestration," said Mr Badger.

A mixed arable and sheep farm was used to demonstrate results from targeted changes, including introducing herbal leys and removing poorer arable land from production. This led to:

• A 15% reduction in emissions
• A 5% increase in sequestration
• A yield increase from 7.7 to 8.2t/ha
• A drop in wheat emissions intensity from 0.44 to 0.40 tCO₂e/t

"This is equivalent to removing 20 petrol cars from the road," noted Mr Badger.

The session emphasised the importance of emissions intensity – the carbon footprint per unit of output – as a more effective performance metric, directly linked to both productivity and profitability.

Mr Badger highlighted a dairy farm that saw a 5% drop in milk emissions intensity after moving to robotic milking, increasing yields from 9,250L to 10,500L per cow. An arable farm achieved a similar 6% improvement through variable rate fertiliser application using satellite NDVI imagery.

However, Mr Badger warned that cost is a limiting factor: "We are waiting to see how the Sustainable Farming Incentive and other government grants play out. We think they will come back, but in a much smaller capacity. There is potential for farmers to access funding from other sources, be that via their supply chain, or we might start to see perhaps improved rates for borrowing against certain projects that we know and can model."

"There is good opportunity for farmers to make these changes, but with the right support and in a way that is as simple as possible at a farm level," he added.