In Cyprus, the Kot-Kot project shows how animals, food waste and farming can be reconnected to restore soils and reduce reliance on chemicals. But as writer and researcher David McKenzie explores, the challenges it faces highlight a broader dilemma: will food systems reward regenerative, mixed models like this – or continue to favour industrial approaches that externalise their costs?

There is no single solution to building sustainable food futures. Nor is there a silver bullet for establishing resilient food systems that can best respond to the unpredictable impacts and challenges of climate change. It will take a concerted effort, with myriad approaches and solutions working together.

Still, some solutions have more of a ‘feel-good’ factor than others. And this might be one of them.

An olive grove in Cyprus has been taking an innovative (yet incredibly simple) approach to enhancing the organic matter of their soil, while also helping combat the island’s serious food waste problem and providing a means of reducing chemical fertiliser and pesticide use. It’s doing this by taking retired hens from the egg industry and having them roam free on the grove, fed by unwanted food-waste collected from local schools, restaurants, hotels and businesses.

The project, called Kot-Kot, has been running since early 2024 at Akaki Grove, 30 kilometers west of the capital Nicosia. It was instigated by farmer Elena Christoforos, who inherited the semi-abandoned olive grove from her grandfather, and Nicolas Netien, an environmental engineer and soil biologist who Christoforos brought on board in 2021 to help revive the olive and citrus trees.

“My focus is always on growing soil,” says Netien, who has been designing agro-ecological systems in line with a permaculture framework for 20 years. “I grow soil and let the trees grow themselves.”

Within that framework, Netien looks for any and every technique to increase organic matter in the soil, he says, focusing on maintaining a healthy microbiome for the trees’ root systems. In line with this, a diverse ground cover of plants was first established at Akaki Grove to enrich and protect the soil. But Netien wanted to “speed up” these natural processes and carbon cycles by having animals grazing the ground cover.

Christoforos agreed, but as a vegan, she has a zero-kill policy at the grove, instead favouring the maintenance of balanced, diverse ecosystems in which pests kill each other. She insisted that they could only do it if the animals were not to be killed or used for egg, meat or milk production.

That’s where the “happy hens” come in. Animals are expensive to keep and to feed, and if they weren’t going to have them for meat, egg or dairy production then it made sense, as Netien puts it, to find animals that nobody wants. Chickens, in particular, are “great workers” for the olive trees, since they not only clear the ground cover and unwanted weeds, reverting nutrients back into the soil via their fertile droppings but also provide excellent pest control by pecking at the larvae of insects like the infamous olive fly, traditional adversary of Mediterranean olive growers.

And so, with the help of free-range egg farmer and olive grower Nicholas Schizas, Kot-Kot managed to adopt a few hundred two-year-old hens coming out of the egg industry, who have finished their productive laying years and otherwise would’ve been slaughtered (yet still with plenty of ‘retirement’ years ahead, having a life expectancy of eight years or more).

From there, the next issue was sourcing food for the hens. Again, without any income that would usually come from egg or meat production, this needed to be cheap (if not free).

Coincidentally, however, Cyprus has a terrible food waste problem.

Cyprus generates by far the most food waste per capita of any country in Europe at around 300 kg per year, more than double the EU average of 132 kg/inhabitant. To make matters worse, the island nation’s waste management system has been mired in scandal and mismanagement for years, leading to hefty fines from the EU for continuously failing to meet waste management targets and failing to establish adequate facilities for processing mixed municipal waste (including organic waste), despite heavy EU funding specifically for such projects since at least 2015.

Our Global Farm Metric Project’s Officer, Olivia Boothman, recently took a visit to Somerset House where ‘Soil: The World at Our Feet’, is currently exhibiting in London. Reflecting on her visit, Olivia writes about the impact of overlooking the ground beneath our feet and the power of soil to better connect us to the Earth.

“ ‘Look up’ we are often told, an invitation to pause chaotic lives and cast our eyes skywards to appreciate the wonder of the world. But what if instead of looking up, we looked down?”

This was the question posed to me by the writing on the wall as I stood in the opening room of the exhibition Soil: The World at Our Feet at Somerset House.

As the curators encouraged me to imagine taking off my shoes and allowing my toes to sink into the soil, I stood there, disappointed in myself, thinking ‘when was the last time I felt the soil?’ The only memory that sprung to mind was a dramatic skid down a steep hill on a rainy day at Hampstead Heath… very Bridget Jones-esque.

I glanced around and wondered how many of my fellow gallery goers – who likely also rushed from their last meeting, hopped on the tube and navigated the mycelial network of Somerset House’s underground hallways to get to the exhibition on time – were asking themselves the same question?

I continued reading: “Is it crumbly and aerated? Does it clump together? Is it cool on your skin?” These were almost exactly the same questions I asked farmers as we carried out a VESS (visual examination of soil structure) test as part of our trials of the Global Farm Metric framework. I was astounded by the lack of knowledge some farmers had of the most basic and intuitive indicators of soil health.

With the advent of advanced laboratory soil testing, have farmers become reliant on technological tests and lost the skills of interpreting the look, feel, smell or even the sound of soil? I have sympathy with them – in my previous career as a farm vet, I would have been far more confident reaching for the ultrasound scanner to rapidly detect pregnancy than rely on physical examination and palpation alone.

“As the curators encouraged me to imagine taking off my shoes and allowing my toes to sink into the soil, I stood there, disappointed in myself, thinking ‘when was the last time I felt the soil?”

But what has been the impact of us all overlooking soil for so long?

The answer was highlighted in my favourite piece in the exhibition. In 1983, the artist David Nash cut a circular patch of turf from the Serpentine Gallery in Hyde Park and transplanted it in a field in North Wales and vice versa, taking turf from North Wales back to London. Botanists counted just three species in the field from Hyde Park, compared to 27 in the Welsh field. In 2024, artist Mike Perry decided to repeat the experiment, taking the patch of urban ground from Springfield Park, in my home borough of Hackney, and swapping it with a patch of farmland in Pembrokeshire National Park in West Wales. This time around, botanists counted 39 species in the urban turf, and only four in the Welsh turf. Of course, the amount of biodiversity is hugely dependent on what sort of farming has taken place. As the SFT recently showcased in a new film about a farm in Snowdonia, regenerative grazing practices can help to support a staggering abundance of wildlife.

I can attest to the biodiversity of Hackney’s parks. Every June, I watch – slightly bemused – selfies being taken against a backdrop of wildflowers. The photos make a splash on Instagram for sure, but I refuse to believe that the wildflowers feature for aesthetics only. I think these selfies represent people’s desire to be reconnected with nature. In the same way, I am sure that many visitors to the Soil exhibition are doing so to learn about the ‘the world at our feet’ – this matter which sustains us – and what they can do to better understand it, increasing a connection with it. The power of seeing-is-believing experiences can be transformative in engaging with the natural world, which is why the SFT is developing the Beacon Farms Network. The Network brings together sustainable and regenerative farms acting as educational platforms to inform and inspire young people and adults about the story behind their food and to get their hands back in the soil.

Although it can be easy to despair of our growing disconnect – between rural and urban, farmer and consumer, wild and cultivated, our needs and wants – the closing room of the exhibition offered a reminder that food can be the cure to all of these. We make decisions about what to eat three times a day, and our food choices matter.

Thanks to this exhibition, this weekend, you will find me in my tiny garden, getting my hands stuck in the soil!

Soil: The World at Our Feet is on at Somerset House until 13^th April.

The saying “you are what you eat” is commonly recognised, but a greater truth lies just beneath the surface – you are also what your food eats. Whether we consume plants or animals, the quality of what they eat – nutrients from the soil, animal feed or even chemical additives – ultimately affects our health.

Today, industrial farming methods are heavily dependent on monocropping practices, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides – all of which harm biodiversity and soil organisms, much like how the overuse of antibiotics affects humans. These agricultural practices have developed in tandem with government and market incentivisation that promote increasingly processed diets high in sugar, fat and processed meat. Between 2016 and 2021, government subsidies from 72 countries including all countries within the EU averaged $149.2 billion annually. It is, then, no surprise that diet-related non-communicable diseases such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease are at an all-time high across the globe.

On the heels of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s controversial Senate hearing to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services, it is important to acknowledge an agenda item at the top of his list that is commonplace. Despite disagreements over his broader views, health experts and scientists share his belief that “human health and environmental injuries are intertwined.” You are what you eat, and what you are eating (generally speaking) is food that is grown or reared on soil that is severely lacking in nutrients.

Soil: The foundation for a healthy life

Soil is more than just dirt – it is a living, dynamic system that is fundamentally important to terrestrial life. Nutrients in our soil are absorbed by plants and, in turn, become the foundation of our diets by either feeding us directly or by feeding the animals we ultimately eat. More specifically, soil provides us with a habitat for diverse organisms, it is a reservoir for carbon, nutrients and water. It also helps regulate erosion, influences climate through greenhouse gas exchange and sustains human societies by enabling food and livestock production.

Healthy soil allows plants to develop strong immune systems and produce phytochemicals – compounds with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that benefit human health. However, today’s global agricultural systems have led to widespread soil degradation. Modern farming practices like monocropping and excessive synthetic fertiliser use have depleted soil nutrients, resulting in less nutrient-dense foods and, ultimately, less livestock.

When soil is degraded, crops become more vulnerable to pests and disease, leading to increased pesticide use and potentially harmful residues in our food. Though we may eat a diet rich in vegetables and grains, depleted soil means we often don’t get the vitamins and minerals we need for optimal health. Hospital data for England and Wales in 2023 revealed a threefold increase in diagnoses linked to poor diet in the past decade, with nearly half a million people admitted to the hospital with iron deficiencies, hundreds of thousands with vitamin deficiencies, and more than 10,000 cases of malnutrition in 2023 alone.

You are what your food eats

Soil feeds us and our food. Livestock reared on pastures with a diversity of plant species produce more nutrient-dense meat and milk than those fed grain-based or sometimes genetically modified feed. Studies have shown that livestock that are primarily fed on grass could make a significant contribution to our supply of several key nutrients, including protein – in the UK, for instance, grasslands currently produce enough protein to meet one-third of our national requirements. As outlined in the Sustainable Food Trust’s Feeding Britain From the Ground Up report, farming systems would become more efficient by shifting from grain-based livestock production, which uses land that could grow food for humans, to pasture-based systems. Currently, one-third of global cropland is dedicated to growing livestock feed, while around one-third of all food produced is lost each year. Repurposing this land for direct human consumption could feed an additional 4 billion people – which would have notable benefits for national food security.

Among other benefits, well-managed grasslands and grazing livestock enable more circular cropping systems that diminish the need for synthetic inputs, provide a significant supply of nutrient-dense food from forage, support increased levels of biodiversity, and offer a broad range of social and cultural benefits.

A soil-first mindset is non-negotiable

If we are what we eat – and what our food eats – then the health of our soil must be a global health priority. The depletion of soil nutrients and micronutrient deficiencies through industrial farming has not only compromised the nutritional quality of our food but has also contributed to the rise of diet-related diseases and environmental instability. The interconnectedness of soil health, human health and sustainable food systems, underscores the urgent need for agricultural practices that regenerate, rather than exhaust, the land. 

The Sustainable Food Trust and others are calling for a holistic and integrated food and farming strategy that identifies clear social, environmental, public health and food security objectives. By providing financial incentives to enable farmers to transition to biologically based farming practices that integrate grazing animals and deliver multiple ecosystem services, we can create food systems that nourish both human beings, animals and the planet.

The conversation surrounding food, health and agriculture is gaining momentum, and as debates unfold – whether in government hearings or public discourse – one truth remains clear: our health and well-being is directly tied to the health of the land that sustains us. To build a future with resilient food systems and healthier populations, we must start from the ground up. In the end, we are not just what we eat, but we are what our food eats, too.

The Sustainable Food Trust will be releasing a new report later this year exploring the role of livestock within a sustainable food and farming system. Sign up to our newsletter here to be the first to hear about it.

As news of weedkiller resistant plants hits the headlines, Patrick Holden reflects on discussions at the latest Oxford Real Farming Conference, highlighting why the plough may not be the worst option when it comes to nature-friendly cultivation.

Last week I attended the Oxford Real Farming Conference (ORFC), one of two events hosted in that city at this time of year. ORFC was launched around 16 years ago as a spoiler to the more conventional Oxford Farming Conference (OFC).

Since the first gathering of around 100 people, the attendance has mushroomed, so much so that more than 2000 people attended this year’s event, nearly four times the number of attendees at the traditional conference down the road!

I was encouraged and inspired by one of the 150 sessions, which took place in the Court Room of the Town Hall. This room has a rather dark atmosphere as you might imagine, reflecting sentences passed on hundreds, even thousands of criminals, but this session really countered that Court Room gloom!

The theme was how ploughing and cultivation can be good for soil health. Both of these practices have been somewhat demonised by the regenerative agriculture community, who assert that soil cultivation in general, and ploughing in particular, is bad for soil health and especially for soil carbon.

It was so refreshing to hear the experiences of two farmers, Richard Gantlett of Yatesbury House Farm, a 1500+ acre beef and arable holding in Wiltshire and Iain Tolhurst (a.k.a. Tolly), a small-scale organic grower in the Thames Valley near Pangbourne, both of whom have experience over several decades which runs counter to this orthodoxy.

After 35 years of growing on a couple of fields by the Thames, Tolly reported that his earthworm counts, soil carbon and general soil health were excellent, despite regular ploughing and cultivation. The point he made, I think very compellingly, is that if your farming system is right in its key elements, sensitive and shallow ploughing plus appropriate cultivation will not fundamentally destroy soil health.

In parallel, Richard Gantlett, who is somewhat of a data geek (I mean that as a compliment!), has been assiduously gathering evidence on the carbon outcomes of his farming system for more than 20 years. Richard reports, stunningly, that he is sequestering 10 times more carbon than the farm is omitting, and this is despite the fact that he built his fertility with beef cattle. It has been estimated that were his mixed farming system to be taken to scale right across the arable east of the UK, the soil carbon sequestered could offset a very significant percentage of total UK greenhouse gas emissions.

“What we need is more public pressure for change! I wonder how many people have noticed but not quite realised what is going on, as they drive around England at this time of year – that quite a lot of the arable fields have a strange orange hue about them. They should know that this is the colour of dead plants or weeds after being sprayed with Roundup.”

Linked to this, another thought occurred to me which didn’t come up in the discussions – but I think it’s highly relevant and sometimes overlooked – is namely that the repeated use of Roundup on fields across the east of Britain, and many in the west as well, is having a devastating impact on in-field biodiversity.

I am old enough to remember when arable weeds were an integral part of crop production, not threatening the yields too much, but nevertheless providing nourishment for a vast range of species higher up the food chain. The use of pesticides in general, and herbicides in particular, have eliminated this biodiversity habitat, which collectively accounts for 90% of the total farmed area of the UK. That is why we have witnessed such a catastrophic decline in biodiversity during my farming lifetime. Somehow the nature conservation organisations have overlooked this, instead advocating the introduction of stewardship strips around the edges of otherwise intensively farmed land.

I’ve often wondered why this might be the case. I think it could be because they have no practical experience of agriculture. They doubted the potential for chemical-free agriculture to go to scale, having been told by authoritative lecturers at their universities while studying for environmental degrees that, while well-meaning people who farm organically should be affirmed, they would always be in a minority, since grown-up farmers needed to use chemicals to provide food security and feed the world.

Stewardship strips around the edge of otherwise factory-farmed fields which are devoid of weeds, insects and most other forms of life (other than the crop itself), will do no more than mitigate the damage caused by intensive arable farming. Yet this is the predominant strategy currently informing the Defra post-Brexit farm support schemes. I brought this issue up at one of the Defra consultation sessions at the conference, but I’m not sure whether it made any impact.

What we need is more public pressure for change! I wonder how many people have noticed but not quite realised what is going on, as they drive around England at this time of year – that quite a lot of the arable fields have a strange orange hue about them. They should know that this is the colour of dead plants or weeds after being sprayed with Roundup. It is these very weeds that provided the main food source for pollinators, butterflies, farmland birds and a vast range of other species which used to depend on these habitats to nourish themselves in winter.

I find it sinister and rather shocking that the chemical companies refer to pesticides as ‘plant protection products’. The equivalent impact in the pastures of the west of the UK is when you see a field that that suddenly goes yellow. That is also Roundup. A large number of farmers in the west of Britain now routinely use Roundup instead of ploughing to reseed because they had been told that ploughing is bad for soil carbon.

It’s also more cost-effective, so please don’t blame the farmers. It is up to us as citizens to protest about the way in which chemical agriculture has become the norm on more than 90% of the farmland of the UK.

SFT CEO and organic farmer, Patrick Holden, outlines his key food and farming policy recommendations for Sir Keir Starmer and the new Labour Government, and the need for a ‘revolutionary vision’.

As a farmer in Wales and CEO of the Sustainable Food Trust, I have both a bird’s and worm’s eye view of food and farming, and from this uncommon vantage point it feels that they could be defining issues for Sir Keir Starmer and his Government.

Labour has a history of driving radical change in this area. At the end of the Second World War, Clement Attlee’s Government made food and health central pillars of his efforts to rebuild the nation and create a better future. With our current food and farming systems impacting ever more negatively on the health of people and planet, we need a similarly revolutionary vision now – and Keir Starmer’s personal leadership is critical to this.

I feel strongly that food and farming are central to achieving many of this Government’s most important goals, from the preventative health agenda to action on climate change, reviving our nature and rivers, the Green Growth agenda and national food security.

By shifting to regenerative farming systems that operate in harmony with nature, Britain could become a world leader, pioneering a new approach that combats climate change and protects nature, while delivering food security and helping to tackle poor health and poverty.

An investment in truly regenerative farming is undoubtedly an investment in the nation’s health. Today, the NHS is spending billions treating the symptoms of declining public health, including many previously uncommon diseases such as obesity, diabetes, food intolerances and cancer, all of which have been exacerbated by industrial farming methods and foods.

An investment in sustainable agriculture is also an investment in combatting climate change. By using regenerative practices to draw carbon down from the atmosphere and back into the soil, some estimates suggest we could sequester more than half of total annual greenhouse gas emissions globally.

But to transform our food and farming system and enable it to engender impactful change, we need a shared bold vision and an interconnected strategy that goes beyond any one ministry.

The Government should convene a ‘Food and Farming Council’, which would bring together the Chancellor, Secretaries of State and Ministers from various departments with a broad spectrum of stakeholders from the food system, including businesses, farmers and NGOs.

This Council should then demonstrate the same level of leadership in transitioning towards sustainable agriculture, as witnessed in the energy sector. In the early 2000s, the German government ingeniously convinced major fossil-fuel energy companies to subsidise feed-in tariffs, thereby overcoming the initial cost barrier until economies of scale eventually made renewable energy more affordable than nuclear and fossil-fuel power. Our Government urgently needs a similar approach to jumpstart the transition in agriculture, and the solution is within reach.

The food companies, retailers and other businesses who have a vested interest in ‘testing the waters’ of a transition, have the combined resources to create new models and templates for sustainable food production, and together can help shift the balance of financial advantage from extractive to regenerative production.

There are already instances of this transition in action, visible right on my farm in West Wales. Castell Howell, one of the largest food wholesalers in Wales, has recently initiated a pilot project to introduce organic vegetables into schools. They are funding the production and distribution of these vegetables, in my case carrots, using profits from their conventional trade. They are investing in this initiative because they recognise the long-term financial benefits of being pioneers in this area.

Many other players in the corporate world can support the transition by working together in new alliances. For example, members of the Sustainable Markets Initiative (SMI), which was launched by the then Prince of Wales in 2020 and includes banks, asset managers, insurance companies and water companies, are now partnering with food companies and retailers to co-finance new initiatives that reward farmers for delivering on climate, nature and health.

The Government must also play its part by removing barriers to change. Here are three actions that Government could take:

• Back a large-scale pilot of a new approach to finance regenerative agriculture: through the SMI, the Sustainable Food Trust is working with a group of CEOs from some of the UK’s most influential companies, including McDonald’s, McCain, Pepsi, Waitrose, Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds of London to develop and run this pilot. The support of the Government and Defra could greatly boost the impact of this work.
• Link farm subsidies to measurement: the Environmental Land Management scheme has some positive attributes, but not enough money has been allocated to enable systemic change of the farming system. More money, combined with the use of common, holistic metrics, must underpin these schemes and determine what they can achieve. The Sustainable Food Trust has incubated the Global Farm Metric, a common framework co-created across the food and farming sector, which is now being deployed in trials across the world.
• Introduce a stronger regulatory framework: apply the polluter pays principle to those who buy inputs that contribute to climate change, pollute water and damage human health. This would create a level playing field for farmers who are doing the right thing.

If the Government acted on these fronts and enabled a shift from chemical to biologically based food production, they could rightly be seen as world leaders in this great food and farming transition.

 

This article was originally published by Goals House on LinkedIn.

As SFT’s policy director, you will usually find me focused on the latest government or corporate developments. This doesn’t leave much time to get my boots on the ground and hands in the soil. But, when I discovered the new Roots to Regeneration (R2R) programme, I knew I’d found the ultimate space to explore and deepen my understanding of regenerative transformation (in my spare time, not work!) and thanks to R2R’s philanthropic supporters, it was within my reach. Via the SFT’s newsletter, I hope you will join me on this exploration over the forthcoming year as I chart a path through the challenges of regenerative thinking, farming and food.

Roots to Regeneration is the brainchild of Caroline Grindrod and Clare Hill, who both bring a lifetime’s knowledge of regenerative farming and what it takes to transition. This is no bog-standard farm training scheme. Indeed, the programme’s objective is that “by the culmination of the programme, participants will not only have acquired a comprehensive understanding of regenerative farming principles and hands-on skills but will also have woven themselves into a vibrant, collaborative community. This network will stand as a beacon, lighting their path as they continue their pivotal roles as leaders in agriculture.”

Last week saw the inaugural session of this 12-month programme, immersed in nature on a 170-acre farm in Somerset. It brought together established regen farmers, new farmers looking to transform their land and practices, alongside innovators and others shaping wider corporate and finance action.

The programme is a compelling mix of deep (but accessible) regenerative thinking and practical knowledge. What stands out, however, is the focus on working through a whole systems approach – reframing thinking and doing at the same time and understanding that we need to look at living systems rather than the mechanised input-driven approach fostered by the Green Revolution. It means looking not just at soil and biodiversity, but the whole landscape and how interdependent all parts of nature-based farming are. It takes a dynamic approach, seeing how shaping one part of the farm system affects others over time and space, such as how decisions about the way that animals graze the land, enable new species to flourish; or how building the diversity of critters in the soil (its ‘microbiome’ in proper parlance) can prevent pests above ground and boost productivity. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

The R2R team have carefully curated a group of around 15 people from diverse experiences and perspectives, with a shared motivation to play our part in driving the regen transformation. This peer-to-peer learning will be essential as we dive into modules from soil to grazing plans to social regeneration and transformation of supply chains. The aim is that we will become ‘keystones’ in a wider system of change across the UK and beyond, and use this knowledge to enable others to use their influence to further regeneration.

It is difficult to share the richness of the experience of our first farm workshop – digging holes, crumbling soil and looking at the web of life, literally sniffing out healthy soils; hearing about others’ hopes for regeneration, and their children’s love of Belted Galloway cattle; listening to woodpeckers above our heads and geese calling from the lake as we sat round a fire trying to understand how our food and land got into this mess, through the “Story of Separation”. I came away with both brain and soul full. There are some hard yards to come, with lots of real farming knowledge and practice to develop – after all, this course is about real, not theoretical change. But I can’t imagine a better place to begin, or a more effective set of tools to work with. Next stop will be Planton Farm in May (with many online learning sessions in between). I hope I can catch up then with more news on our Roots to Regeneration transformation.

For more information, visit the Roots of Nature website.

Over recent years, no-till farming has been widely advocated as one of the ways to make farming more sustainable. It is also one of the paid options under Defra’s Sustainable Farming Incentive. But will the current trend away from ploughing towards direct drilling and the accompanying use of glyphosate bring the benefits advocates claim, or could this make matters even worse? Richard Young follows on from his article, Speed the plough or the direct drill and sprayer?, this time looking at mycorrhizal fungi and contrasting the impacts of ploughing, direct drilling and glyphosate on them.

With earthy humour in two well-known passages in Hamlet (4,iii,17-31 and 5,i,191-209), Shakespeare demonstrates an understanding of what early organic farming advocates termed ‘The Cycle of Life’ (seen in this very dated Soil Association film made more than seventy years ago). This refers to the natural processes by which all living things eventually die, decay and under normal circumstances return to the earth to be recycled. In Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare gives us one of the basics of sustainable farming, with the line, “Our dungy earth alike feeds beast as man,” (1,i,42-3).

What he could not have known is that the processes he describes, depend, amongst other things, on the action of mycorrhizal fungi. Early microscopes had recently been invented when he wrote these plays in the early 1600s, but they could only magnify up to 30 times normal size. To see mycorrhizal spores under a microscope, you need a magnification of at least 400 times.

Mycorrhizae work in harmony with plants, and both the plants and the fungi benefit from the relationship. The complex, sophisticated and fascinating world of mycorrhizal fungi was recently brought to public attention by biologist and tropical ecologist Merlin Sheldrake, in his widely acclaimed book Entangled Life. He took a broad look at mycorrhizae within the plant kingdom. I am only considering them in relation to agricultural crops.

An historical perspective

One of the first people to point out that healthy soil is alive, not only with invertebrates such as earthworms and soil spiders but also with literally thousands of different microorganisms, was Lady Eve Balfour in her book, The Living Soil. Amongst those are mycorrhizal fungi. She tells us (p.70) that, “Thread-like structures within root cells of certain vascular plants were first observed in 1829 and by 1847 had been identified as fungus mycelium.” Despite the absence of scientific consensus in 1943, when her book was published, she quickly recognised the major importance of soil microbial life, in particular mycorrhizal fungi, for plant and soil health.

A claim repeated in various ways, is that a teaspoonful of healthy soil contains more living organisms than there are people on the planet. The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology estimates that “One teaspoonful of topsoil contains around 1 billion microscopic cells and around 10,000 different species.” The global population has increased eight-fold since 1800, so while the original claim would have been true 223 years ago, it would be more accurate to say that there are now eight times more people on the planet than living organisms in a teaspoonful of healthy soil.

I am being pedantic, of course, but this has a relevance we should not overlook, in that population growth is one of the principal justifications used for further intensification of farming, albeit under the banner of ‘sustainable intensification’ which makes it sound harmless. While some farmers are undoubtedly making real efforts to farm in more sustainable ways, all the indications to date suggest that the bulk of the food we consume will continue to be produced in exploitative ways that are associated with a wide range of negative impacts and increased risks, including reductions in important soil microorganisms.

In 1951, pioneering organic farmer, Frank Newman Turner, took up the theme in his book, Fertility Farming, referring to mycorrhizal associations he writes (p.50), “It is this process which is vital to the health of the plant, for it is known that it takes place only in the presence of humus and that plants deprived of it, either by ‘short-circuit’ feeding or by lack of humus, succumb to pests and disease.” By ‘short-circuit’ feeding, he means the use of artificial fertilisers. By ‘lack of humus’ he is referring to the increasing trend, even then, to dispense with returning organic matter to the soil, for example, in the form of composted farmyard manure, that was made possible by the development of synthetic fertilisers. This reached its most extreme level in the 1970s, when tens of thousands of acres of straw were burned in the fields every summer in the UK, sometimes setting fire to hedgerows as well. The practice was finally banned in the UK in 1993 after years of campaigning by environmental organisations, such as Friends of the Earth, but has been permitted again by Defra on blocks of up to ten hectares (25 acres), as part of attempts to control the persistent weeds that plague many of the farms which have continuous arable crop rotations.

Newman Turner became a Council member of the Soil Association in 1952 and concern about the harm caused to mycorrhizal fungi by agrochemicals, especially the use of water-soluble phosphates, became part of organic farming philosophy and eventually influenced the Soil Association’s standards for organic food production when they were first published in detail in the 1980s. The consensus view today on this issue is that phosphate fertilisers do not kill off mycorrhizae, but they do reduce root colonisation by them.

Mycorrhizal fungi

Mycorrhizae form mutually symbiotic (mycorrhizal) relationships with about 80% of plants overall, but with 90% of agricultural crop plants. Oilseed rape and sugar beet, however, are among the small proportion of agricultural crops that do not form normal associations with mycorrhizae.

The extent to which plants and mycorrhizae work together is simply remarkable. Water, made more readily available to the plants by mycorrhizal fungi, is transported from the roots to the leaves by osmosis (as we generally learn at school), seemingly defying the laws of physics in the case of tall trees. But that is only half the story. At the same time, carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere by the leaves and converted to carbohydrates by photosynthesis, is transported in the opposite direction to feed the mycorrhizal fungi, in the form of root secretions (exudates) containing sugars, amino acids, enzymes and more.

Merlin Sheldrake recently posted a video on Instagram showing this taking place in real time.

In return for the supply of nutrients from the plant, mycorrhizae invade its roots and effectively extend them through filaments (hyphae) which form networks (mycelia). This increases the plant’s ability to take up water and minerals, with mycorrhizae also playing a key role in breaking down organic matter in the soil to humus, from which plants in the natural world and on farms where synthetic fertilisers are not used, derive most of their own nutrition.

No-till farming and mycorrhizal fungi

Advocates of no-till farming make the claim that by not ploughing their soils they are automatically increasing soil biodiversity, including mycorrhizal fungi, and there are plenty of scientific studies to support this claim. But is it as simple as that, and are the increases very significant? Let’s get more basic information on the table first, then consider the question in detail.

Mycorrhizae weeds, plant diseases and pests

Scientists have shown that mycorrhizae can suppress weeds. In a study of six weed species amongst sunflowers, two weed species were reduced by mycorrhizae by between 59% and 66% while the remaining four declined by between 20% and 37%.

It has also been shown that mycorrhizae help to protect plants against root diseases, including ‘take-all’, a disease of cereals. The researchers say, “Our results show a clear systemic bio-protectional effect depending on the degree of root colonization by mycorrhizal fungi.”  Some studies have also shown protective benefits in relation to foliar diseases, for example against powdery mildew in wheat. However, the overall situation with plant diseases above ground is still not clear, as this detailed review published in 2019 shows. Overall, mycorrhizae appear to make plants better able to fight off disease, but in some cases, they have been found to increase, rather than decrease, a plant’s susceptibility to viral infections. Whether or not that is related to the specific mycorrhizal species that predominate in continuous arable rotations, appears not to have been researched.

Viral diseases of cereal crops, such as cereal mosaic viruses, are a concern and can cause yield losses of up to 50%, but fungal diseases are as significant in both economic and food security terms. Inoculation with mycorrhizae has been used successfully in conjunction with other soil fungi, known as Trichoderma, to control stem rust diseases in wheat crops. Although currently rare in the UK, scientists have raised concerns about the potential for their re-emergence here.

It is known, however, that some major viral infections are spread by insects and at least one study, detailed in the review cited above, found that plants colonised by mycorrhizae were better able to survive attack by insects – in this case, aphids. It looks as if there is still a lot more to learn about plant diseases and mycorrhizal fungi. As the reviewers say, “Despite their economic importance, information on the effect of the AM [arbuscular mycorrhizae – the type of mycorrhizae which colonises crops] symbiosis on viral infection is limited and not conclusive.”

Mycorrhizae and soil structure

Mycorrhizae also benefit soil structure. It has only been widely known since 1996 that this is largely because they secrete glomalin, a glue-like substance, which helps to hold soil particles together and may also have other benefits, including helping to increase carbon and nitrogen storage in the soil. The elaborate networks of mycorrhizal mycelia clearly also help to improve soil structure and resistance to erosion. This appears to be the main aspect that ploughing can disrupt.

Reproduction

Mycorrhizae reproduce in three different ways, but spores (which can survive for five years), appear to be the main method by which arbuscular mycorrhizae colonise successive crops. Fragments of hyphae, the other main method, only remain viable for a few months. Research on four farms in Yorkshire found that mycorrhizae which colonise autumn-sown crops tended to die off over winter and that the crops were recolonised in the spring, presumably by spores. This suggests that providing there are adequate levels of spores in the soil, ploughing will make little difference to the level of colonisation.

Ploughing

There is, however, research evidence from conventional farms (where agrochemicals are used) from Canada and Mexico to show that mycorrhizae are found in larger numbers when land is direct drilled with no cultivations, compared with being ploughed. How significant those increases are compared with, for example, the higher levels of root colonisation on organic farms (see below), is not clear. What is abundantly clear is that mycorrhizae have declined under intensive arable systems. One study, by scientists from Sheffield, Leeds and York universities, which reviewed five separate studies on this aspect, concluded, “There is increasing evidence that high-input arable cultivation and cropping reduces the populations and activities of ‘ecosystem engineers’, organisms that maintain soil structure and function, including root symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.”

There are similar indications from a few other studies, though I have found fewer than I expected for such a significant issue. For instance, a study in Switzerland found evidence of lower numbers of mycorrhizal spores in ploughed soils, though it also found that the diversity of species was very similar in tilled and no-tilled situations.

Research shows that fields converted from grass to long term arable cropping experience major changes in the diversity of mycorrhizae. However, in contrast to all the evidence cited so far, at least one major review, in the journal New Phytologist, claims that the benefits associated with mycorrhizal fungi have been overstated and that at the present time there is little evidence to justify taking either diversity or abundance into account when managing crops.

It needs to be pointed out that most studies are not comparing the effects of ploughing and no-till in healthy soils, where naturally larger numbers of mycorrhizal spores would be expected. Instead, they are undertaken on land that has been degraded by decades of continuous arable production. The soils on such land have already experienced a significant decline in organic matter (approximately half of which is carbon). This plays a key role in maintaining mycorrhizal populations – organic matter levels have declined in European arable soils, 38% of which are degraded in England and Wales.

It seems reasonable to assume that deep ploughing will dilute the numbers of spores in the top of the soil profile, as well as break up fungal mycelia from the previous year’s crop. In a recent conversation with 92-year-old former Worcestershire farmer, Barrie Kent, who ploughed with horses as a young man, I was told that horse ploughing never went deeper than five inches, even on the best soils. Organic farmers are advised only to undertake shallow ploughing, not deeper than six inches. While there is a lack of research data on the impact of ploughing on levels of mycorrhizal spores, spores buried one year would still be viable when they came back to the surface the next time the field was ploughed. Avoiding deep ploughing would nevertheless appear to be sensible in relation to mycorrhizal fungi as well as seedling establishment and nutrition.

A new agricultural inputs market in the making

Some studies, though, are not focused on the impact on naturally occurring mycorrhizae at all, but on the benefits of using mycorrhizal spores as commercial inoculants for agricultural crops. The potential market is assumed to relate especially to those farmers who wish to reduce their dependence on expensive synthetic fertilisers. An international market for mycorrhizal spores has in fact been developing since at least 2008. However, a recent review of 25 commercial mycorrhizal inoculants concluded that only one of the inoculants resulted in higher yields. In addition, the study, referred to above, by scientists from Sheffield, Leeds and York universities, found no benefit from using commercially available mycorrhizal spores in a three-year trial in connection with ploughing and disc cultivations.

Fertilisers

Most studies that compare ploughing and no-till, do so in soils where both fertilisers and pesticides are being used; both groups of products can have negative impacts on mycorrhizae. Studies have found that where typical levels of phosphate and/or nitrogen fertilisers are applied to crops, the mycorrhizae decline, as the plants no longer rely on them to supply these essential elements from the soil. According to the analysis of a long-term study, which included regular applications of nitrogen fertiliser, “plants and soil microbes have a consistent response to long-term fertilization – both richness and diversity of plants and soil microbes are significantly decreased, as well as microbial functional genes involved in soil carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) cycling”. Another study in semi-arid grassland concluded, “AM [arbuscular mycorrhizae] fungal communities from N fertilized soils are less beneficial mutualists than those from unfertilized soils.”

Scientists tell us that in addition to soil disturbance, a wide range of pesticides can affect the diversity of mycorrhizal fungi. There has, however, been an inadequate level of research to establish trends in the diversity and population numbers of mycorrhizal fungi in agricultural soils more generally, in particular, to differentiate between the effects of ploughing, fertilisers, herbicides and fungicides.

Fungicides

Given that mycorrhizae are fungi, it might be expected that the very widespread use and number of fungicides used on intensive farms today would have a negative impact on them. Surprisingly, however, there is less research to be found on this than I expected. One recent study, however, found that the fungicide, mancozeb, reduced mycorrhizae, while a biological fungicide did not. Fungicides for cereal crops in the UK first became available about 55 years ago. The first products were just to control mildew. Since then, an arsenal of products has come onto the market which are widely used to prevent or reduce infection from an equally large number of diseases that have become a progressively greater threat to cereal production, as yields have been increased by plant breeding and higher use of inputs. Similar products are also used in other agricultural and horticultural crops. There appears to be a need for more research on the unintended impacts of these products, for example on mycorrhizae, both individually and when applied in combinations, as they sometimes are.

The impact of glyphosate on mycorrhizae

Unintended impacts of herbicides on mycorrhizae have been found. Research in Finland established that glyphosate reduces mycorrhizae. The researchers also discovered that while soil cultivation reduced the number of mycorrhizae, this was only significant in soils with a long history of continuous cultivation.

Contrary to the original manufacturer’s claims that glyphosate degrades a few weeks after it is applied, the scientists found residues in plants in the following growing season, as well as reduced levels of beneficial mycorrhizae. The emerging consensus on this aspect appears to be that glyphosate will often degrade relatively quickly, but that various factors, including low temperatures, can slow this significantly.  In Argentina, a country where glyphosate is used on GM crops, it has been suggested that it should be considered as a “pseudo-persistent” pollutant because, “application rates are higher than dissipation rates”. Speculating, this should, perhaps, be investigated in the UK in situations where glyphosate is used several times a year, such as post-harvest, pre-sowing and as a desiccant pre-harvest, especially in parts of the country where temperatures over winter are cold enough to slow its breakdown significantly.

Another study in Argentina found that when applied to the soil, glyphosate affected the viability of spores even at a very low rate of 0.8 litres per hectare. Total root colonisation with mycorrhizae was also reduced when glyphosate was applied to the soil or to foliage, with no difference between high and low application rates. While some studies have found positive, negative and neutral impacts depending on a range of factors, a 2014 study by German and Austrian scientists “found that herbicides [glyphosate in this study] significantly decreased root mycorrhization, soil AMF spore biomass, vesicles and propagules”. A 2013 study in Argentina found similar results and was able to quantify the impact. The viability of mycorrhizal spores in soils not treated with glyphosate was between 5.8 and 7.7 times greater than in soils that were treated with it.

Organic farming and mycorrhizae

Advocates have claimed for many decades that organic farming creates the best conditions for mycorrhizae and that this, in turn, is a key reason for its technical success given the non-use of synthetic inputs and relatively high productivity. While there is no direct evidence of the impact which mycorrhizae have on the yields of organic crops, there is good evidence to show that organic farming leads to healthier mycorrhizal communities. For instance, a Dutch study found that arable fields under organic management had more arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi species than conventionally managed ones, with the difference becoming increasingly significant as time passed, following conversion to organic methods. The same study also showed that organic soils had mycorrhizal communities which were more diverse, and more similar to those found under natural grasslands – a finding that was replicated in this Swiss study. Why this is the case is not known for certain, but it is assumed to be due to the avoidance of synthetic fertilisers and biocide use in organic farming.

An interesting observation to take from these findings is that tillage – a key feature of organic arable production, and therefore a practice whose impacts were captured in the studies mentioned above – can clearly be compatible with healthy mycorrhizal communities. Still, there is evidence from one study finding that a reduction in tillage intensity in organic production does lead to even higher mycorrhizal spore densities and species richness. With some organic farmers already experimenting with ways of reducing their reliance on ploughing (without, of course, using glyphosate or other herbicides), this is something which may spur further interest in this area.

Several other studies have also found higher populations of mycorrhizae on organic farms. A 2010 study found the highest levels of mycorrhizae in grasslands, somewhat lower levels in organically managed crop fields and significantly lower levels on conventionally managed fields. Another Swiss study found that a much greater proportion of plant roots were colonised by mycorrhizal fungi in organic arable systems compared with conventional ones.

The importance of grass

A key component of mixed organic farms, and by extension many regenerative farms, is that they include short-term grass and clover leys in their arable cropping rotations. This may be one of the main reasons that mycorrhizae are more plentiful in organically managed soils.

A recent study involving scientists from several UK universities found that introducing a grass/clover ley on land that had been in intensive arable production for more than 10 years resulted in a rapid recovery in earthworm populations with numbers four times higher than in an adjacent arable field after just two years. In the study by scientists from three UK universities (already cited twice, above) wheat achieved yields of 92–106% of national average yields following a three-year grass/clover ley, but with just 25% of the normal nitrogen fertiliser application rate and no use of fungicides. This study used herbicides on the growing crops and glyphosate with direct drilling to kill the grass ley. It would have been particularly interesting to the organic sector to have seen a comparison where the ley had been ploughed instead of treated with glyphosate.

Conclusion: How significant is the damage to mycorrhizae caused by ploughing?

Given the importance of mycorrhizae for the health, resilience (in the face of droughts and heavy rain) and (with the possible exception of inoculated crops), the productivity of croplands where low or no inputs are used, it is surprising that so little research has specifically addressed this question. Several teams of scientists suggest that more research is needed on a number of issues relating to mycorrhizae. There is sufficient evidence to say that soil that has been producing crops continuously for many years will have lower than ideal levels of mycorrhizae and an altered range of mycorrhizal species. Some reports suggest these can be very low, but levels appear to vary, and it is not obvious what the range is, or precisely which factors make the most difference.

It is, however, clear that in addition to ploughing and other cultivations which physically damage the mycelia, the use of synthetic fertilisers, glyphosate and at least some other pesticides have significant negative impacts on mycorrhizae. How might we explain the good yields of wheat in the study by Sheffield, Leeds and York universities despite the use of glyphosate and low use of nitrogen fertiliser? Two things seem worth pointing out. First, I have occasionally produced organic wheat yields in good years on my best land straight after grass, approaching 7 tonnes per hectare from milling wheat varieties (which are lower yielding than feed wheat varieties). In such situations nitrogen is not a limiting factor and I doubt if it would have made much difference if they had used no nitrogen fertiliser at all. Second, and here I can only speculate, it seems possible that over time repeated glyphosate applications would reduce yields in a low or no input situation, if, as several studies suggest, this is steadily degrading the mycorrhizae.

It seems possible, and if so ironic, that the negative impacts on mycorrhizae from fertilisers, herbicides, including glyphosate and fungicides, may be masked to some extent at present by increased use of the same fertilisers and pesticides that are reducing the mycorrhizae. When it comes to protection against disease, the picture is even less clear. There is increasing evidence of the role mycorrhizae play in providing partial immunity to disease, but insufficient evidence to say exactly which diseases can be repelled and which not.

From the perspective of organic and other mixed farms, where crops are grown in rotation with grass/clover leys, there is good evidence that this increases or maintains high levels of mycorrhizae, as the comparative organic and conventional studies cited above demonstrate. Ploughing, inevitably, does some damage, but with mycorrhizal spores able to colonise plant roots and start bringing benefits in just a month or so, and strong evidence that mixed organic farms are better for mycorrhizae than conventional ones, the careful use of ploughing is compatible with healthy mycorrhizal communities on organic farms.

However, given that organic farmland still only accounts for a relatively small proportion of total farmland, it is necessary to consider ploughing versus glyphosate in standard intensive systems. It may be that in such situations, no-till does bring advantages over ploughing. It should be noted, however, that since a range of herbicides (including glyphosate) is used on most conventional farms, a completely balanced, comparative assessment of ploughing versus no-till may not yet ever have been undertaken. Finally, the research I have read for this article is sufficient for me to suggest that regenerative farmers who want to make their farms as sustainable as possible, should not be frightened about giving up glyphosate and re-embracing the use of shallow ploughing

We would like to thank Professor Jonathan Leake (who read an early draft of this article and provided advice and information) and Philip Conford who kindly searched in vain for information on when the damage to mycorrhizae caused by water-soluble phosphate fertilisers was first raised in a Soil Association publication. Robert Barbour reviewed the organic studies and provided helpful comments.

Featured image licensed under the Creative Commons. Click here to view original. 

Although many of us associate carbon offsetting schemes with planting trees, there is an increasing focus on restoring soil carbon. Improving the health of soils, particularly on agricultural land, enables them to be more productive, to host more lifeforms and to sequester more carbon, making soil health a critical factor in our response to climate change and biodiversity loss.

There has been significant progress and an encouraging move towards valuing soil health over the past few years. The UK Government, in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, has stated that it will publish “a baseline map of soil health for England by 2028 and bring at least 40% of England’s agricultural soil into sustainable management by 2028.” It plans to do this by public and private means with the Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024 which contains schemes incentivising and helping farmers to adopt nature-friendly farming practices, and a Green Finance Strategy to encourage more private investment. The goals are ambitious – to transform the management of 70% of our countryside and to raise more than £1 billion in private finance to support nature recovery by 2030.

Understanding carbon offsetting, carbon credits and how credits are valued

A carbon credit is a standardised unit that allows the holder to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide. To put this into perspective, the average person in the UK emits 4.87 tonnes per year.

Many countries now have compulsory trading schemes that issue companies and organisations with carbon credits for their emissions. Any surplus can then be bought and sold via trading scheme markets. A carbon offset tends to refer to credits being traded on a voluntary market where companies – and individuals – can buy into carbon offsetting schemes to compensate for their emissions.

Putting a value on this carbon (and other greenhouse gases) is not a simple matter and various pricing mechanisms exist. These all have at their core the need to value carbon in a way that disincentivises polluters and supports the transition to a decarbonised economy – but there is often disagreement about the most efficient way to do this. Carbon taxes, emissions trading schemes such as the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, internal carbon pricing and voluntary carbon offset markets are all ways of assigning a value to emissions.

Of these, the voluntary carbon offset markets, where credits can be bought to offset carbon emissions, have attracted particular interest. These offset programmes are supplied by governments or private entities that develop carbon removal or reduction schemes – such as farmers investing in nature improvement. There is also growing interest in these markets from investors who see them as profitable in their own right. The voluntary carbon offset market is expected to grow from US$2 billion in 2020 to around US$250 billion by 2050, so this is an area that farmers need to tap into. There is, however, some concern that growth of these markets will result in land being taken out of production to create carbon offset credits that can then be traded. This is generating some tension in the farming community with calls for a ‘land sharing’ approach to enable the transition to nature-positive farming, rather than a ‘land-sparing’ approach that separates farming from nature. Many have pointed out that using productive farmland for financial gain rather than producing food may not be the best result for farmers or the environment, if we then need to import more of our food from areas where we have no ecological control.

Government support

So, back to improving agricultural soils: how are farmers being helped to store soil carbon and access these growing carbon markets?

The Sustainable Farming Incentive is a scheme that forms part of the Agricultural Transition Plan and aims to help farmers improve the environment, animal health and welfare and reduce carbon emissions. In terms of improving soil health, it details three standards – arable and horticultural, improved grassland and moorland. Farmers can apply for a payment per eligible hectare to improve soil health, structure, organic matter and biology.

To qualify for the payment, farmers will need to carry out a soil assessment, create a soil action plan, test organic matter, minimise bare ground over winter and establish and maintain herbal leys. Currently, there are two standards to work towards – introductory and intermediate with an advanced standard proposed by 2025.

Unlocking private finance

A vital part of the Government’s pledge to unlock £1 billion of private investment in nature improvement by 2030 is the development of ‘nature markets.’ Nature markets work by creating units or credits that can be traded, allowing business to invest in environmental projects, nature restoration and regenerative agriculture such as improving soil carbon sequestration or restoring grassland habitats. These markets can be voluntary or compliance based.

At present, the UK has two voluntary markets that allow companies to compensate for emissions – the UK Woodland Carbon Code and the UK Peatland Code. These codes ensure that carbon credits are of high integrity and independently verified.

An example of a compliance market is the recently introduced Nutrient Neutrality, a market in nutrient credits where companies must mitigate their impact on water quality in sensitive areas.

In addition to this, there are many pilot markets in development including obtaining carbon credits from soil, hedgerows and natural habitat restoration as well as through using new carbon capture technologies. The Environment Improvement Plan 2023 mentions a growing interest in an agricultural soil carbon market and that DEFRA will support the development of markets for ecosystem services. The Nature Market Framework, published this March, outlines a framework for scaling up private investment in nature recovery and sustainable farming. Private companies such as Agreena are also offering farmers additional revenue streams by carrying out activities that produce carbon credits or certificates.

So, markets are beginning to develop, but what barriers do farmers face in accessing them?

Measurement

Investors need a high integrity, robust and trustworthy standard or benchmark (such as the UK Woodland Code) that can be used to put a market value on carbon offset projects. But measurement and assessment of projects to determine their carbon offset potential is complex and can be expensive, particularly for small scale farmers and land managers.

Fortunately, there are schemes and toolkits evolving that aim to help farmers and food producers speak a common language both in terms of measuring the environmental impact of schemes and providing investors with a baseline of data to support investments. One such scheme is the Global Farm Metric developed by the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT) in collaboration with a wide coalition of partners, that “enables farmers to understand the social, economic and environmental sustainability of their system in a way that is robust, holistic and independent of any particular farming philosophy”. The Soil Carbon Project is another scheme that uses scientifically robust methods to measure soil health and carbon sequestration.

Scale

Scale is another barrier, in England 40% of farms are under 20 hectares in size, making it difficult to develop carbon offset projects that are large enough to take to market.

The Nature Market Framework proposes that farmers and landowners can benefit from ‘stacking and bundling’ credits from the same piece of land, e.g., a parcel of land can produce both soil carbon sequestration and water quality credits. It also states that both public and private finance can be sought as long as there is no double counting. This will enable farmers and landowners to benefit from the full range of ecosystem services that their land offers, even on smaller farms.

Additionally, there are a number of private and government-supported aggregation schemes and funds that assist farmers and landowners to combine their resources and develop projects to the point where they can attract investment. The Green Finance Institute has been commissioned by Defra to develop an online toolkit to help farmers access private sector investment and the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund is supporting a total of 86 nature projects towards gaining private investment.

Farmer Clusters is an initiative developed by the Game and Wildlife Trust to bring farmers together along with a conservation advisor to deliver projects on a larger scale. The Countryside Stewardship Farm Facilitation Fund funds groups of farmers to improve local environmental outcomes and the Nature Friendly Farming Network aims to unite farmers who are passionate about wildlife and sustainable farming.

So, while challenges still exist, particularly around access to markets and ensuring trustworthy and reliable standards, there is huge financial growth potential in carbon offset and nature markets. However, there are also dangers that should be considered, and it is essential that soil carbon credits really do work for farmers and the climate. In particular, carbon sequestration must be robustly measured and verified and it’s also important that farmers don’t sell away their capacity to meet their own net zero targets. Additionally, we need to ensure that companies, especially those that pollute, have genuinely taken every step to reduce their emissions before buying credits – it shouldn’t be a fast track to a very greenwashed net zero. And, of course, there is a need to avoid contracts and schemes that promote practices that are environmentally damaging.

Ultimately, offsetting is only part of the solution to achieving net zero, but it is one that is now beginning to deliver on a broad range of environmental projects from soil carbon sequestration and sustainability to water quality and habitat restoration. Alongside government incentives, it is hoped that carbon offsetting and the newly evolving nature markets will help farmers profitably produce good quality food from a sustainably managed and healthy landscape.

How can measuring sustainability help us to understand and value the produce and services that farmers deliver? In this series, we explore the role of metrics in transitioning to a more sustainable food and farming system, and we meet some of the people who are leading the way. Here, Sustainable Food Trust (SFT) Communications Manager, Victoria Halliday, takes a closer look at soil health and goes to meet mutton producer, Matt Chatfield, on his farm in west Devon.

Regenerative, organic, nature-positive – whatever your definition of sustainable farming, they all have their roots in the same thing: healthy soil. Blanketing the Earth in a layer that is about 13 cm to 25 cm deep, soil serves as the dynamic interface between the dead world of geology and the bustling life of the planet’s surface. It provides the means through which the Earth is able to continually regenerate, turning decomposing matter into new life via the action of microorganisms, which, in just three tablespoons of soil, outnumber the world’s human population.

Reflecting on this miraculous process of renewal, American poet, Walt Whitman, expressed awe, bordering on horror, when he wrote: 

“What chemistry!

That the winds are really not infectious […]

That when I recline on the grass I do not catch any disease,

Though probably every spear of grass rises out of what was once a catching disease […]

Now I am terrified at the Earth, it is that calm and patient […]

It renews with such unwitting looks its prodigal, annual sumptuous crops,

It gives such divine materials to men, and accepts such leavings from them at last.”

Whitman’s dark, yet strangely reassuring, meditation on the action of soil microbes was penned in 1856, well before the catastrophic events of the 1930s Dust Bowl that saw more than 75% of topsoil lost from areas of the North American and Canadian flatlands. The disaster, which left over 500,000 Americans homeless, intensified the Great Depression and devastated the region’s ecology. It was a direct result of settler farmers’ failure to apply dryland farming methods that would have protected the soil against wind and drought. Instead, deep ploughing to create intensive cropland tore up the native grass cover, leaving soils exposed and friable. The events in the States triggered increased government involvement in land management and soil conservation, with a series of initiatives started in the 1930s that were aimed at reducing soil erosion.

Fast forward to the present day, some 90 years later, and how are our agricultural soils faring? In many areas, particularly in those with a long history of continuous cultivation, the outlook is poor to very poor. Through a combination of factors that include use of synthetic fertilisers and agrichemicals, compaction and removal of organic matter, conventional intensive agriculture is rapidly depleting and degrading topsoil, threatening our capacity to feed ourselves, to control flooding and to lock up carbon in the soil. History offers us countless lessons on the human, ecological and economic suffering that follows poor soil management; it is clear that, after 70-odd years of extractive, chemically dependent farming methods, the warning bells are sounding loud.

The importance of soil management

The FAO estimates that sustainable soil management could enable us to produce up to 58% more food globally. While achieving long-term food security depends as much on reducing waste, enabling food sovereignty and changing diets as it does on increasing yields, the FAO’s findings do highlight how soil health is critical to farmers’ ability to produce enough food. Considering this, farmers need to be equipped with the means to monitor and understand the state of their soils and to be recognised and rewarded for improved soil stewardship. While the Sustainable Farming Incentive offers UK farmers payments for improving soil health, there are calls for more support and incentivisation, particularly in light of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that 40% of agricultural soils are under sustainable management by 2028.

Essential to this is a common language for measuring and valuing soil health. This is something that the SFT is working on through the Global Farm Metric (GFM). Created in collaboration with farmers and other stakeholders, the GFM is a framework to understand, measure and monitor the state of farming systems. It comprises 12 interrelated categories that, when taken together, give a holistic view of farm sustainability. As you might expect, one of the GFM’s 12 categories is ‘soil and water’, reflecting the crucial role of healthy soil within a sustainable farming system.

But how can frameworks like the GFM help us to tackle soil degradation and support farmers to continue delivering the ‘annual sumptuous crops’ described in Whitman’s poem? And who are the farmers that are already leading the way when it comes to a soil-first approach to sustainable production? With these questions in mind, we visited Matt Chatfield on his farm near the Cornwall-Devon border in the UK, where he is harnessing the power of healthy soils to produce world-class mutton and restore wildlife habitats. Matt’s family have farmed in the area for generations, recently struggling in the face of the dwindling productivity and profitability of their land, which Matt is now regenerating through careful soil management.

Matt Chatfield: four questions on soil health

Matt, can you tell us a bit about what you’re doing on your farm to measure and improve the health of the soil and why that’s important?

The number one thing that I’m doing is adding organic matter. My farm had been stripped of organic matter for 40 or 50 years, not due to the fault of any one person, but because of the way that farming has gone. So, I consider my job as being to feed worms – they’re the architects of the soil and they need organic matter to do their job.