DOCSLIB.ORG

Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture i Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture A report for WWF Scotland from the Organic Policy, Business and Research Consultancy Authors: Nic Lampkin, Laurence Smith, Katrin Padel NOVEMBER 2019 ii Contents Executive summary............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Portfolio of mitigation measures ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Measuring greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential .............................................. 3 2.3 Emission reduction measures to be analysed ................................................................................... 5 A. Improved nitrogen fertiliser use ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 M1 (E1, FBC): Improving synthetic N utilisation ........................................................................ 5 2.3.2 M2 (E6): Controlled release fertilisers (CRF) ............................................................................. 6 2.3.3 M3 (E10): Precision applications to crops ................................................................................. 6 2.3.4 M4 (NP29, NP30): Urea replacement and urease inhibitor ...................................................... 7 2.3.5 M5 (NP32): Phosphorus fertilisers ............................................................................................ 7 B. Improved use and integration of organic manures and slurries ............................................................... 7 2.3.6 M6 (E2, FBC): Improving organic N planning ............................................................................. 7 2.3.7 M7 (E3): Low emission manure and slurry spreading ............................................................... 8 2.3.8 M8 (E4): Shifting autumn manure applications to spring ......................................................... 8 C. Improved soil management ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.9 M9 (NP6): Cultivate land for crops in spring rather than autumn ............................................ 9 2.3.10 M10 (NP7, FL6, MMAN): Reduced or minimum tillage ............................................................. 9 2.3.11 M11 (E11, NP8, NP15): Loosening compacted soils and preventing soil compaction ............ 10 2.3.12 M12: Improved drainage for reducing frequency of waterlogging ......................................... 10 2.3.13 M13 (NP28): Nitrification inhibitors ........................................................................................ 10 D. Improved crop selection and management ............................................................................................ 11 2.3.14 M14 (E5): Use of catch and cover crops .................................................................................. 11 2.3.15 M15 (E7): Plant varieties with improved N-use efficiency ...................................................... 11 2.3.16 M16 (E8, FBC): Grain legumes in crop rotations ..................................................................... 11 2.3.17 M17 (E9, FBC): Legume-grass mixtures (reducing requirement for synthetic N) ................... 11 E. Improved mechanisation ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.18 M18 (E24): Fuel efficiency of mobile machinery ..................................................................... 12 F. Improved livestock management and genetics ....................................................................................... 12 2.3.19 M19 (E12, FBC): Improving ruminant nutrition ....................................................................... 13 2.3.20 M20 (E13): Probiotic feed additive .......................................................................................... 13 2.3.21 M21 (E14): Nitrate feed additive ............................................................................................. 13 2.3.22 M22 (E15. FBC): High fat diet for ruminants (dietary lipids) ................................................... 13 2.3.23 M23: 3-Nitrooxypropanol (3NOP) ........................................................................................... 14 2.3.24 M24 (E16, FBC): Improving cattle health ................................................................................. 14 2.3.25 M25 (E17. FBC): Improving sheep health ................................................................................ 14 2.3.26 M26 (E18, FBC): Selection for balanced breeding goals .......................................................... 14 i 2.3.27 M27: Improved grazing management of cattle and sheep ..................................................... 15 2.3.28 M28 (FL11): Precision and multiple phase feeding ................................................................. 16 G. Improved manure management ............................................................................................................. 16 2.3.29 M29 (E19): Slurry acidification ................................................................................................ 16 2.3.30 M30 (MMFB): Slurry store covering ........................................................................................ 16 2.3.31 M31 (E20-E22): Anaerobic digestion ....................................................................................... 17 2.3.32 M32: Slurry aeration ................................................................................................................ 18 2.3.33 M33: Composting/covering of farmyard manures and other solid organic wastes................ 18 H. Improved systems design ........................................................................................................................ 19 2.3.34 M34: Conservation agriculture ................................................................................................ 20 2.3.35 M35: Organic farming .............................................................................................................. 20 2.3.36 M36 Pasture-fed livestock production .................................................................................... 20 2.3.37 M37 (E6.3): Agroforestry ......................................................................................................... 21 I. Reducing food losses and food waste ...................................................................................................... 22 2.4 Summary of 100% abatement potential of each measure.............................................................. 24 2.5 Impacts on other private and public benefits ................................................................................. 29 3 Applicability, adoption requirements, barriers, timescales and sequencing .......................................... 31 4 Agricultural implications .......................................................................................................................... 38 5 Discussion of assumptions and results .................................................................................................... 48 6 Policy options .......................................................................................................................................... 52 6.1 Farming system payments for innovative approaches (whole or part farm) .................................. 52 6.2 Input reduction and improved soil management............................................................................ 52 6.3 Regulatory and fiscal options .......................................................................................................... 53 6.4 Carbon, nitrogen and sustainability auditing .................................................................................. 54 6.5 Training, advice and skills ................................................................................................................ 54 6.6 Improved greenhouse gas monitoring and statistics ...................................................................... 55 6.7 Targeted research ............................................................................................................................ 55 6.8 Dietary change and food waste reduction ...................................................................................... 56 6.9 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 57 7 Glossary of terms ..................................................................................................................................... 58 ii Executive summary The aim of this study was to identify whether, how and at what cost agricultural GHG emissions in Scotland could be reduced by 35% by 2045. In 2017, Scottish agricultural GHG emissions were estimated to be 7.6 Mt CO2e making the 35% target 2.7 Mt CO2e. Building on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Livestock Performance for Sheep and Cattle Grazing Lowland Permanent Pasture: Benchmarking Potential of Forage-Based Systems
    agronomy Article Livestock Performance for Sheep and Cattle Grazing Lowland Permanent Pasture: Benchmarking Potential of Forage-Based Systems Robert J. Orr 1, Bruce A. Griffith 1, M. Jordana Rivero 1,* and Michael R. F. Lee 1,2 1 Rothamsted Research, Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB, UK; [email protected] (R.J.O.); bruce.griffi[email protected] (B.A.G.); [email protected] (M.R.F.L.) 2 University of Bristol, Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-1837-512302 Received: 29 January 2019; Accepted: 18 February 2019; Published: 21 February 2019 Abstract: Here we describe the livestock performance and baseline productivity over a two-year period, following the establishment of the infrastructure on the North Wyke Farm Platform across its three farmlets (small farms). Lowland permanent pastures were continuously stocked with yearling beef cattle and ewes and their twin lambs for two years in three farmlets. The cattle came into the farmlets as suckler-reared weaned calves at 195 32.6 days old weighing 309 45.0 kg, were ± ± housed indoors for 170 days then turned out to graze weighing 391 54.2 kg for 177 days. Therefore, ± it is suggested for predominantly grass-based systems with minimal supplementary feeding that target live weight gains should be 0.5 kg/day in the first winter, 0.9 kg/day for summer grazing and 0.8 kg/day for cattle housed and finished on silage in a second winter. The sheep performance suggested that lambs weaned at 100 days and weighing 35 kg should finish at 200 days weighing 44 to 45 kg live weight with a killing out percentage of 44%.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Executive Summary
    Future Friendly Farming Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Ryan Stockwell and Eliav Bitan August 2011 Future Friendly Farming Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Ryan Stockwell and Eliav Bitan August 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the contributions of many people in the development of this report. Julie Sibbing and Aviva Glaser provided guidance and editing. Bill McGuire provided content and consulted on the development of the report. Mekell Mikell provided insightful edits. A number of reviewers provided helpful feedback on various drafts of this report. We appreciate the time everyone took to talk with us about their practices or projects. Finally we would like to thank the Packard Foundation for their support of this project. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................3 CHART: Multiple benefits of agriculture and land management practices ......................................................................4 1. Cover Crops ...........................................................................................5 CASE STUDY: Minnesota Corn and Soybean Farmer Grows Profits, as well as Water Quality and Climate Benefits .........................................................................6 CASE STUDY: Cover Cropping North Dakota Grain and Cattle Farmers Grow Profits, as
    [Show full text]
  • Dairy Farmer Profitability Using Intensive Rotational Stocking
    Dairy Farmer Profitability Using United States Department of Intensive Rotational Agriculture Natural Stocking Resources Conservation Service Better grazing management Grazing Lands for pastures Technology Institute In 1992, Pennsylvania State University researchers conducted a study of the profitability of dairy farms practicing intensive rotational grazing. The 52 cooperating farmers were selected completely at random, with a stratified random sample statistical design, from among nearly 15 percent, or 350 farmers, practic- ing intensive grazing in a five-county region of northeastern Pennsylvania—Bradford, Tioga, Susquehanna, Wyoming, and Wayne Counties. The results from this study reflect typical use of intensive rotational stocking. The randomness of the sample selection ensures that the results reported here are representative, and can most likely be achieved by the typical farmer. September 1996 For additional copies of this publication, contact— Grazing Lands Technology Institute USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. 6567 Fort Worth, Texas 76115 Dairy Farmer Profitability Using Intensive Rotational Stocking Figure 1. In a study of dairy farmer practices in a five-county area of northeastern Pennsylvania, farmers using pasture cut feed costs and increased profit per cow. One of the first representative studies of dairy Why typical dairy farmers adopt farmers practicing intensive rotational stocking was intensive rotational stocking conducted by Pennsylvania State University. The grazing method is defined as rotation of grazing cows In this 1992 study, the main reasons cited by dairy among several small pasture subunits called pad- farmers (fig. 2) for adopting intensive rotational docks versus stocking for continuously grazing one stocking were reduced costs and labor, they had large pasture.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Meadows and Enclosed Pasture
    Meadows and enclosed pasture 7 Definition and location of meadows and enclosed pasture ................................ 7:3 7.1 Definition of meadows and enclosed pasture ....................................... 7:3 7.2 Location and extent of meadows and enclosed pasture .............................. 7:4 Habitats and species of meadows and enclosed pasture in the uplands ..................... 7:5 7.3 Why meadows and enclosed pasture are important ................................. 7:5 7.4 Habitats and species of meadows and enclosed pasture, their nature conservation status and distribution ................................................................... 7:5 7.4.1 Vascular plants ......................................................... 7:5 7.4.2 Bryophytes ............................................................. 7:6 7.4.3 Plant communities ...................................................... 7:6 7.4.4 Birds .................................................................. 7:8 7.4.5 Invertebrates ........................................................... 7:9 7.4.6 Mammals ............................................................. 7:10 7.4.7 Amphibians and reptiles ................................................ 7:10 7.5 Habitat and management requirements of meadow and enclosed pasture species ...... 7:10 Management of upland meadows and enclosed pasture .................................. 7:11 7.6 Managing upland meadows and enclosed pasture ................................. 7:11 7.6.1 Establishing management objectives
    [Show full text]
  • Regenerative Consumer TOOLKIT Find Food, Fiber and Other Goods Produced in a Way That Slows Down Climate Change
    Regenerative Consumer TOOLKIT Find food, fiber and other goods produced in a way that slows down climate change Hear the buzz about regenerative farming, but not sure what that means for YOU? Want to find carbon-farmed goods? Want to #changeclimatechange in a way that feels empowering and tastes amazing? Then read on. Photo: Shawn Linehan In a world so filled with problems that it’s easy to feel overwhelmed, here’s a bit of good news: Farmers and scientists around the world are confirming time and time again that a major climate solution lies in something as simple as soil: healthy soil can absorb excess carbon from the atmosphere and store it safely for long periods of time. The practices for increasing this capacity in the soil are low-tech, low-cost, and accessible, and bring with them numerous other environmental benefits. We call them regenerative farming practices. This is farming that can help to slow down or potentially even reverse global warming. So there it is. Farming doesn’t have to be destructive, it can be restorative. The way you meet your daily material needs doesn’t have to be destructive, it can be restorative. You don’t need to be a farmer to participate in this regenerative revolution. If you eat food, wear clothes, or use any products that can be traced back to farm- land somewhere, you are already a part of the equation that can make this work. You already have a say. And it’s quite simple: By supporting regenerative farms and companies that source from them, YOU can help to slow down or potentially even reverse global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Socio-Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Crop-Livestock Production Systems and Issues for Rearing Improvement: a Review
    Available online at http://www.ifgdg.org Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 12(1): 519-541, February 2018 ISSN 1997-342X (Online), ISSN 1991-8631 (Print) Review Paper http://ajol.info/index.php/ijbcs http://indexmedicus.afro.who.int Socio-demographic and economic characteristics, crop-livestock production systems and issues for rearing improvement: A review Daniel Bignon Maxime HOUNDJO1, Sébastien ADJOLOHOUN1*, Basile GBENOU1, Aliou SAIDOU2, Léonard AHOTON2, Marcel HOUINATO1, Soumanou SEIBOU TOLEBA1 and Brice Augustin SINSIN3 1Département de Production Animale, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, 03 BP 2819 Jéricho, Cotonou, Benin. 2Département de Production Végétale, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, 03 BP 2819 Jéricho, Cotonou, Benin. 3Département de l’Aménagement et Gestion des Ressources Naturelles, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, 03 BP 2819 Jéricho, Cotonou, Benin. *Corresponding author; E-mail : [email protected]; Tél: (+229) 97 89 88 51 ABSTRACT This paper reviews some characteristics of crop-livestock production systems in Benin with a special focus on the issues for enhance pasture production and nutritive value which in turn will increase animal productivity. Benin is located in the Gulf of Guinea of the Atlantic Ocean in West Africa and covers 114,763 km2. The population estimated in 2017 is 10,900,000 inhabitants with an annual population growth rate of 3.5%. The country is primarily an agro-based economy, characterized by subsistence agricultural production that employs more than 70%. The climate ranges from the bimodal rainfall equatorial type in the south to the tropical unimodal monsoon type in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Sheep & Goats to Improve Your Beef Pasture
    Advantages and Challenges of Multi-species Grazing Randy Saner Extension Educator Multi-species grazing • To control weeds and brush, while yielding Cattle, sheep, and goats have complementary foraging more pounds of gain per behavior. acre. Sheep/goats and cattle and • To increase carrying horses generally do not share capacity of pasture. the same parasites. • To control parasites. • To diversify income. • To reduce predation. Image: Missouri NRCS Decrease Risk • Disease • Break Each Others Parasite Cycles • Very Few Diseases that Cross Species • Drought • Marketing • More Opportunities to Sell Image: Terrell Ranch Decrease Overheads Image: Double M Farms • Labor • Fence • Fall and Winter Cattle Work • Land • Add one Ewe or Doe per cow Image: Double M Farms Image: Double M Farms Harvesting Multiple Layers Off the Same Land • Decrease Marketing Risk • Increase Diversity • Spread Out Labor and Other Overheads Image: Terrell Ranch Adding Sheep or Goats to a Cattle Operation • Profitable • H2A Program • Bringing in a trained • Labor Management work force • Wool • Guard Dogs • Reduce predator loss • Family Friendly • Cold May Rains can be • Positive Range Impact a problem • Enterprise Stacking • Lamb with wool on if in pasture • Meet New People • Prejudice Against • Fencing Sheep • Steep Learning Curve Double M Farms (Mixed Livestock Operation) • 40 (1200lbs.) cows 230 (130lbs.) ewes and 40 (130 lbs.) does on 400 acres 7.5 ewes = 1 AU 7.5 does = 1 AU and 1 cow = 1.3 AU • Pasture based rotationally grazed pastures at two locations 3 miles apart • 16 paddocks (240 acre) • 13 paddocks (160 acres) • 48,000 lbs. of cattle, 29,900 lbs. of sheep and 5,200 lbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Insurance (PRF) 2021 Crop Year
    Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Insurance (PRF) 2021 crop year The Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Insurance Program (PRF) is designed to help protect a farm operation from the risks of forage loss due to the lack of precipitation*. This insurance can mitigate increased costs for feed, destocking, depopulating or other actions that result due to losses of forage produced for grazing or harvested for hay. The coverage is based on precipitation expected during specific intervals, as designated by the producer. The PRF program utilizes a rainfall index to determine precipitation for coverage purposes, and does not measure production or loss of products themselves. * PRF is NOT designed to insure against ongoing or severe drought. How Rainfall is Measured and Index Interval RMA uses the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Prediction Center (NOAA CPC) data to track rainfall levels in a grid system, with each grid approximately 17 x 17 square miles. Acres to be insured are located in one or more grids. Rainfall in the insurance year is compared to the 50-year precipitation average for each grid and when the rainfall during the two-month insured period falls below the 50-year average for that grid, the producer may receive an indemnity payment. The index interval represents a two-month period to be insured. The producer selects a minimum of two 2-month intervals to be insured. Coverage and Claims Producers select the coverage level, index intervals and productivity factor. The index interval represents a two-month period to be insured. A period selected should be one when precipitation is important to the producer’s forage production.
    [Show full text]
  • Pasture Species Selection for Sheep
    Pasture Species Selection for Sheep by Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin Pasture and hay forage crops generally fall into four Several choices exist for the long-lived grass depending categories: on soil type, location, and needs of the landowner. These are listed in the UW extension publication entitled A1525 1. Legumes Forage variety update for Wisconsin. It is available from 2. Cool Season Grasses your county extension office or on the web at: 3. Warm Season Grasses http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/A1525.PDF. 4. Alternative/annual forages Major sod forming grasses are Kentucky bluegrass, The last category includes many perennials crops, such smooth bromegrass and reed canary grass. as rape, kale, comfrey, and all annual forage crops, such as sudangrass, sorghum, and various millets. None of • Kentucky bluegrass is commonly used in these should be considered for sheep pasture other than many sheep pastures. This grass is more traffic in emergency situations. tolerant than most grasses. It is very high in forage quality and very palatable. It is more Warm season grasses are generally not recommended for drought and flood tolerant than many grass sheep pasture in the northern states. They are generally species. It is also very tolerant of overgrazing. adapted to warmer climates than Minnesota, Michigan Kentucky bluegrass grows only 20 to 24 inches and Wisconsin because they require high temperatures to tall so the pastures do not look as rank as when grow. Therefore, they start growing later in the spring other taller-growing species are planted. It and quit earlier in the fall than cool season grasses.
    [Show full text]
  • Pastures for Profit: a Guide to Rotational Grazing (A3529) R-10-02-5.5M-500
    A3529 Pastures for profit: A guide to rotational grazing Dan Undersander Beth Albert Dennis Cosgrove Dennis Johnson Paul Peterson Introduction 1 Setting up a rotational Contents Why rotational grazing? 1 grazing system 26 Setting goals and What is rotational grazing? 1 assessing resources 26 Who is using rotational grazing? 2 Length of rest periods 26 Why use rotational grazing? 2 Length of grazing periods 27 Understanding plant growth 5 Grazing groups 28 Plant response to grazing 5 Spring start-up 28 Seasonal pasture growth patterns 8 Seasonal fluctuations Weed control 8 in pasture growth rate 28 Soil fertility 10 Determining stocking rate and acreage needed 29 Pasture establishment/ renovation 10 Drought 30 Stockpiling forage 16 Moving livestock 30 Estimating forage yield 16 Paddocks: How many and how big? 30 Animal needs 20 Paddock layout 31 Animal digestion and nutrient Fencing 33 requirements 20 Lanes and laneways 33 Animal water needs 21 Designing a pasture system 34 Animal grazing 23 Deciding when to move Grazing patterns 23 livestock 35 Selective grazing 23 Evaluating and improving your grazing system 36 Amount of available forage 24 Grazing habits of different animals 24 Animal health on pasture 37 Animal impact on pasture 25 Parasites 37 Bloat 37 Nitrate poisoning and poisonous plants 38 Additional reading back cover Introduction Why rotational What is rotational grazing? grazing? astures represent a largely Under rotational grazing, only one untapped resource for farmers. portion of pasture is grazed at a time P More than one quarter of the while the remainder of the pasture Midwest’s agricultural land is in “rests.” To accomplish this, pastures some form of pasture.
    [Show full text]
  • Farming Facts and Figures, Wales 2019 INTRODUCTION
    Farming Facts and Figures, Wales 2019 INTRODUCTION This is an annual publication produced by the Welsh Government. It provides an overview of agricultural statistics taken from the Welsh June Agricultural Survey and a range of other sources. Latest data are usually for 2018. This document is intended to be a handy pocket guide. For this reason it is selective about the range of information provided and the level of additional explanatory information is kept deliberately minimal. For more detailed information, explanation and commentary please see the full range of agricultural statistics outputs on our website. www.gov.wales/statistics­and­research The following outputs can be found under the “Farming and Countryside” topic: Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture (June Survey) Agricultural Small Areas Statistics Aggregate Agricultural Output and Income Forecasts of Farm Incomes Enquiries relating to any of the tables contained in this publication may be directed to: Stuart Neil (Statistician) Tel: 03000 252244 E-mail: [email protected] 1 © Crown copyright 2019 WG38093 1 LIVESTOCK Dairy sector 2008 2016 2017 2018 Dairy breeding herd (‘000) (a) 228.6 248.7 12 254.3 umber of holdings ith dairy herd 3,643 2,793 2,71 2,666 Average size of herd 63 89 92 95 Beef sector Beef breeding herd (‘000) (a) 15 11 18 16 Number of holdings ith beef herd 8,81 7,435 7,30 7,20 Average size of herd 1 23 23 23 Finished cattle price (b) 1 1 1 11 Sheep sector Total sheep and lambs (‘000) 8,516 9,8105 10037.5 9,508 Number of holdings 110 1023 1738 1755 Average
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture: a Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition
    Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition Updated June 16, 2005 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov 97-905 Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition Summary The complexities of federal farm and food programs have generated a unique vocabulary. Common understanding of these terms (new and old) is important to those involved in policymaking in this area. For this reason, the House Agriculture Committee requested that CRS prepare a glossary of agriculture and related terms (e.g., food programs, conservation, forestry, environmental protection, etc.). Besides defining terms and phrases with specialized meanings for agriculture, the glossary also identifies acronyms, abbreviations, agencies, programs, and laws related to agriculture that are of particular interest to the staff and Members of Congress. CRS is releasing it for general congressional use with the permission of the Committee. The approximately 2,500 entries in this glossary were selected in large part on the basis of Committee instructions and the informed judgment of numerous CRS experts. Time and resource constraints influenced how much and what was included. Many of the glossary explanations have been drawn from other published sources, including previous CRS glossaries, those published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies, and glossaries contained in the publications of various organizations, universities, and authors. In collecting these definitions, the compilers discovered that many terms have diverse specialized meanings in different professional settings. In this glossary, the definitions or explanations have been written to reflect their relevance to agriculture and recent changes in farm and food policies.
    [Show full text]