UK Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for the

Agriculture and Land Use, Land-Use Change and

Forestry Sectors out to 2022, with Qualitative
Analysis of Options to 2050

Final Report to the Committee on Climate Change

Dominic Morana, Michael MacLeoda, Eileen Walla,

Vera Eorya, Guillaume Pajotb, Robin Matthewsb,
Alistair McVittiea, Andrew Barnesa, Bob Reesa,
Andrew Moxeyc, Adrian Williamsd, Pete Smithe
a. Research and Development Division, SAC, West Mains Road,
Edinburgh, EH9 3JG
b. MLURI, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen
c. Pareto Consulting, Edinburgh
d. Cranfield University
e. Aberdeen University
Date: 20/11/2008

Prepared for: The Committee on Climate Change

Project reference: RMP4950

Prepared by: SAC Commercial Ltd

King’s Buildings
Edinburgh EH9 3JG

2
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jenny Byars and Mike Thompson of the CCC, who
provided continuous and insightful steering of this project. We would also like
to thank participants at a Defra workshop held on the 24th June to provide
input to the project. We acknowledge core funding from Scottish Government
RERAD, which enabled us to undertake further modification to the project
report.
Contents

Executive summary vii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives and Scope 3
1.3 Key MAC Parameters 5
1.4 Baselines 6

2 Mapping BAU3 onto the MACC Carbon Budget Years 10

2.1 Baseline information for LULUCF 10

2.2 Identifying additionality in abatement 10
2.3 Identifying technical potentials 11
2.4 Quantifying costs and the timing of benefits 15
2.5 Costs 17

3 Farm Level Modelling Approach 18

3.1 Define Farm Types 18

3.2 Identify Financial Profiles 19
3.3 Running Scenarios 19
3.4 Aggregation of Changes to Costs 19
3.5 Discounting costs 20
3.6 Measure Interactions 21
3.7 Reconciliation with National Inventory 21

4 Mitigation options in Crops and Soils 23

4.1 Key Findings 23

4.2 General 24
4.2.1 Overview of sector 24
4.2.2 What's covered in crops and soils category 24
4.2.3 Crops and soils emissions: how much and trends 24
4.2.4 Main modelling complexities 25
4.2.5 Criteria/rationale and brief description for screening measures in each
sector 25
4.3 Selection and Description of Mitigation Measures 26
4.4 Data and Measurement 28
4.4.1 Baselines and Additionality 28
4.4.2 Costs 29
4.4.3 Abatement rate and potential 29
4.4.4 Cost-effectiveness (CE) 30
4.4.5 Uncertainties 32

ii
 4.5 Results and conclusions 33
Annex A4 Full list of measures and reasons for omission from interim list 36
Annex B4 Interim list of measures and estimated abatement rates 40
Annex C4 Description of the measures on the short list 44
Annex D4 Assumptions used in calculating the costs of measures 47
Annex E4 Cost and stand-alone cost-effectiveness 49
Annex F4 Table of interaction factors, assuming 50% overlap 50
Annex G4 Results 51
Annex H4 "Get Ranking" 57
Annex I4 Crops/Soils Measures Expert Group 58

5 Mitigation options from livestock 59

5.1 Key Findings 59

5.2 Background 60
5.3 Prioritisation of abatement options examined 60
5.4 Methodology for estimating the abatement potential and cost-effectiveness
of mitigation options from livestock 61
5.5 Modifications to the diet and dietary supplementation 63
5.6 Breeding for improved efficiency 66
5.7 Manure management options 69
5.8 Anaerobic digestion 70
5.8.1 On Farm Anaerobic Digestion (OFAD) 70
5.8.2 Central Anaerobic Digestion (CAD) 71
5.8.3 Use of digestate 71
5.8.4 Livestock and holdings projections 72
5.9 Results 73
Annex A5 Review and ranking of potential mitigation options from livestock 75
Annex B5 Summary of costing assumptions for livestock animal and livestock
manure management options excluding anaerobic digestion. 81
Annex C5 Livestock measures results 84

6 Mitigation options in forestry 87

6.1 Key Findings 87

6.2 Overview of the sector 88
6.3 Mitigation measures 88
6.4 Data, measurement and assumptions 90
6.4.1 Baselines, rotation lengths, carbon sequestration and substitution benefits
90
6.4.2 Costs and incomes 94
6.5 Results 96
6.5.1 Abatement potential 96

iii
 6.5.2 Cost effectiveness 97
6.5.3 Discussion 97

7 Mitigation options in Land Use and Land Use Change (LULUC) 99

7.1 Key findings 99

7.2 Background 99
7.3 Overview of sector 99
7.4 Main modelling complexities 100
7.4.1 Criteria/rationale and brief description for screening measures in each
sector 100
7.5 Mitigation measures 100
7.5.1 Conversion from arable to grassland 100
7.5.2 Reduced ploughing of grassland 101
7.5.3 Peat restoration 101
7.5.4 Halting liming of organic soils 101
7.6 Data and Measurement 102
7.6.1 Land use transition matrices 102
7.6.2 Baselines 103
7.7 Costs 104
7.7.1 Sources of data 104
7.7.2 Costs 104
7.7.3 Other assumptions 105
7.7.4 Farm scale model description 105
7.8 Abatement potential 109
7.8.1 Sources of data 109
7.8.2 Modelling abatement potential 110
7.8.3 What is included and excluded 110
7.8.4 Uncertainties 110
7.9 Results 112

8 Discussion 114

8.1 Exclusions 122

8.2 Recommendations for further work 123

References 124

Annex A Systems LCA Perspectives on Measures Proposed to Reduce GHG

emissions from Agriculture 130

Annex B Qualitative assessment of ancillary costs and benefits of measures

140

Annex C Interaction of MACC measures and GHG Inventory 148

Annex D 2050 potentials 151

iv
List of Tables
Table E.1 2022 Abatement potential CFP xi
Table 1.1 Aggregated emission trends per source category (Mt CO 2 equivalent) 2
Table 2.1 Categorisation of potential depending on cost and ease of enforcement 13
Table 2.2 Uptake/compliance rates 13
Table 2.3 Uptake/Compliance with existing policies 14
Table 2.4 Example: Precision farming 16
Table 4.1 BAU3 land use projections 29
Table 4.2 Calculating the abatement rate of combinations of measures 31
Table 4.3 Effect of overlap on abatement 31
Table 4.4 Example showing the effects of measure interaction on CE 32
Table 4.5 Total abatement potential (MtCO 2 e/y) at a cost of <=£100/tCO 2 e, and
discount rate 3.5% 34
Table 4.6 Crops and Soils Measures Central Feasible Potential, 2012, 3.5% discount
rate 51
Table 4.7 Crops and Soils Measures Central Feasible Potential 2017, 3.5% discount
rate 52
Table 4.8 Crops and Soils Measures Central Feasible Potential 2022, 3.5% discount
rate 53
Table 4.9 Crops and Soils Measures High Feasible Potential 2022, 3.5% discount rate
54
Table 4.10 Crops and Soils Measures Low Feasible Potential 2022, 3.5% discount rate
55
Table 5.1 List of applicable livestock abatement options studied in this report 61
Table 5.2 Description of the “direct” and “indirect” costs associated with dairy animal
abatement measures 62
Table 5.3 Description of the “direct” and “indirect” costs associated with beef animal
abatement measures 62
Table 5.4 Effect of increasing starch content of the diet in dairy cattle (IGER, 2001) 64
Table 5.5 Effect of increasing proportion of maize silage in the diet (IGER, 2001) 65
Table 5.6 Summary of the abatement potential assumptions for animal management
options of dairy cows.* 69
Table 5.7 Summary of the abatement potential and cost assumptions for livestock
manure management abatement options* 69
Table 5.8 Livestock holding sizes assumed for estimating abatement potential via
anaerobic digestion. 70
Table 5.9 Total abatement potential (MtCO 2 e/y) at a cost of <=£100/tCO 2 e, 3.5%,
social metric 73
Table 5.10 Livestock Measures Central Feasible Potential, 2012 84
Table 5.11 Livestock Measures Central Feasible Potential 2017 84
Table 5.12 Livestock Measures Central Feasible Potential 2022 85
Table 5.13 Livestock Measures High Feasible Potential 2022 85
Table 5.14 Livestock Measures Low Feasible Potential 2022 86
Table 6.1 Emissions under low, mid and high planting scenarios 92
Table 6.2 Timber prices: sales contracts for standing coniferous timber from forest
enterprise areas 95
Table 6.3 Income generated from harvest (thinnings and clear cut) 95
Table 6.4 Sequestration abatement potential for afforestation, central feasible potential
96
Table 6.5 Abatement potential for shorter rotations, central feasible potential 97
Table 6.6 Cost effectiveness of the forestry measures, 2022, CFP, social metric 97
Table 7.1 Input data for the various enterprises used in the analysis. Gross margins ,
fertiliser and lime data from Beaton et al. (2007). 104
Table 7.2 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e) of various
land use transitions from arable to grassland for England. 105
Table 7.3 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e) of various
land use transitions from arable to grassland for Scotland. Only those
transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG emission
reductions) are shown. 106

v
Table 7.4 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e) of various
land use transitions from arable to grassland for Wales. Only those
transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG emission
reductions) are shown. 107
Table 7.5 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e) of various
land use transitions from arable to grassland for Northern Ireland. 108
Table 7.6 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e) of various
land use transitions from arable to grassland for the whole of the United
Kingdom. 109
Table 8.1 MACC, central feasible potential 2022, social metric 118
Table 8.2 Central Feasible Potential 2022 using a 7.0% discount rate 121

List of Figures
Figure E.1 MACC for UK agriculture 2022, CFP xiii
Figure E.2 MACC for UK agriculture 2022, MTP xiv
Figure 1.1 Illustrative Marginal Abatement Cost Curve 3
Figure 1.2 Deriving the domestic budget from a MACC 5
Figure 1.3 MACC development process 6
Figure 2.1 Abatement potential measured against baseline 11
Figure 4.1 Approach to screening measures 35
Figure 4.2 Crops and soils MACC, Central Feasible Potential 2022, private discount rate
56
Figure 5.1 Impact of increasing the proportion of propionate in the rumen on methane
output (IGER, 2001). 65
Figure 5.2 Livestock MACC with interactions for the central feasible in 2022 with a
discount rate = 7% 86
Figure 7.1 Land use transition matrices calculated in the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory,
1990 to 2006 (Choudrie et al., 2008). The 1990-91 areas were estimated
from the Countryside Survey data, translated into IPCC land use categories
and adjusted to take account of other data sources. 103
Figure 7.2 Areas of set-aside in the United Kingdom 1990-2007. Source: Defra
Agricultural Land Use; United Kingdom (Table 3.1). 112
Figure 7.3 Annual changes in set-side in the United Kingdom 1990-2007. Source: Defra
Agricultural Land Use; United Kingdom (Table 3.1). 112
Figure 7.4 Technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e) of converting all arable land in the
UK into grassland with different uses (beef, sheep, dairy, no livestock). 113
Figure 8.1 MACC, central feasible potential 2022, private discount rate 120

vi
 Executive summary
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, land use and land use change
(ALULUCF) are a significant percentage of UK emissions. The UK Government is
committed to ambitious targets for reducing emissions and all significant sources are
coming under increasing scrutiny. The task of proposing future reductions falls to the
newly appointed Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which needs to consider
efficient mitigation potential across a range of sectors.

Government recognises the need to achieve emissions reductions in an economically

efficient manner. In theory this means that some attempt should be made to equalise
marginal abatement costs across different sectors. In other words, the cheapest
units of greenhouse gas should be abated first. This suggests a requirement for
information on abatement schedules or marginal abatement cost curves (MACC’s),
which show the relative cost of greenhouse gas mitigation by alternative mitigation
methods and technologies. The CCC can then use these curves as a tool for setting
carbon budgets. The MACCs can also be used by government to negotiate with
emitting sectors and to develop a policy route map for affecting emissions reductions
to meet proposed budgets.

This report describes the derivation of MACC’s to depict abatement potential for
(ALULUCF) in the UK. MACC analysis offers a representation of cost and abatement
potential that is built up from a bottom-up analysis of data on mitigation options within
respective sectors. These mitigations are projected to be adopted over and above a
baseline of what would normally happen, thereby giving rise to extra abatement
potential. This information provides a basis for identifying a sector’s potential
contribution to greenhouse gas budgets that is based on a cost-effectiveness
analysis.

The methodology for deriving abatement potentials and the derivation of associated
cost curves was supplied by the CCC to be consistent with MACC analysis in other
sectors of the economy. The methodology allows for abatement potentials to be
represented using a range of alternative cost metrics.

This project focussed predominantly on CO 2 abatement in forestry and non CO 2

gases, specifically, methane and nitrous oxide, which make up the main emissions
from the land based sector. A range of sub sector specific abatement measures was
identified from a variety of published and unpublished sources. Information on
relevance and applicability to UK conditions was then derived from expert opinion,
which was also used to estimate abatement potentials under UK conditions, and the
extent to which measures would be additional to a business as usual baseline.
Expert input was also sought for some of the relevant information on implementation
costs. Cost information was augmented by modelling decision-making at the farm
scale.

The resulting abatement potentials are clearly influenced by levels of expected

adoption of these measures. Accordingly, the analysis considers a range of technical
potentials that might set the limits on abatement. A maximum technical potential
(MTP) determined the absolute upper limit that might result from the highest
technically feasible level of adoption or measure implementation in the sub sectors.
Since this limit is not informed by the reality of non adoption or likely policy or social
constraints, we also estimate high, central and low feasible potential (HFP/CFP/LFP)
abatements, which are the levels thought most likely to emerge in the time scales
and policy contexts under consideration.
There are several ways to present the resulting MACC information for the CCC
budget periods, 2012, 2017 and 2022. In addition to the differing levels of abatement
related to adoption, MACC variants can be created using private or social costs or a
hybrid of both. The key distinctions here are the different discounting assumptions,
and whether or not the analysis reflects private or social costs. Abatement potentials
have also been estimated for the separate UK devolved administrations, i.e. England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The information was compiled in spreadsheets that allow transparency and flexibility
in altering assumptions in several key data inputs.

Forestry potential contributes to the estimated total abatement in ALULUCF, which

may be further enhanced by the extent to which wood products are assumed to
displace carbon intensive construction materials and energy sources. We also
estimate significant abatement potential in crop and soil measures and in livestock
management. We do not identify any specific significant abatement opportunities in
land-use change, but note that previous studies have, and that small opportunities
may exist in terms of peat land restoration. But these opportunities may be relatively
costly compared to any reasonable cost threshold such as the current UK Shadow
Price of Carbon.
The combined total CFP abatement estimates for 2012, 2017 and 2022 (social
discount rate) are 2.66 MtCO 2 e, 6.58 MtCO 2 e and 10.83 MtCO 2 e respectively. In
other words, by 2012, and assuming a feasible policy environment, ALULUCF could
be mitigating around 6% of current greenhouse gas emissions (which the NAEI
reported to be 45.253MtCO 2 e in 2005 – not including emissions from agricultural
machinery). By 2022 this rises to nearer 25%. The combined total MTP abatement
estimates for 2012, 2017 and 2022 (social discount rate) are 5.83 MtCO 2 e, 14.91
MtCO 2 e and 23.86 MtCO 2 e respectively.

The estimated CFP and MTP potentials for 2022 are demonstrated in Table E.1 and
2, respectively, where the final column of cumulative abatement potential defines the
MACC curve shown in Figure E.1and Figure E.2

For illustrative purposes, using the 2022 MACC this total central feasible potential
can be divided between crop and soil measures 6.46 1 MtCO 2 e, livestock measures
3.40 MtCO 2 e, and forestry measures 0.98 MtCO 2 e.

Table E.1 also suggests that all three sub sectors offer measures capable of
delivering abatement at zero or low cost (expressed in 2006 prices) below thresholds
set by the Shadow Price of Carbon (currently about £36/t CO 2 e projected for 2025).
Indeed around 6.34 MtCO 2 e could possibly be abated at negative or zero cost. As
demonstrated by Table E1 and associated MACC, costs then rise progressively.
After measure AC (crop-soils drainage) there is a steep rise in the abatement cost
per tonne.
For agriculture alone, the central feasible potential of 7.85MtCO 2 e (at <£100/t)
represents 17.3% of the 2005 UK agricultural NAEI GHG emissions. Although there
are no similar benchmark studies, the results presented here partly corroborate
conclusions on abatement potential identified in IGER (2001) and CLA/AIC/NFU
(2007) in relation to N 2 O. The MACC curves presented here provide more detail that
builds on a preliminary MACC exercise set out in Nera (2007).

1
Where possible figures are reported to several decimal places for maximum transparency.
Rounding to one significant figure would better reflect the uncertainties involved.

viii
We also quantify the indirect abatement potential that afforestation and short rotation
forestry biomass substitution provides in substituting in energy generation and in
other product end uses. This latter potential could be a significant addition to the
ALULUCF potential, i.e. as high as 10.53 MtCO 2 e from short rotation biomass
substitution into other end uses (2022 CFP). But this potential is not included in the
main figures for two reasons. Firstly, it is not clear that these savings will accrue in
the UK. Secondly, our analysis is based on the costs of production of this biomass
and does not make any assumptions about costs entailed in its use.
An annex to this report provides a horizon scan of likely 2050 technologies that could
conceivably increase this potential significantly. A precise estimate of how far
emissions can be reduced is speculative pending further research. However, a
cautious assessment is that the high feasible abatement potential identified in the full
MAC curves (17 MtCO 2 e) could be achieved by 2050. This would imply emissions
from agriculture in 2050 of around 50% below 1990 levels
A number of caveats need to be stressed on the results as they are currently
presented. The first is that the results do not include a quantitative assessment of
ancillary benefits and costs, i.e. other positive and negative external impacts likely to
arise when implementing some greenhouse gas abatement measures. Reduced
water pollution related to more efficient use of nitrogen fertiliser is a classic example.
While emissions abatement and water pollution may be positively correlated, the
same is not always true for the effect of some abatement measures on biodiversity.
Some ancillary impacts will be significant, and they ideally need to be quantified and
added to the cost estimates. At this stage, the report only provides a qualitative
assessment of the ancillary impacts (see Annex B). Work is currently underway to
include estimates of these largely non -market impacts. For now we note that these
will tend to make crops and soils measures more attractive and livestock measures
less so.

A similar caveat applies to the need to extend the consideration of costs to the life
cycle impact of some measures. Annex A provides a qualitative assessment of these
impacts and we suggest that the analysis does need to be extended to consider
selected life cycles assessments (LCA), which could change the MACC ordering.
The qualitative analysis suggests that crops and soils measures will have co-benefits
in reducing emissions from fertiliser production.

A third point to note is that there is some uncertainty about the extent to which some
of the identified measures are counted directly in the current UK national emissions
inventory format. As currently compiled, some measures may only reduce emissions
indirectly 2 and it is important to try and identify how a measure can qualify as being
of direct mitigation potential. Removing indirect measures can have the effect
of reducing abatement potential by around two thirds.

For example, the removal of indirect potential from the central feasible potential
estimate for 2022 reduced the cumulate abatement from 10.83 MtCO 2 e to 3.3
MtCO2e. All of this reduction is in the crop and soil and livestock abatement
potentials. Crop and soil abatement potential would reduce from 5.17 MtCO 2 e to only
154.74 ktCO 2 e. Livestock measures reduce from 3.40 MtCO 2 e to 2.17 MtCO 2 e.

2
Here, indirect refers to a measure that reduces emissions, but which is not currently
recognised under inventory protocol. As an example, a reduction in herd populations is a
direct measure that is recognised as an emissions reduction. Making an alteration to the
animal (e.g. genetics), may deliver the same reduction hence in an indirect way, but may not
be recognised.

ix
There is clearly a need to clarify how measures qualify for inclusion in national
inventory formats.

This report raises a number of other complicating factors that increase the
uncertainty inherent in the definition of MACC’s, and that distinguish the ALULUCF
exercise from that undertaken in other sectors characterised by fewer firms and a
common, relatively well-understood set of abatement technologies. In comparison,
agriculture and land use are more atomistic, heterogeneous and regionally diverse.
These factors can alter the abatement potentials and the cost-effectiveness outlined
here. As with other sectors, the effectiveness of measures is influenced by
interactions between measures and their environment. We have tried to reduce this
uncertainty by explicit consideration of interactions, but we stress that further work is
required to derive more targeted abatement potentials e.g. across a variety of farm
types and on a regional basis.

x
 Table E.1 2022 Abatement potential CFP
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO 2 e]
[ktCO 2 e] [MtCO 2 e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 347.38 -1,747.79 0.347
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 46.32 -3,602.93 0.394
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 1,150.39 -103.38 1.544
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 1,027.16 -68.48 2.571
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 457.26 -148.91 3.029
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 55.77 -1,052.63 3.084
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 377.36 -0.07 3.462
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 739.66 -48.59 4.201
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 346.26 -0.04 4.548
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 331.80 -76.10 4.879
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 95.98 -262.63 4.975
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 276.06 -50.29 5.251
DA Forestry-Afforestation 980.84 -7.12 6.232
AO Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 78.51 0.00 6.311
AM Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 47.17 0.00 6.358
EI OFAD-PigsLarge 47.77 0.96 6.406
EF OFAD-BeefLarge 97.79 2.52 6.503
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 16.06 4.69 6.520
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 250.81 7.96 6.770
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 219.34 11.43 6.990
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 1,741.02 14.44 8.731
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 50.77 16.96 8.781
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 44.12 24.10 8.826
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 365.98 174.22 9.192
BG DairyAn-bST 132.31 224.10 9.324
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 603.67 293.50 9.928
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 165.90 1,067.95 10.093
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 504.29 1,691.28 10.598
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 136.20 2,045.10 10.734
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 80.96 2,704.54 10.815
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 10.05 4,434.34 10.825
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 8.49 14,280.16 10.833

Notes: (i) a more detailed explanation of the ordering of negative cost measures is provided in
section 4.4.4 of this report.
(ii) Much of the discussion in this report refers to abatement potentials determined by
considering an arbitrary cost-effectiveness cut off at approximately £100/tCO2e - i.e. in the
above table up to and including the abatement delivered by implementing to measure EB.
(iii) For convenience in the corresponding MACC diagram below, measures offering
abatement above £1000/tCO2e are not shown.

xi
 Table E.2 2022 Abatement potential MTP
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO 2 e]
[ktCO 2 e] [MtCO 2 e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 771.95 -1,747.79 0.772
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 102.93 -3,602.93 0.875
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 2,556.41 -103.38 3.431
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 2,282.58 -68.48 5.714
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 1,016.13 -148.91 6.730
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 123.93 -1,052.63 6.854
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 838.57 -0.07 7.693
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 1,643.68 -48.59 9.336
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 769.48 -0.04 10.106
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 737.33 -76.10 10.843
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 213.28 -262.63 11.056
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 613.48 -50.29 11.670
EI Forestry-Afforestation 1,961.67 -7.12 13.631
EF OFAD-PigsLarge 106.15 -2.44 13.738
AO OFAD-BeefLarge 217.30 -1.12 13.955
AM Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 174.47 0.00 14.129
DA Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 104.83 0.00 14.234
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 35.69 0.71 14.270
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 557.35 3.47 14.827
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 112.82 11.08 14.940
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 487.42 11.43 15.427
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 3,868.93 14.44 19.296
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 98.05 17.11 19.394
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 813.29 174.22 20.208
BG DairyAn-bST 294.01 224.10 20.502
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 1,341.49 293.50 21.843
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 368.67 1,067.95 22.212
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 1,120.64 1,691.28 23.333
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 302.66 2,045.10 23.635
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 179.90 2,704.54 23.815
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 22.33 4,434.34 23.837
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 18.87 14,280.16 23.856

xii
 Total UK Agriculture, 2022, CFP, P, d.r.=3.5%
Cost Effectiveness
[£2006/tCO2e] (Measures with CE>1000 are not shown)
300 293
280
260
240 224
220
200
180 174

160
140
120
100
80
60
40 24
0 11 14 17
20 5 8
0 13
0
-0.07 -0.04
-200 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 -7 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
-40
-60 -49 -50
-80 -68
-76
-100
-120 -103

-140
-160 -149
-180
-200
-220
-240
-260
-263
-1,053
-1,748
-3,603
-3,620
CE CG AG AJ AE AN BF BE BI AL BB AD DA AO EI EH EC HT AC EE EB AF BG AI
AM EF
First Year Gross Volume Abated [ktCO2e]

Figure E.1 MACC for UK agriculture 2022, CFP

 Total UK Agriculture, 2022, MTP, P, d.r.=3.5%
(Measures with CE>1000 are not shown)
Cost Effectiveness
[£2006/tCO2e]
300 293
280
260
240 224
220
200
180 174

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
0 11 11 14 17
20
0 1 3
0
-0.7 -0.04 -1
-20 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 -7 -2 14, 000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000
-40
-60 -49 -50
-80 -68
-76
-100
-120 -103

-140
-160 -149
-180
-200
-220
-240
-260
-263
-1,053
-1,748
-3,620 -3,603

CE CG AG AJ AE AN BF BE BI AL BB AD EI EF AM EC EE HT AC EB AF BG AI
AO DA EH
First Year Gross Volume Abated [ktCO2e]

Figure E.2 MACC for UK agriculture 2022, MTP

xiv
1 Introduction
1.1 Background

The UK Committee on Climate Change is currently undertaking analysis with a view

to deriving national carbon budgets that are part of an overall strategy of addressing
emissions mitigation using cost-effectiveness analysis. Budgets will be set for 5-
year periods up to 2012, 2017 and 2022. This report considers the potential scope
for mitigation in the agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry sectors
(ALULUCF). We consider emissions and abatement potential of all greenhouse
gases expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents 3 . This information is combined with
abatement cost information over the specified time horizons to derive a graphical
representation of the cost of mitigation in the form of a marginal abatement cost
curve (MACC).

A MACC ranks abatement measures in order of decreasing cost effectiveness.

Measures to the left of the curve and below the x-axis indicate negative costs or
savings to society from implementation. Measures to the right and above the x-axis
illustrate costs to society from implementation. The MACC permits technologies and
measures to be compared at the margin (i.e. the steps of the curve). The width of
each provides information on the volume of abatement potential associated with a
measure (see Figure 1.1). The graph provides a tool for cost-effectiveness or cost-
benefit analysis. In the latter case, unit mitigation costs can be compared with the
shadow price of carbon as the notional avoided damage costs.

Table 1.1 summarises the trends in aggregated direct greenhouse gas emissions
covered by FCCC/CP/2002/8 by sector for the years 2000-2003. ALULUCF sectors
are included largely under the headings agriculture and forestry. These figures show
agricultural emissions to be around 44.733 MtCO 2 e, excluding LUC (2003) or
approximately 7% of UK emissions making the sector the second largest source of
greenhouse gases. Agricultural emissions from this sector arise for both CH 4 and
N 2 O. Land-use change and forestry are a net sink in 2003. Emissions from this
source occur for CO 2 , N 2 O and CH 4 .

Since 1990, emissions from this agricultural sector have declined by 14%, due to
reduced emissions from enteric fermentation and agricultural waste disposal (related
to lower livestock numbers) and from agricultural soils due to changes in agricultural
practices and emissions from the use of synthetic fertiliser.

As with other sectors ALULUCF emissions abatement or mitigation needs to be

achieved at least cost. More technically, there exists a notional schedule of costs of
implementing mitigation measures, which shows that some measures can be
enacted at a lower cost than other measures. Indeed some measures are thought to
be cost saving, i.e. farmers could implement some measures more efficiently such
that they would simultaneously save money and reduce emissions. Thereafter costs
rise until some calculation of the costs relative to the benefits of abatement show that
further mitigation is less worthwhile. This is the essence of the MACC approach,
which enables a comparison of cost with the benefit of avoided carbon emission
damages - the so-called shadow price of carbon (SPC). While the SPC is highlighted
here as one potential avoided damages benchmark, we note that other potential
benchmarks could be set using an implicitly higher shadow price. This report does
not address this issue further and readers are referred to government guidance on

3
Converted based on the international convention of GWP100 as presented in the IPCC’s
Second Assessment Report.
the SPC 4 and to CCC’s launch report. In the analysis presented in this report we
also consider a notional benchmark of £100/t CO2e.

A broad range of mitigation options can be identified within the sector, but some
systematic method needs to be employed to prioritise across measures differentiated
by cost and mitigation potential. Marginal Abatement Cost curves (MACC) provide a
static snap shot illustration of the annual potential to reduce emissions and average
costs of doing so for a wide variety of technologies and abatement measures for a
given year relative to an assumed baseline.

The development of MACC is a bottom-up process based on cost and abatement

potential for individual technologies and measures identified across the ALULUCF
sectors. For the purposes of the data collection and the compilation of data, we have
separated the ALULUC and forestry sectors into discrete sub sectors and collections
of measures.

Table 1.1 Aggregated emission trends per source category (Mt CO 2 equivalent)

Source Category 2000 2001 2002 2003

1. Energy 557.8 576.0 559.7 567.3

2. Industrial Processes 29.8 27.9 25.7 26.8
a
3. Solvents and other product use - - - -
4. Agriculture 49.1 46.1 46.4 45.8
5. Land-use Change and Forestry
15.1 14.9 14.5 14.7
(emissions)
5. Land-use Change and Forestry
-15.8 -15.9 -16.0 -16.3
(removals)
6. Waste 14.8 13.4 11.9 11.1
7. Other - - - -
Total (emissions only) 666.6 678.3 658.2 665.8
Total (net CO 2 – sum of emissions and
650.8 662.5 642.2 649.6
removals)

Footnotes:
a
Solvents and other product use emissions occur as NMVOC and so do not appear in this
Table which covers direct greenhouse gases
http://www.ghgi.org.uk/documents/ES3_table_from_2005_NIR.pdf
UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2003
http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/cat07/0509161559_ukghgi_90-03_Issue_1.1.doc

4
Defra (2007) The Social Cost Of Carbon And The Shadow Price Of Carbon: What They Are,
And How To Use Them In Economic Appraisal In The UK
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/carboncost/pdf/background.pdf

2
 £/tCO2e
1,300

650

600

550

500

450

300

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-50

MtCO2e
-100

-150

-250

Figure 1.1 Illustrative Marginal Abatement Cost Curve

1.2 Objectives and Scope

The overall aim of this project is to set out the process and outcomes of a bottom up
construction of MACC following recommended guidelines set out by the CCC. The
scope includes the main greenhouse gases but excludes CO 2 emissions from energy
use in on-farm heating or transportation. While the analysis considered the role of
energy crops as an abatement option, a number of economic factors mitigate against
this as a current cropping or land use decision. The analysis does not therefore
contain a seperate section on energy crops.

The main objectives of this project were as follows:

• To identify all the potential GHG mitigation measures in the ALULUCF

sectors;
• To review these measures and produce a short-list of feasible measures for
detailed analysis;
• To calculate the stand alone abatement rates, abatement potentials and
cost-effectiveness for each measure on the short-list;
• To calculate the combined abatement rates, abatement potentials and cost-
effectiveness for each measure, taking into account the ways in which
measures interact;
• To develop MACCs for ALULUCF (and the sub-sectors of crops/soils;
livestock; forestry; land use change) for 2012, 2017 and 2022, for different
combinations of discount rates and potential uptake/compliance scenarios.

The study was initiated with an ambitious terms of reference to derive MACC curves
that included ancillary costs and benefits; i.e. non greenhouse gas costs and benefits
from measure implementation. The extent or border of the costs and benefits was
debated at length, since the life cycle costs of some measures such as reduced
fertiliser use and the production of biofuels can clearly be measured to include their
whole life costs and not those within the farm gate. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is
clearly subject to much discussion and policy scrutiny. However, the data

3
requirements for rigorous LCA were considered too onerous within the timeframe of
this study. Accordingly, Annex 1 provides further background on the significance of
LCA in the context of ALULUCF and details the relevant LCA implications of
measures that are deemed relatively cost-effective by this study. While the MACC
analysis clearly needs to reconcile some of the LCA costs, we do not consider the
issue further in this report.

The main requirement for the study was a consideration of abatement potential in the
sub sectors over and above any business as usual baseline. Thus there is a need to
be specific about how much if any of the identified measures are already being
implemented in our baseline as distinct from our uptake or 'increased abatement'
scenarios. In these scenarios it is clearly possible for a wide variety of mitigation
measures to be implemented across ALULUCF and for each measure to be
implemented across a wide area. For example, it may be possible to convert large
areas of arable crops and grassland to energy crops. While the abatement
represented under this full technical potential is informative, it is likely to incur
significant opportunity costs in terms of the displaced arable crops. It is unlikely
therefore to be feasible in market or policy terms, and at best, it represents a notional
upper bound below which policy can be fixed. While nevertheless identifying this full
potential, our focus is more realistically on credible technological adoption within the
timelines of interest and within the context of a likely policy environment. Credible
adoption would also be determined by costs, which needed to be determined and
broken down as far as possible into capital and recurrent expenditures (see below).
These considerations would in turn lead to an abatement potential scenario that is
considered to be a central technical potential from abatement options that are
currently available. Looking into the future, the study was also asked to consider
how existing constraints, might change over the reporting periods 2012, 2017, 2022.
At the extreme within a time horizon of 2050, several technologies that are currently
marginal in terms of their technical potential (i.e. in terms of cost) might nevertheless
become less expensive to implement.

The assumptions of the MACC exercise were summarised in spreadsheet format to

enable flexibility in model construction. Key inputs and outputs were:

• the range of mitigation measures across each sub sector

• Cost breakdown by measure; specifically capital and recurrent costs plus a
qualitative assessment of ancillary (or external) costs and any potential life
cycle implication
• Applicability of the measure - e.g. in terms of a baseline of land area,
numbers of holdings or numbers of animals
• Unit abatement potential by measure
• Assumptions to define central feasible adoption ranges (i.e. upper and lower)
below full technical potential
• Forecast input and output cost variables for future price changes over the
relevant time horizons

The construction of the ALULUCF MACC was guided by a basic structure used by
CCC for consistency across different sectors. This structure included a control panel
of variables such as standard emissions factors, discount rates, and energy output
prices.

The structure of this report is as follows. The next section outlines the source of
several key parameters and assumptions used as MACC inputs. This information is
common to subsequent chapters that detail the process and assumptions behind the
construction of MACC curves for crop and soils, livestock and forestry sectors
respectively. These chapters present MACC charts for 2022 Central Feasible
Potential (CFP) alone. We also include the tables for: 2012 CFP and showing
central, high and low feasible potential for 2017 and 2022. A penultimate chapter

4
addresses the scope for abatement in residual land uses and land use changes. A
final chapter presents the combined MACC’s and offers caveats and suggestions for
improving the analysis.

1.3 Key MAC Parameters

This section outlines the key stages of developing the MACC’s and provides an
overview of important assumptions made in relation to baselines, technical potentials
and the derivation of cost information. These and other assumptions are
subsequently revisited in the individual sub sector chapters, which also draw on
scientific expert opinion to define some of the data requirements (e.g. the potential
for measure interactions and resulting impacts on abatement potential). Figure 1.2
shows how the notional domestic carbon budget can be derived from the MACC.

Domestic
Emissions “Cost-effective” abatement potential
Carbon = -
Projection (identified in MACCs)
Budget

Emissions Projection 800

(Baseline)
170 600
160 400
Abatement
M tC O 2e

150
Potential 200
140 (Identified in
0
130 MAC Analysis)
0 35 70 105 140
120 -200

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Domestic Carbon -400
MtCO2 Budget (Baseline net of
Abatement Potential)

Figure 1.2 Deriving the domestic budget from a MACC

In broad terms the main steps of the MACC exercise are as follows:

a. Identify Business As Usual (BAU) abatement or baseline emissions projection

for 2012, 2017, 2022
b. Identify potential additional abatement for each period, above and beyond the
abatement forecast in the BAU scenario, by comparing the BAU abatement
with the abatement measures inventory, which includes measure adoption
scenarios corresponding to maximum technical potential and central, high
and low feasible potentials
c. Quantify (i) the maximum technical potential abatement and (ii) Cost-
effectiveness (CE) in terms of £/tCO 2 e of each measure that can contribute
additional abatement (based on measures inventory, existing data, expert
groups review and NAEI) for each period, by the following process:
i. quantify the costs and benefits, and the timing of costs and benefits
ii. calculate the net present value (NPV) using discount rates from the
control panel
iii. express costs in £2006
iv. list cost breakdowns used to calculate the CE; note which BAU
working assumptions were used, and list any new assumptions made
v. identify the potential global emissions impact of the measure, i.e. the
extent to which mitigation might displace production (and associated
emissions) from the UK rather than reducing the global emissions.
d. Draw initial MACCs varying the discount rate (to derive social, private and
hybrid metrics)

5
 e. Adjust CE to take into account (a) reduced/increased CE resulting from
interaction of measures 5 and (b) granularity in the MACCs to reflect different
average costs as penetration becomes more demanding
f. Redraw MACC
g. Identify feasible uptake
h. Quantify feasible potentials in terms of central, low and high estimates, based
on a review of the levels of compliance/uptake associated with existing
policies
i. Disaggregate into feasible potentials by devolved administration (DA) and gas
j. Report in output summary sheet format
k. Carry out stand alone MACC check

This process is outlined in Figure 1.3 below

Expert meeting:
discuss and Calculation of
remove measures maximum
(a) likely to have abatement
very low additional potential, based
abatement on expert
Generate
potential in UK Interim interpretation and Short list
initial list list of 35 of 14
(e.g. already published data
of 97
current practice, measures (e.g. Smith et al measures
measures
only applicable to 2008; BAU3)
very small % of
land) or (b) unlikely Removal of
to be technically measures with
feasible or potential of <2%
acceptable to the UK agricultural
industry. Also Costing
emissions exercise
aggregated some
measures with
experts

Modelling of
measures
impact on
CE (£/tCO2e/y)2,053
gross Stand-alone cost-effectiveness
1,072 margins
0
0
0
CE (£/tCO2e/y)2,053 0 5 10 15 20
1,072 Recalculation of CE
HIGH FP
0 taking into account
0 CE (£/tCO2e/y) measure interactions
0
0 5 10 15 20 2,500
2,053
CENTRAL 1,072
1,000
CE (£/tCO2e/y)2,053 500 0
0 Combined cost-effectiveness
1,072 0
0 -500 0 5 10 15 20
0
0 MAXIMUM TECHNICAL FP
0 5 10 15 20
LOW FP

Figure 1.3 MACC development process

1.4 Baselines

In each ALULUCF sub sector, mitigation potential for the budgetary periods needs to
be based on a projected level of production activity that constitutes the basis for
estimating current (or business as usual) abatement associated with production, and
for determining the potential extent of additional abatement above this level. The
choice of baselines is therefore crucial and it is important to determine whether the
baseline is an accurate reflection of the changing production environment across
ALULUCF sectors.

5
The CE of a measure is dependent on the measures that are implemented prior to it, e.g.
the CE of decreasing herd size is lowered if the herd has already been switched to lower
GHG feed.

6
Different baselines are applicable across the sub sectors but since these all apply to
a limited amount of UK land area, the assumptions necessarily need to be consistent
in order to avoid double counting abatement potential.

1.4.1 Agricultural Baselines

Recent and on-going structural change in UK agricultural production makes the
determination of a reliable baseline particularly challenging. For this exercise the
main source of baseline information is a recent exercise developing a UK Business
as Usual projection (BAU3) (Defra SFF0601). The rest of this section gives details of
this baseline (which was developed in previous projects, and used in this project).

BAU3 covers the periods 2004 to 2025, choosing discrete blocks of time to provide a
picture of change over this period, and to accommodate the implementation of major
policy changes. The BAU3 base year was 2004; a period where the most detailed
data could be gathered for the 4 countries of the UK at a spatial level. Projections
followed headings for agricultural production contained within the Defra census,
covering both livestock and crop categories, to a fairly detailed resolution of activities,
e.g. beef heifers in calf, 2 years and over etc. The projections cover the years 2010,
2015, 2020 and 2025. The project concentrated on policy commitments that were in
place in 2006, including those for future implementation. As the project was looking
to 2025, it also seemed reasonable to include assumptions about some policy
reforms that, due to current discussions, would seem likely, although not formally
agreed at the time of writing. These mainly include the abolition of set-aside and milk
quotas. The key assumptions are summarised below.

CAP reform:
• Includes anticipated responses to reform, as indicated by farmer surveys
and expert opinion of the agricultural industry.

Single Farm Payment:

• Voluntary modulation of the Single Payment. The projections assumed
that the Rural Development Plans for UK would go ahead as proposed
with a deal on voluntary modulation. In the longer-term, we envisaged
increased modulation, whether compulsory or voluntary, but anticipated
some Single Farm Payment would remain, even until 2025.

Response to existing Directives/legislation/conventions:

• Water Framework Directive (WFD)
• Nitrates Directive
• Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
• Waste Framework Directive
• Kyoto
• Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
• REACH

Most of these drivers would primarily affect management of land and inputs within
agriculture, but may also influence choice of crops, livestock numbers and
infrastructure change. Defra’s main response to the ‘agricultural element’ of the WFD
has been to encourage a supportive approach in England. This is mirrored in the
Devolved Administrations.

Cross compliance:
• This will ensure better adherence to existing regulations.

Agri-environment schemes:
• Planned targets for these schemes were assumed to be achieved.

7
Set-aside:
• Assumed set-aside phased out by 2015, but 50% of land would remain
within agricultural production

Milk quota:
• Remains until 2015, will be removed by 2025.

Social drivers:
• Organic food – this would continue to expand on current trends.
• Hobby farming – the trend to more small, lifestyle and equine units was
assumed to continue with little impact on commercial agriculture.
• Farmer demographics – average age of 56 (and rising) was assumed to
be reflected in structural change with fewer farm businesses.
• Planning/development – need for more housing, interactions with land
use/water resources, spatial considerations. Existing plans and trends
were assumed to continue.

Climate change:
• There needed to be a consideration of potential longer-term impacts on
choice of crops.

However, two specific responses also needed to be considered:

Biofuel crops:
• A move to renewable energy sources. This is an area of considerable
uncertainty in the longer-term. Specific agreements already in place (e.g.
Road Transport Fuel Obligations) taken into account.

Water resources:
• Increasing demand on water resources from agriculture and the
population, which would vary regionally.

Technical developments:
• Increased efficiency of production, both of crops and livestock, so that
yield per unit will increase. We assumed Genetic Modification (GM) would
continue to be effectively blocked in Europe due to consumer pressure
and the negative effect this has had in investment for crops adapted to our
climates.

Adoption of GM:
• Assumed to continue elsewhere in the world.

Global considerations:
• International negotiations to liberalise world trade was assumed to
continue with gradual success and the CAP was assumed to continue to
be reformed to make it less trade distorting. Export Subsidies assumed to
be removed by 2015.

These considerations were synthesised through a group of expert meetings and

estimates, derived from a number of econometric based studies, were adjusted
under discussion with commodity and policy experts.

Policy not included within BAU3:-

BAU3 did not include major new departures in policy making, for example complete
abandonment of public funding for UK agriculture. It did not include potential drivers
that are speculative at this stage.

8
In reality, some of the above drivers were taken into account more than the others,
mainly because of lack of robust data for some elements. Consequently, it was major
factors such as CAP reform (where work had previously been undertaken) that were
the main considerations in developing projections on ‘infrastructure’. For changes in
‘management’, Defra project WQ0106 was able to inform this aspect and took into
account many factors including NVZs, ECSFDI (and equivalents in devolved
administrations), WFD and environmental stewardship schemes. Although this
current project was undertaken during discussions on a revised NVZ Action
Programme, some extension to NVZs was assumed. IPPC measures were assumed
to impact mainly on gaseous emissions.

9
2 Mapping BAU3 onto the MACC Carbon Budget Years
BAU3 assumed a significant change in agricultural policy would occur in 2013.
Hence the period of 2012 is unaffected as it changes linearly from the 2010 period,
and the 2017 period accommodates, as did BAU3, its 2015 scenario of changes,
such as CAP reform and the WFD. Similarly, 2020 and 2025 were produced with no
future new policy implementations, hence the 2022 scenario can again be assumed
to be a linear trend growth from 2020. Accordingly, a weighted linear average was
used to adjust the BAU3 estimates to cover the carbon budget years, assuming no
significant shifts in policies or market prices between the reference years and the
forecasted years.

Whilst BAU3 provides the best estimates of agricultural land use in the next 20 years,
there are some policy changes that have occurred since publication in 2006.
Predominantly, these have been removal of set-aside and changes to English and
Welsh Nitrate Vulnerable Zones regulations. The first is accounted for within the
2017 estimates as removal was expected to occur near the end of the 2006-2013
period. Nevertheless, an assumption was that 50% of land would return to
production. It seems that this may have been a conservative estimate given the
recent rises in wheat prices and the expectations of future cereal price growth. Thus,
more land will be expected to return to agricultural activity and the figures provided
here will underestimate the potential of technologies for abatement, as BAU3 is used
to gross up on-farm effects. The Nitrate Vulnerable Zone regulations were included
in the original projections and held constant over the projection periods. Recent
changes have occurred to NVZ designated areas within England and, hence these
recent change could not be accommodated for within the BAU3 projections.
However, these impacts are minimal relative to wider policy measures to reduced
inputs.

2.1 Baseline information for LULUCF

Non agricultural land use baseline information was mainly derived with reference to
existing emissions inventory reporting produced by the Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology (CEH). CEH data provide projections on afforestation rates and other land
use transitions such as grassland conversion to alternative land uses. Some
modifications to these projections were considered. For example, it is possible to
conceive of higher afforestation projections than those considered by CEH.

2.2 Identifying additionality in abatement

Within agriculture it is important to determine the extent of additional abatement that

is forecast relative to the BAU scenario. As shown in Figure 1.2 the notional carbon
budget is measured relative to an emissions projection baseline. This raises specific
challenges about the extent of likely direct and indirect abatement already taking
place currently in BAU and accommodated within it. BAU abatement potential is
based on largely static assumptions about abatement potential of key farm measures
and fixed emissions factors (e.g. livestock numbers times emissions). As seen in the
previous section, some allowance is also made for the indirect effects of a range of
legislative changes that are included within BAU and its associated abatement
potential. In terms of direct abatement measures considered in this report, it is
important to be clear that we are restricted in our ability to predict how these evolving
regulatory changes will lead to additional progressive uptake of abatement
measures.

Figure 2.1 below sets out two trajectories defining the abatement potential under our
central feasible potential (CFP) on uptake , the meaning of which is defined in the

10
following section. The upper projection represents the interpolated BAU baseline
relative to the estimated CFP trajectory. Our uncertainty about the BAU abatement
means the gap between the two trajectories in Figure 2.1 below is likely to be smaller
to the extent that the BAU (upper trend) will progressively include abatement
potential ancillary to other policies. If we assume BAU to be represented by this
interpolation it follows that the adoption rate assumptions made in deriving the
relevant technical potentials (see next section) drive the extent of additionally. These
adoption assumptions are made with the best guess of how the BAU may evolve
given current knowledge and accounting for some other dynamic changes not
accounted for in BAU; for example changing input and output prices.

Emissions for agriculture: BAU and CFP abatement

48
46 Emissions
after
44
Emissions (MtCO2e)

abatement
42 (CFP, 3.5%)
40
38 Total BAU
emissions
36
34
32
30
2004 2012 2017 2022
Year

Figure 2.1 Abatement potential measured against baseline

2.3 Identifying technical potentials

The extent to which mitigation measures are adopted depends on the specifics of the
measure and the policy framework; MAC curves can be constructed to reflect
abatement potentials in terms of these different levels of adoption. This analysis
distinguishes between four potential abatement scenarios: maximum technical; high
feasible; central feasible; low feasible.

Maximum technical abatement potential is the amount by which it is possible to

reduce GHG emissions by implementing a technology or practice that has already
been demonstrated; i.e. the abatement that could be achieved if everyone who could
adopt this measure did so as far as they could, regardless of cost. For a given
measure this potential represents the upper limit on abatement, although it is unlikely
to be realised. Instead, some lower level of adoption is likely, depending on the
prevailing cost and policy environment.

These levels of adoption can be illustrated using a hypothetical example. ISuppose

that a hypothetical government regulation mandates a form of technological
improvement to say farm machinery that lowers emissions. The maximum technical
would be defined by the percentage of machines that could technically fit the new
add-on, which might be something under 100% since older machines may not be
technically adaptable for the fix. Below this adoption rate we assume a high feasible
level of adoption, which is the percentage of uptake if the government made them
mandatory through regulation. Thus, we may see something below the full technical

11
potential, the difference being non compliance by a small percentage of people who
could technically retrofit the improvement..

We define the central feasible uptake as the likely percentage arising if there were a
policy to subsidise the add-on or penalise emissions. This might result in compliance
amongst 50% of those who are technically able to retrofit. Finally a low feasible
adoption percentage is the level of uptake if the government has a voluntary retrofit
scheme. We assume this may result in something below the central adoption level,
e.g. as low as 10%.

High, Central and Low Potentials for Agriculture

In practice, accurately forecasting the likely uptake of a policy requires modelling of

farmer behaviour based on the specific incentives provided by each measure. While
this is beyond the scope of the present project, it is possible to derive some
estimates with reference to existing uptake/compliance rates and a few
assumptions.

As will be seen in the sub sector chapters the definition of these potentials is made
with reference to existing policy compliance rates. However, the sheets contain
flexibility for these levels to be re set to test hypotheses on different rates

The definition of a low feasible scenario can be based on voluntary initiatives such as
information dissemination and education. This is not enforceable and uptake will
depend on the cost. Negative cost measures would be expected to have a higher
uptake and positive cost measures would be assumed significantly lower.

A central feasible scenario can be based on incentive-based instruments, e.g. a cap

and trade scheme or environmental stewardship, where action results in some form
of financial compensation, such as direct payment, tax breaks or grants.

A high feasible scenario is most likely to be associated with forms of command and
control regulation. Higher levels of compliance might be expected for measures that
are more readily enforceable (e.g. measures that could be monitored as part of
existing cross-compliance or quality assurance audits), with lower compliance for
measures that are more difficult to monitor.

Table 2.1 to Table 2.3 outline the assumptions behind the uptake classification. In the
first instance we distinguish four categories for measures in terms of their
implementation cost and ease of enforcement:

• if the measure costs <=£0 and is easy to enforce, use the purple set of
uptake%
• if the measure costs <=£0 and is difficult to enforce, use the blue set of
uptake%
• if the measure costs >£0 and is easy to enforce, use the green set of
uptake%
• if the measure costs >£0 and is difficult to enforce, use the yellow set of
uptake%

12
Table 2.1 Categorisation of potential depending on cost and ease of
enforcement
Cost Measure Policy Type Ease of Enforcement Potential Set of %
(£/ha) (see table 2)
<=0 A H E H1
A C E C SET ONE
A L E L1
B H D H2
B C D C SET TWO
B L D L1
>0 D H E H1
SET
D C E C
THREE
D L E L2
E H D H2
SET
E C D C
FOUR
E L D L2
Key
H=High, i.e. Command and Control
C=Central, i.e. Incentive Based Measures
L=Low, i.e. Voluntary measures: education and information; self-regulation
E=Easy
D=Difficult

Table 2.2 Uptake/compliance rates

Potential Meaning Uptake/compliance

L1 Low potential for measures with –ve costs 18%

L2 Low potential for measures with +ve costs 7%
C Central, incentive-based measures 45%
H1 Easy to enforce (e.g. detectable as part of routine, 92%
e.g. cross-compliance, inspection)
H2 Difficult to enforce (requires specific enforcement, 85%
random visits etc)

Rationale for Uptake/Compliance Rates

L1. Voluntary uptake of measures in light of information/education. The figure is

based on the ECSFDI uptake of 18% (see table below). (Note that some ECSFDI
measures will have positive costs, however grants are available). Although this may
seem low for measures with negative costs, it should be borne in mind that many
farmers will already be aware of the measure and will have chosen not to implement
for a variety of reasons. Also, providing information/ education can be expensive so
the scheme is likely to be targeted on certain areas/sectors/farm types.

13
L2. Voluntary uptake of measures in light of information/education. Figure is based
on participation rates in the LEAF scheme.

C. Central is the most difficult to predict, as there is a wide range of measures and
incentive levels. However, 45% seems reasonable given that uptake of the
Environmental Stewardship Entry Level Scheme (2007) was 48% in England and the
Tir Cymen/Tir Gofal/Tir Cynnal (2007) was 41% in Wales.

H1. This was the average rate of compliance in 2006 for the Controlled Activities
Regulations, the Pollution Prevention and Control Part A and Waste Management
Licences in Scotland.

H2. This may seem high for a measure that is difficult to enforce, however the
assumption is that greater effort is put into monitoring when enforcement is difficult
and fines for non-compliance are raised to prevent mass non-compliance. 85% is at
the lower end of estimates of farms passing their cross-compliance inspections.

Inevitably these assumptions are uncertain for any specific measure and a case can
always be made for a higher/lower figure. It is hoped that in aggregate across the
various cost-effective measures identified these assumptions are fit for purpose.

Table 2.3 Uptake/Compliance with existing policies

Measure Uptake/Compliance
Nitrogen Vulnerable Zones 97% of holdings in NVZs Env Agency (2007)
(NVZs) Spotlight on Business
Controlled Activities 92% SEPA Annual Report 2006-
Regulations 07

Pollution Prevention and 94% SEPA Annual Report 2006-

Control Part A. 07

Waste Management 89% SEPA Annual Report 2006-

Licences 07

Cross compliance 85% Env Agency (2007)

Spotlight on Business

90-97% compliance Env Agency (2007, p22)

Annual Report and
Accounts 2006/07
Pesticides Voluntary 80% of UK arable area
Initiative
Environmental Stewardship 48.2% uptake of England ag Ag in the UK 2007, table
Entry Level Scheme (2007) area 12.5
Tir Cymen/Tir Gofal/Tir 41% of Wales ag area Ag in the UK 2007, table
Cynnal (2007) 12.5
Land Management Contract 20% of holdings in Scotland Scottish Government
Scheme (2008)
England Catchment ~18.4% of England’s ag area http://www.defra.gov.uk/FA
Sensitive Farming Delivery (23% of area*80% of farmers RM/environment/water/csf/
Initiative (ECSFDI) said they’d take action) delivery-initiative.htm
LEAF Farming Scheme 7% of UK ag area Ag in the UK 2007, p136

14
 2.4 Quantifying costs and the timing of benefits

Cost effectiveness analysis for the MACC requires a specific breakdown of private
and social costs corresponding to the implementation profile for the measure and
whether it incurs capital expenditure. Table 2.4 provides an example of the possible
categorisation of costs and possible sources of data.

While it is possible to consider some measures as stand alone investments, for the
most part agricultural measures need to be integrated into farm systems that operate
under specific land labour and capital constraints. If the enterprise is considered to
be operating at some notional efficiency frontier then an additional measure can
displace other productive activities that are therefore an opportunity cost. The true
cost of implementing the measure should therefore include an estimate of this
opportunity cost, which can be derived by farm scale modelling.

15
Table 2.4 Example: Precision farming
Costs and benefits Information required Data sources
to be included 2012 2017 2022
Item Value (£) Timing Lifetime … …
(year) (years)
Net One-off costs Capital costs, e.g. purchasing GPS 1000 0 10 … … Market prices
Private equipment
Cost Time spent learning how to use
GPS
Recurring costs O&M costs, e.g. extra labour related 200/year recurring recurring … … Market prices
to management and maintenance,
cost of repairs etc.
Opportunity cost Foregone benefits of next best 300 0 10 … … Farm modelling
option
Private (market) One-off NA - - - … …
benefits Recurring Reduced N costs 400/year recurring recurring Market prices
Net Net private costs See above 6 … …
Social External costs None … … NA
Cost External benefits Reduced aquatic N pollution £? Per kg 5 years recurring … … Existing valuations of N
(non-GHG) of fertiliser after 5 pollution mitigation e.g.
saved years Manuel’s benefits work
Hybrid Combination of
private and social
costs
Costs based on LCA to be included where appropriate, e.g. changes in fertiliser application rates.

6
Under the social metric private costs are also annualised at a private (7%) rather than social (3.5%) discount rate. For simplicity taxes and subsidies are
excluded from both measures.

16
 2.5 Costs

The main data for costs were derived from the Farm Business Scheme Data (Defra,
2007). This covered the period 2005/06, which represents the latest reporting period
for complete data. The FBS provides information on the physical and economic
performance of farm businesses and is an annual survey commissioned by the
government under which a range of management accounting information on all
aspects of farmer's and grower's businesses is collected.

The survey uses a sample of farms that is representative of the national population of
farms in terms of farm type, farm size and regional location. Hence, it provides a
picture of the major variable and fixed costs across a number of activities for each
farm type. The weakness of the FBS is that it does not directly relate variable costs to
specific enterprises, but provides a farm level picture of costs. Accordingly,
historically derived production relationships were used, from discussion with
agricultural experts or published technical notes, which have been incorporated
within the SAC farm level model.

17
3 Farm Level Modelling Approach

Mathematical programming allows us to capture the physical systems of the farm, the
environment and the market place. In addition, the range of possible activities
represented in the model are not only restricted to a situation of ‘what is’ but also to
allow analysis of ‘what could be possible’.

Modelling of the farming systems allows the researcher to establish quantified links
between the inputs and outputs from the processes involved in the farming system.
Indeed, the modelling process highlights areas which lack information, increases
understanding of the systems as a whole and allows the static data and information
to become dynamic and more enlightening.

Linear programming (LP) is the foundation of a set of practical optimising techniques

known as mathematical programming methods. Farm level models have been
developed which can directly answer questions of how farmers would react to
changes in policy or market conditions. The output of this work allows us to
understand the changes in the mix of activities on a farm and the impacts on finance.

The dual (or shadow) price can be calculated on changes to these activities, and
manipulation of various constraints within the model enables the calculation of these
cost effects at farm level. At its most straight-forward this would be a greater
restriction on nitrogen applied, which, when solved, is evidenced in activity changes,
i.e. reduction in cereals grown.

The model used is the SAC Farm Level Model, which has been developed and
applied to policy analysis for the last ten years. The recent application includes an
analysis of Energy Crops (Renwick et al., 2006) 7 . The model is based on a central
matrix of activities and constraints. The base model (pre-parameterised for farm
types) has 194 activities and 205 constraints. Activities range from hectares of
cropping activity to numbers of animals of various categories, e.g. heifers in calf etc.,
born, bought and sold. Constraints range over the main variable and fixed costs that
are present on most UK farming systems, e.g. land area, N, P and K applications etc.
The objective function is to maximise gross margins, hence it provides a response for
the optimal allocation of resources. The model is based within MS Excel and has a
central control panel to change the key values for these constraints. This allows each
farming type, e.g. cereal, mixed etc., to be typified and described within the model.
Critically, it also allows options for changing activity mixes on the farm or constraints
to accommodate particular abatement technologies.

The process of modelling within this project followed a number of linked steps to
apply abatement scenarios to the farm level model for this research project. These
are namely:-

3.1 Define Farm Types

A number of farm types could be used to model abatement options, however due to
time and resource constraints only three farm types have been used, namely an

7
Defra (2005) Farm level economic impacts of energy crop production, Cambridge University
and SAC

18
average size cereal farm, a mixed farm and dairy farm. These are defined by
agricultural census data (Defra, 2006 8 ) to provide an indicator of baseline activities
and constraints, such as land area and type.

The need to characterise costs through this limited farm characterisation can
inevitably affect results that would ideally be based on a wider range of farm types in
and account for regional differences. However, this choice allows the modelling
effort to be kept to a minimum to fit within the timescale of this project.

3.2 Identify Financial Profiles

Farm business survey data (as discussed above) were used to typify the main costs
per farm type and to relate the implicit system constraints from implementation of the
range of crop and livestock measures

However, as this research covers four time periods, prices and costs have to be
adjusted to account for changes in prices from the base period to 2012, 2017 and
2022. Hence, major output and input prices for agricultural products were obtained
from the Agriculture in the UK publication (Defra, 2007 9 ). This provided data on
prices from the early 1990s. However, only the period 2000 to 2006 was used to
define the trend in prices and project them forward until 2022. A weighted average of
costs and prices from 2000 to 2006 was used, which covers a number of significant
policy and economic impacts, in particular significant shifts in the agricultural policy
support system, a number of animal health scares and price increases in cereals.
Consequently, an average of these prices are deemed robust enough to capture any
future price shocks up to 2022. In addition, an assumption regarding technological
growth was included within the future farm models and imputed through a 2% per
annum growth in yield for each of the 3 future periods.

3.3 Running Scenarios

The farms defined in step (i) were optimised under the assumption of maximising
gross margins within the LP model for each period, 2006, 2012, 2017 and 2022.
This gave the baseline scenario on which to compare the impact of abatement
scenarios. Hence the scenarios adopted and their translation into a modelling
problem and the change in Gross Margin were recorded between the baseline
scenario and the modelled output.

3.4 Aggregation of Changes to Costs

These changes in gross margins were defined as the cost or benefits of adopting a
particular abatement strategy. The differential was then calculated on a per ha
(cereal/mixed farms) or a per animal (dairy farms) basis. However, a weakness in
this approach is that farm decisions are measured at their optimal efficiency levels,
as the implicit assumption of an LP model, is to optimise resources. Consequently,
some account had to made of the spread of efficiencies throughout the industry to

8
Defra (2006) June Agricultural Census. Accessible at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/publications/cs/farmstats_web/default.htm
9
Defra (2007) Agriculture in the UK. Accesible at
https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/

19
accommodate these differences. Hadley (2006) 10 provided an analysis of the
efficiency distribution of farms within England, examining major sectors. The
efficiency distributions for dairy, cereal and mixed farms were applied to the results.
Notably, few farmers were recorded as operating at 100% efficiency but, on average,
the majority had efficiency scores of around 80 to 90%.

Consequently, the first step to aggregation was to adjust the differences in gross
margins by a weight, which represents the efficiency distribution within the system.
The approach adopted was to simply multiply the cost by a weight representing the
bands of inefficiency, namely 90% (0.9); 80% (0.8); 70% (0.7); >70% (0.6). This is
not ideal, but a more rigorous approach would require further imposition of
constraints upon the LP model and, increase program solving time. Hence, this
approach was felt able to capture the inefficiencies within each sector without losing
too much accuracy in estimation. Each value was then multiplied by the weight of
each efficiency category within that industry.

Once adjusted for the efficiency factor, costs could be aggregated upwards. For the
dairy sector this was simply a matter of multiplying the cost per animal by the number
of dairy animals estimated to exist from the BAU3 estimates of the four time periods.
For crops, our experts provided an expected spread of adoption by land type, e.g.
grassland, cereals and oilseeds, etc. and the cost per ha could be aggregated up by
multiplying across these four categories. A final constraint was added to account for
the level of adoption throughout the industry. This process is best illustrated in Box
3.1 below.

Box 3.1 Formula and example used.

a. Estimate gross margin for abatement option, e.g. £-3/ha

b. Multiply the gross margin by the efficiency weighting, e.g. 90%

efficiency, and then multiply by the percentage of farms reported to
have this level of efficiency, e.g. 23%, to weight up the estimates
across the whole population of UK farmers.

c. This is then multiplied by either : i) Number of UK dairy animals

(for dairy industry); or ii) Number of hectares per land type that the
technology is estimated to effect

d. This is then multiplied by the adoption rate across the sector over
the three periods.

3.5 Discounting costs

The calculation of abatement costs delivered by some measures requires the

consideration of cost profiles that stretch over a number of years. A consistent
treatment of alternative cost streams involves time discounting and the treatment of
discount rates can make significant differences to the cost effectiveness of

10
Hadley, D. 'Patterns in technical efficiency and technical change at the farm-level in
England and Wales, 1982-2002'. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57, (2006) pp. 81-
100.

20
abatement options. The question posed is then essentially ‘which discount rate
should we use - a social discount rate to reflect society’s preference for benefits
now/costs later or the much higher private discount rates?

In this analysis unless otherwise stated we present all results using a social discount
rate of 3.5%. The rate is consistent with the objective of considering mitigation
investments from a public perspective. The spreadsheet model can be adjusted to
reflect a private rate of time preference (e.g. 7%), which may be more important
where any capital expenditures should consider a private opportunity cost of capital.

3.6 Measure Interactions

Abatement measures are rarely likely to be undertaken on a stand alone basis and
the order of implementation may have significant influence on the incremental levels
of abatement, and therefore cost effectiveness accruing to successive measures.
The extent to which order effects are relevant varies over crop and livestock
measures and many measures are clearly mutually exclusive.

This project used scientific expertise to develop a systematic approach to the

evaluation of interactions. The method is described in the crop and soil section
below. The presence of interactions explains any apparent discrepancy (i.e. missing
measures) between stand alone abatement and the final MACC tables.

While considering interactions between measures within subsectors, there is also a

need to consider interactions between subsectors, (e.g. between crop and livestock
measures). These interactions have not been evaluated in this project.

Measures may also interact in terms of their cost as well as in terms of how much
GHG they abate. For example, it is possible that the capital investment or training
undertaken to implement a measure may mean that similar investment is not
required for another measure, thereby reducing the costs of the measures when
applied together. Alternatively, implementing two measures together may lead to
competing demands for resources and require expenditure that would not be
necessary when the measures are applied independently. Predicting such
interactions is complex and beyond the scope of this study.

3.7 Reconciliation with National Inventory

The UK’s national inventory of GHG emissions accounts for emissions in accordance
with guidelines produced by the IPCC (IPCC 2006). These guidelines take account of
GHG production and removal by using empirically based emission factors. Within
these calculations, the CO 2 emissions from land use and land use change are
heavily based upon the amount of change between given land uses within a defined
period. Thus the changes in land use assumed by BAU3 would be reflected in the
emissions projections. Emissions of N 2 O from soils use emission factors to calculate
direct and indirect emissions from fertiliser and manure applications. These
estimates would not directly include many of the mitigation measures considered in
this report. However, they would be expected to influence the inventory indirectly
since measures such as the use of improved timing of fertiliser applications could be
expected to reduce overall fertiliser inputs and therefore reported N 2 O emissions.
Conversely other measures such as nitrification inhibitors might be expected to
reduce N 2 O emissions, but might not also lead to reductions in fertiliser applications.

21
In these circumstances, the application of this mitigation option would not be
represented in inventory reports (as currently defined).

Annex C of this report provides an assessment of our understanding of which

mitigation options would be included in the inventory. Clearly there is a distinction to
be made between direct an indirect measures and the extent to which measures not
currently counted may nevertheless impact upon direct measures. This report does
not attempt to clarify this distinction further although we note that on going inventory
refinement may alter the abatement potentials estimate here.

22
4 Mitigation options in Crops and Soils

4.1 Key Findings

Total abatement potential (MtCO 2 e/y) at a cost of <=£15/tCO 2e , 3.5%

Potential 2012 2017 2022
High feasible 10.100
Central feasible 1.426 3.354 5.165
Low feasible 1.614

The feasible potentials in 2022 were estimated to range from 1.614 - 10.100MtCO 2 e,
i.e. an annual abatement of approximately 1.614 - 10.100MtCO 2 e could be achieved
in the crops/soils sub-sector at a cost of <=£15/t by 2022. The measures needed to
achieve this abatement are:

• Improved timing of mineral fertiliser N application

• Improved timing of slurry and poultry manure application
• Full allowance of manure N supply
• Plant varieties with improved N-use efficiency
• Reduced tillage
• Avoiding N excess
• Use composts, straw-based manures in preference to slurry
• Separate slurry applications from fertiliser applications by several days
• Improved drainage

The central feasible potential of 5.165 MtCO 2 e represents 11.4% of the 2005 UK
agricultural GHG emissions and 20.1% of emissions from agricultural soils (the NAEI
reported these as 45.253 MtCO 2 e and 25.110 MtCO2e respectively, excluding LUC).
All of this abatement would be directly realised in the agricultural sector, although
much of it would not be picked up by the current Inventory methodology (we estimate
just 0.155 MtCO2e would be).

The selected options need not displace emissions overseas since they are expected
to either have no or a slightly positive impact on yields. They may also generate
some ancillary benefits in reducing life cycle GHG emissions related to fertiliser
production and in other environmental areas, particularly water pollution.

Measures with positive costs are eighth or ninth best option, and therefore have
significantly reduced abatement rates, due to interaction with other measures. This
means they tend not to be cost-effective, leaving a gap between measures costing
£0/t CO 2e and the remaining options, the costs of which rise rapidly.

Interest rate makes little difference due to the fact that only one measure (reduced
tillage) with one-off costs had negative costs for any of the years/discount rates.

These findings need to be treated with some caution as the results are contingent on
a series of assumptions.

23
 4.2 General

4.2.1 Overview of sector

Croplands (i.e. those areas producing arable crops) and grasslands, are responsible
for the exchange of significant quantities of greenhouse gases in the form of CO 2 and
N 2 O. Carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere by processes of
photosynthesis, which lead to carbon sequestration in soils (Rees et al. 2004).
Carbon dioxide can also be lost from soils as a consequence of land use change and
soil disturbance.

Nitrous oxide is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 310
times greater than that of CO 2 (Solomon et al. 2007). Most N 2 O is released from
soils, and the use of nitrogen based fertilisers increases losses significantly. Nitrogen
is applied in fertilisers and manures in order to promote plant growth. However, the
nutrient requirements of the crop and the nutrient content of the soils are not always
balanced. If N is in excess supply, soil microbes can convert the excess to N 2 0.
Better nutrient management can therefore reduce direct N 2 0 emissions, and the
indirect CO 2 emissions associated with fertiliser manufacture and distribution.
Emissions of N 2 0 can be reduced through nutrient management by, for example:
reducing the excess application of N; making full use of manure N; timing the
application of fertiliser so that they are applied when required by the plants; using
slow release fertilisers or nitrification inhibitors; using biological fixation (e.g. from
clover or legumes) to provide N.

Methane uptake and release from agricultural soils is a relatively minor component of
greenhouse gas exchange (although release from ruminant animals and manures is
important).

4.2.2 What's covered in crops and soils category

Grasslands (including rough grazing land) occupy 12.5 Mha or 52% of the land area
of the UK, while croplands occupy 4.6 M ha or 19% of the land area
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/land/). These areas remain relatively
constant, although any changes in land use (including changes that occur as a
consequence of changes within a rotation) can contribute significantly to changes in
greenhouse gas exchange and are accounted for in the reporting procedures used
by the IPCC (IPCC 2006). Emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture occur as
a direct consequence of management (e.g. N 2 O loss from soils that receive fertiliser
N), and indirect processes (such as N 2 O loss from N that has leached into rivers).
Both processes are accounted for in the IPCC methodology and mitigation referred to
in this report includes both direct and indirect emissions. The IPCC does however
acknowledge that there is considerable uncertainty in many of the emissions
associated with indirect processes.

4.2.3 Crops and soils emissions: how much and trends

While croplands and grasslands are recognised as important sources and sinks for
greenhouse gases, considerable uncertainties exist regarding their magnitude, and
spatial and temporal variability (Janssens et al. 2003; Soussana et al. 2007). It has
been estimated that improved management of the UK’s agricultural land (improved
tillage, fertiliser and manure management, soil management and extensification)
could result in a C mitigation potential of 6.1 Mty-1 (Smith et al. 2000). Mitigation of

24
greenhouse gas emissions needs to take account of emissions of the collective
emissions of CO 2 , N 2 O and CH 4 , since mitigation measures taken to reduce
emissions of one greenhouse gas can sometimes result in corresponding increases
in emissions of non target gases. The approach taken is therefore to measure
changes the global warming potential of a system (which integrates the warming
potential of CO 2 , N 2 O and CH 4 in a single measurement and expresses them as C
equivalents). Such approaches have been successfully used to assess mitigation
potential of changes to management that can involve complex interactions
(Soussana et al. 2007; Sutton et al. 2007).

4.2.4 Main modelling complexities

Developing multiple MACCs for the crops and soils sub-sector was challenging for a
range of reasons, not least of which were: (a) the large number of potential mitigation
measures, (b) the lack of secondary data, particularly on the costs of measures, and
(c) the fact that the effectiveness of a measure depends on how it interacts with other
measures. These were dealt with by reducing the range of measures to a more
manageable number through a scoping exercise, using expert groups to provide data
in the absence of existing data, and undertaking simple modelling of the interactions
between the measures.

4.2.5 Criteria/rationale and brief description for screening measures

in each sector

The measures were screened using the approach outlined in Figure 4.1. An initial list
of measures was drawn up based on a literature review and input from the project
team. This was reviewed by the steering group and policy officials within Defra, who
added further measures. The resulting long list had a total of 97 measures (see
Annex A4). The long list was discussed at an expert meeting (see Annex I4 for
details of the Crops/Soils Expert Group) 11 , and measures were removed that were
considered (a) likely to have very low additional abatement potential in UK (e.g.
already current practice, only applicable to very small % of land) or (b) unlikely to be
technically feasible or acceptable to the industry. In addition some measures were
aggregated, giving an interim list of 35 measures. The abatement potential of these
measures was calculated (see 4.4.3) so that measures with small abatement
potential could be identified. The interim list was reduced to a short list of 15 using a
range of criteria (see Annex B4). Several measures with small (<2%) abatement
measures were included in the short list, in particular some measures between 1 and
2% likely to have negative costs were included.

The abatement potentials in Annex B4, C4 and E4 are stand alone; the actual
abatement for most measures will be reduced when actually applied in combination
with other measures. For example, once the excess application of fertiliser has been
reduced, there is less inefficiency for other measures to improve on (see section on
interactions of measures). Therefore any measure with a small stand alone

11
Expert judgement involved an assessment by relevant subject experts of the published data on
mitigation options overlaid with a judgement of the effectiveness of these different options at a national
scale. It should be noted that individual mitigation options are often reported in the literature on a site
specific basis (i.e. they are based on experiments at a limited number of sites). In order to upscale to a
national level experts that are familiar with UK conditions have made a prediction of the likely national
contribution. Although this approach lacks the rigorous objective standards that would normally be
applied by upscaling of GHG inventories, it is the only practical option short of a full scale modelling
approach (which was not possible in the timescale available).

25
abatement potential will have to be at the front of the queue (i.e. have negative costs)
to have a significant abatement potential when implemented in combination. Even
though measures between 1 and 2% are likely to have very small abatement
potential, those with negative costs were included as they are win-win and may be of
importance for some farm types or regions.

4.3 Selection and Description of Mitigation Measures

Annex A and Annex B list the measures in the long list and short list, and reasons
why measures were removed. Annex C gives brief descriptions of each of the
measures on the short list and their abatement rates. More detail on each of the
measures is given below.

Using biological fixation to provide N inputs (clover)

Using legumes to biologically fix nitrogen reduces the requirement for N fertiliser to a
minimum. It is assumed that use of biological fixation means that there will be less N
in the system, and therefore a reduction in N 2 O emissions. However, it should be
noted that legumes can also be a source of N 2 O emissions (Rochette and Janzen,
2005), and there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which biological fixation will
reduce emissions. It has been assumed that this measure will reduce yield by 30%.

Species introduction (including legumes)

The species that are introduced are either legumes (see comment regarding
biological fixation above) or they are taking up N from the system more efficiently and
there is therefore less available for N 2 O emissions. This measure differs from
biological fixation in that the species introduced are varieties that are not commonly
used in the UK at present. It has been assumed that an extra sowing will be required,
which will increase machine and labour costs by 5%, and that yields will be reduced
by 7%. These costs are partially offset by a reduction in the amount of N fertiliser
used – it is assumed that N purchase costs will be down by 10%.

Reduce N fertiliser
An across the board reduction in the rate at which fertiliser is applied will reduce the
amount of N in the system and the associated N 2 O emissions. For example, if N is
applied twice instead of three time a year, the N purchase costs will be reduced by
approximately 30%, labour /machine costs will be reduced by 5% and a reduction in
N 2 O in the order of 0.5tCO2e/ha/y achieved. As the reduction is not targeted at areas
where N is applied in excess, it is assumed that there will be a reduction in yield of
20%.

Avoiding N excess
Reducing N application in areas where it is applied in excess reduces N in the
system and therefore reduces N 2 O emissions. There are various schemes and
advisory activities to help farmers apply N at optimum recommended rates, for
example: Defra’s RB209 guidance (http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/land-
manage/nutrient/fert/rb209/index.htm); Sinclair (2002). Unlike simply reducing N
fertiliser application rates, avoiding N excess should not lead to reductions in yield. It
is assumed that the N fertiliser purchase costs will be reduced by 10%.

Full allowance of manure N supply

This involves using manure N as far as possible. The fertiliser requirement is
adjusted for the manure N, which potentially leads to a reduction in fertiliser N
applied. In addition, the manure N is more likely to be applied when the crop is going

26
to make use of the N, and therefore N 2 O emissions will be reduced. This measure
should reduce N fertiliser inputs by about 15%.

Improved timing of mineral fertiliser N application

Improved timing of slurry and poultry manure application
Matching the timing of application with the time the crop will make most use of the
fertiliser reduces the likelihood of N 2 O emissions by ensuring there is a better match
between supply and demand. This can be achieved by avoiding time delays between
the application of N and its uptake by the plants, i.e. by avoiding applying fertiliser
when the crop is not growing, or when there is no crop. Both these measures are
essentially best practice and should not entail any additional costs (providing
adequate storage is available). In fact, improving timing should result in small (3-5%)
increases in yield through more efficient use of the nutrients.

Separate slurry applications from fertiliser applications by several days

Applying slurry and fertiliser together brings together easily degradable compounds
in the slurry and increased water contents, which can greatly increase the
denitrification of available N and thereby the emission of nitrous oxide. It is assumed
that weather conditions allow separation of the applications, that slurry can be stored
before spreading or is available for spreading at the appropriate time. There should
be no significant costs associated with this measure.

Use composts, straw-based manures in preference to slurry

Composts provide a more steady release of N than slurries which increase soil
moisture content and provide a source of easily degradable products, which in turn
increases microbial demand. Both these increase anaerobic conditions and thereby
loss of nitrous oxide which is avoided by use of composts. Composts also have a
higher C:N ratio so that released N is more likely to be immobilised temporarily and
thereby reduce N 2 O emissions. It is assumed that composts contain enough N to
provide fertiliser, and that the composts will not immobilise soil or fertiliser N and
reduce crop productivity. There should be no significant costs associated with this
measure.

Controlled release fertilisers

Controlled release fertilisers supply N, usually in the urea form, at a progressive rate
over 2- 6months, more slowly than conventional fertilisers. This progressive, slow
release of mineral N ensures that microbial conversion of the mineral N in soil to
nitrous oxide and ammonia is reduced. It is assumed that the fertiliser releases N at
the promised rate, and that the rate of release does not go up due to unusual
circumstances such as heavy rain, warm weather, or trampling by animals. It is
assumed that these fertilisers are considerably (50%) more expensive than
conventional fertilisers. These costs will be partly offset by the reduced number of
applications required.

Nitrification inhibitors
Nitrification inhibitors slow the rate of conversion of fertiliser ammonium to nitrate.
This means that the rate of reduction of nitrate to nitrous oxide (or dinitrogen) is
decreased and emissions of nitrous oxide decrease. Nitrification inhibitors are used
in New Zealand, however Pollok (2008, p22) has noted that “They are expensive and
significant reductions in mineral fertilizer requirements would be needed to make
them cost-effective… there appears to be a need to measure effectiveness under UK
systems”. It is assumed that the inhibitor makes good contact with the fertiliser or
urine patch to be effective, and that the inhibitor will be applied at the right time and
to the right fertiliser type. It is assumed that inhibitors lead to significant cost

27
increases (equivalent to a 50% increase in fertiliser costs). These costs will be
slightly offset by the reduced labour/machine costs.

Adopting systems less reliant on inputs (nutrients, pesticides etc)

Moving to less intensive systems that use less input can reduce the overall
greenhouse gas emissions. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that
the change is akin to moving from conventional production system to a LEAF farm
type of system, with reduced input of pesticides, nutrients etc. It is estimated that this
change would result in a reduction in yield of 10%, however this would be offset by
the reduced N fertiliser bill (estimated to be reduced by 25%).

Plant varieties with improved N-use efficiency

Different plant species utilise N with different levels of efficiency. There should
therefore be scope for selectively breeding plants that utilise N more efficiently.
Adopting new plant varieties that can produce the same yields using less N would
reduce the amount of fertiliser required and the associated emissions. However, as
Pollok (2008, p22) notes, improving N use efficiency “without adverse effects on
other important agronomic characteristics will be difficult and will take many years to
come to market”. For this study, it has been assumed that new varieties will be able
to produce current yields with 30% less N fertiliser.

Reduced tillage / No-till

No tillage, and to a lesser extent, minimum (shallow) tillage reduces release of stored
carbon in soils because of decreased rates of oxidation. The lack of disturbance by
tillage can also increase the rate of oxidation of methane from the atmosphere. It is
assumed that nitrous oxide emissions are not increased due to concentration of
microbial activity and nitrogen fertiliser near the surface and due to increase soil
wetness associated with the greater compactness of the soil, and that crop growth
and hence net primary productivity is not reduced by use of these techniques. This
measure requires specialist machinery and therefore has significant one-off costs;
Beaton et al reported the cost of a power harrow to be £20,000. This cost is offset by
reductions in overall cultivation costs of around 16%.

Improving land drainage

Wet soils can lead to anaerobic conditions favourable to the direct emission of N 2 0.
Improving drainage can therefore reduce N 2 O emissions by increasing soil aeration.
Improving land drainage has significant one-off costs and recurring costs. It has been
reported that drainage has a one-off cost of £1850/ha to build then £250/ha every
five years to maintain (Beaton et al 2007). These costs are likely to be offset by
increases in yield; it is estimated that improving drainage will increase yields by 10%.

4.4 Data and Measurement

4.4.1 Baselines and Additionality

The crops/soils abatement potential is measured relative to a business-as-usual

(BAU) scenario based on the following assumptions:

• the land use projections from the BAU3 project, these are summarised in
Table 4.1. See section 2 for further details on the construction of the baseline.
• costs of measures are calculated using an LP model which uses forecasts of
input and output prices, see section 3.
• the abatement rates of individual measures are constant over time

28
 • emissions factors for different land types are constant over time - i.e. we have
assumed no uptake of abatement in the BAU

Table 4.1 BAU3 land use projections

2004 2012 2017 2022
UK land UK land UK land UK land
area (ha) area (ha) area (ha) area (ha)
Grassland (LFA + non-LFA)
(note: LFA = Less Favoured Area) 6,885,463 6,913,765 6,952,616 6,957,736
Cereals (maize, wheat, winter
barley, spring barley and other
cereals, rape) 3,660,601 3,846,417 4,105,625 4,063,293
Other crops (hops, hortic, beans,
peas, linseed, flax, fallow) 330,657 339,620 339,236 334,383
Root crops (potatoes, sugar beet,
turnips, swedes, fodder beet and
mangolds) 339,439 326,999 325,450 332,521
Total 11,216,160 11,426,802 11,722,927 11,687,932

4.4.2 Costs

Secondary data about costs was used where appropriate (e.g. Defra 2002), however,
there was a lack of up to date cost data for most measures. In order to tackle this,
each measure was discussed with experts, who identified the on-farm implications
and likely costs and benefits. The costs and benefits were translated into terms that
could be inputted into the farm scale model (for example, effects on yields, input
purchase costs, labour and machinery costs, capital purchases), The model was then
used to calculate each measures' impact on the gross margins of a representative
(a) cereal and (b) mixed farm. The model and the assumptions underpinning it are
described in detail in section 3. The assumptions made in calculating the cost of the
measures are given in Annex D4.

The results from the model were used to calculate the weighted mean cost of each
measure by multiplying the cost/ha for different farm types by the amount of land in
the UK that the measure could be applied to (see Annex D4). The stand alone cost-
effectiveness was then obtained by dividing the cost (£/ha/y) by the abatement rate
(tCO 2e /ha/y).

4.4.3 Abatement rate and potential

In order to calculate the total UK abatement potential for each measure over a given
time period, the following information is required:

• the measure’s abatement rate (tCO 2e /ha/y)

• the additional area (over and above the present area) that the measure could
be applied to in the given period.

The additional areas for the maximum technical potential were derived from expert
judgement. The three feasible potentials (high, central and low) were calculated
based on a review of uptake/compliance with existing policies (see section 2.3). It
was assumed that measures are adopted at a linear rate over time.

29
Existing evidence on the abatement rates (see in particular Smith et al. 2008) was
combined with an expert's judgement to derive estimates of the abatement rates of
each of the measures on the interim list. These rates were reviewed independently
by another two experts, who ranked the uncertainty of the estimated abatement rate
and their agreement with it (see Annex C). Where measures lead to abatement of
CO 2 emissions over a period of years (for example as a consequence of a new
rotational management), emissions reductions are expressed on an average annual
basis.

What is included and excluded

The abatement rate is for on farm direct emissions, averaged across all sectors. It
doesn't include wider life cycle impacts, for example CO 2 emitted during the
manufacture of fertiliser, but does include indirect N 2 0 emissions (see 4.2.2). For
further discussion of the wider impacts, see Annex A and B at the end of the report.

4.4.4 Cost-effectiveness (CE)

CE of combinations of measures
An abatement measure can be applied on its own, i.e. stand alone, or in combination
with other measures. The stand alone CE of a measure can be calculated by simply
dividing the weighted mean cost (£/ha/y) by the abatement rate (tCO 2e /ha/y) (see
Annex E). However, when measures are applied in combination, they interact and
their abatement rates and cost effectiveness change in response to the measures
that they combine with. For example, if a farm implements measure A (biological
fixation), then less N fertiliser will be required, lessening the extent to which N
fertiliser can be reduced (measure B). The extent to which the efficacy of a measure
is reduced (or in some cases, increased) can be expressed using an interaction
factor (IF):

abatement rate of measure B when applied after A

Interaction factor (AB) =
stand alone abatement rate of measure B

For example, measures AB have an IF of 0.55, that is to say, that abatement rate of
measure B (“reducing N fertiliser”) is multiplied by 0.55 when applied after measure
A. Each time a measure is implemented, the abatement rates of ALL of the remaining
measures are recalculated by multiplying them by the appropriate IF, i.e. if measure
A is implemented first, than all the remaining measures are multiplied by the IF in row
A (see Table 4.2). Therefore, after each measure is implemented, the abatement
rates and CE of each remaining measure has to be recalculated, and the "next best"
measure (in terms of CE) selected. In order to perform this repeated calculation, the
routine "Get Ranking" was written in PERL (see annex H).

The IFs for the measures were discussed and estimated by a group of experts (see
Annex F). Due to time constraints and the complexity of estimating the IFs, it had to
be assumed that the IF's are symmetric, i.e. that IF(AB) = IF (BA). In reality, in some
cases this will not be true. The analysis undertaken in this study was restricted to
looking at 2-way interactions. Multiple interactions are likely to occur in practice, but
the affect of these could only adequately be assessed using more complex process
based models. For the purposes of this study multiple interactions are captured as
the product of cumulative two-way interaction factors. Further analysis was beyond
the scope of the present study.

30
Table 4.2 Calculating the abatement rate of combinations of measures
Measure Measure Stand alone abatement Abatement rate when
implemented rate t CO 2 e/ha/y interaction is taken into account
(IFs underlined)
First A: bio fix 1 1
Second D: avoid 0.4 0.4*0.55= 0.22
excess N
Third E: species 0.5 0.5*0.9*0.9=0.405
intro
Fourth H: cont 0.3 0.3*0.55*0.75*0.6=0.074
release
Etc

A further complication is uncertainty regarding the extent to which measures overlap.

The way measures interact depends on how they abate (which is represented by
their interaction factor) and the extent to which they are applied on overlapping areas
of land. For example, in Table 4.3, if we have two measures C and D and the
abatement rate of D is reduced by 30% when applied after C (i.e. the interaction
factor (CD) is 0.7). Again, due to time constraints, it was simply assumed that the
measures would have 50% overlap.

Table 4.3 Effect of overlap on abatement

Measure Stand alone % of grassland Interaction Abatement per Abatement per
abatement measure could factor 100ha 100ha assuming
rate be applied to assuming 100% 50% overlap
(tCO 2 e/ha/y) overlap
C 1 60 na 60%*100=60 60
(60*100*0.5)+
60%*100*0.7
D 1 60 0.7 (60*100*0.5*0.7)
=42
=30+21=51

Reason for ordering measures below the x-axis according to saving rather than cost-
effectiveness.

Note that the measures are treated differently above and below the x-axis: below (i.e.
when costs are negative) they are ordered according to the total savings accruing
from the measure, while above the x-axis they are ordered according to their height,
i.e. the unit cost-effectiveness of each measure.

In a model MAC, in which measures do not interact, the measures can easily be
arranged in order of CE, regardless of whether they have negative or positive costs;
measures to the left have the greatest CE (i.e. negative costs), while those to the
right have lowest CE and positive costs. However, when the CE of each measure is
recalculated after the implementation of each measure, measures with negative
costs behave differently to those with positive costs. The interaction factor reduces
the amount of GHG mitigated (in most cases), effectively increasing the length of the
bar. If a measure has a positive cost, this makes the measure more expensive (i.e.
less CE), however if the measure has a negative cost, this makes the measure
appear more negative, i.e. less expensive and therefore more CE. The costs of the
measures with positive costs increase as we move from left to right and the effect of
the interaction factors (IFs) is simply to increase the rate at which the costs/length of

31
the bars increase, this means that after each measure is applied no subsequent
measure will have a shorter bar (though it is theoretically possible if the IF >1 and >
the increase between bars). However, for measures with negative costs the bars
shorten as we move from left to right, BUT the IF lengthen the bars, which means
that the bars will not necessarily get shorter (i.e. CE will not decrease) 12 . For
example, in Table 4.4 the effect of the IFs makes it impossible to order measures
with negative costs according to their CE. Instead, measures with negative costs
were ordered according to their potential savings, i.e. the (negative) cost per ha
multiplied by the area the measure could be applied to. This approach has the
advantages that (a) the potential savings are unaffected by the effects of measures
interacting, and (b) it is consistent with profit-maximising behaviour.

Table 4.4 Example showing the effects of measure interaction on CE

Measure X Y Z
Stand alone CE -7 -6 -5
Interaction Factor with X NA 0.7 0.7
CE after X is implemented -7 -8.6 -7.1
Interaction factor with Y NA NA 0.9
CE after X and Y are implemented -7 -8.6 -7.9
So combined CE of X,Y and Z -7 -8.6 -7.9

4.4.5 Uncertainties

It has been assumed that all measures are somehow on the menu, i.e. all measures
are substitutable, which means that we apply the most cost-effective measure (A) to
all the land it can be applied to, then apply the next most cost-effective measure (B)
etc. In reality, a farm (e.g. that has no cereals), may not be able to implement
measure B, and will therefore go from A to C. Or a farm converting to organic
production may choose to use biological fixation along with a package of other
measures that make sense as a whole. In other words, many individual farms will not
apply each of the measures in order of cost-effectiveness as the MACC assumes, as
some options will not be open to them and others will appear more attractive than
their cost-effectiveness suggests due to ancillary costs and benefits. While it was
necessary to assume that all measures were substitutable and are applied in order of
cost-effectiveness in order to generate the MAC for the crops and soils sub-sector,
the limitations of this approach need to recognised. The most important limitation is
that the cost of measures with moderate or high stand alone costs are exaggerated
and appear higher than they would be in reality. This is because it is assumed that
they will be applied after all the measures with negative costs and low positive costs.
Future refinement would be to generate specific MAC curves for farm types.

High levels of uncertainty are associated with some of the mitigation measures
proposed as recognised by the IPCC (IPCC 2006). In particular, indirect emissions of
N 2 O resulting from emissions from drainage water and ammonia deposition are
poorly understood and are excluded at this point. There is also a high level of
uncertainty associated with emissions of N 2 O derived from N inputs by biological
fixation. Biological fixation can reduce emissions in two ways; by a reduction in the
fossil fuel input required to manufacture the fertiliser, and through a reduction of
losses of N 2 O from the soil following fixation. Recent research has indicated that
12
For simplicity we assume that the IFs affect each measure’s abatement potential, and
hence cost effectiveness, but not the cost per hectare

32
N 2 O released from biologically fixed N is significantly lower than that from inorganic
fertilisers (Carter & Ambus 2006). It has therefore been proposed that future
revisions to IPCC guidelines should not include emissions from biologically fixed N
(Rochette & Janzen 2005).

There is much interest in reduced and zero tillage as a means of reducing GHG
emissions. Again there is considerable uncertainly regarding the magnitude of
emissions savings that can be achieved by these techniques. It is agrued widely that
reduced tillage can help to increase C sequestration in soils (Liebig et al. 2005;
Martens et al. 2005). It is argued by (Blanco-Canqui & Lal 2008) that storage of
additional carbon only occurs in surface layers under no-tillage (NT) management
and doesn’t therefore result in an overall increase in C storage. However, it seems
likely that NT also contributes to lower losses of C from respiration (Paustian et al.
1997), and would therefore deliver increases in C sequestration even if these were
not measurable in the short term (<5 years) For these reasons we have assumed
that tillage can contribute to reduced GHG emissions but have reduced the
abatement rate from 0.3 tCO 2e /ha/y proposed by (Smith et al. 2008) to 0.15
tCO 2e /ha/y.

It is often argued that systems level changes such as those between conventional
and low input or organic farming can lead to reductions in overall greenhouse gas
emissions. It is likely that current inventory calculations would not fully account for
the changes in emissions, since the inventory is calculated as a result of emissions
factors associated with individual management practices. Where there is a change in
the whole farming system it is possible that interactions occur that would not be
identified. Further more individual practices may be poorly represented, such as
biological fixation (see above) or not represented at all (such as improved timing of
manure applications to increase N uptake efficiency). Such system changes may
therefore represent more significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than is
currently allowed for in the inventory.

4.5 Results and conclusions

Overall abatement potentials and costs

The feasible potentials in 2022 were estimated to range from 1.614 - 10.100MtCO2e,
i.e. an annual abatement of approximately 1.614 - 10.100MtCO 2 e could be achieved
in the crops/soils sub-sector at a cost of <=£100/t by 2022 (Table 4.5). The measures
needed to achieve this abatement are:

• Improved timing of mineral fertiliser N application

• Improved timing of slurry and poultry manure application
• Full allowance of manure N supply
• Plant varieties with improved N-use efficiency
• Reduced tillage
• Avoiding N excess
• Use composts, straw-based manures in preference to slurry
• Separate slurry applications from fertiliser applications by several days
• Improved drainage

33
Table 4.5 Total abatement potential (MtCO 2 e/y) at a cost of <=£100/tCO 2 e,
and discount rate 3.5%
Potential 2012 2017 2022
High feasible 10.100
Central feasible 1.426 3.354 5.165
Low feasible 1.614

The central feasible potential of 5.165 MtCO2e represents 11.4% of the 2005 UK
agricultural GHG emissions and 20.1% of emissions from agricultural soils (the NAEI
reported these as 45.253 MtCO2e and 25.110 MtCO2e respectively, excluding LUC).
Pollock (2008, p23) concluded that "overall reductions using currently viable
approaches are likely to be modest (maximally some 10-15% of current emissions
assuming similar levels of production)". While these results are similar, direct
comparison is difficult as it is not clear what % of the 10-15% is accounted for by
crops/soils measures, what time scale the 10-15% is to be achieved over or what
cost of measure was used in measuring viable levels of uptake.

IGER (2001) concluded that “N 2 O emissions could be reduced by 32.5% (maximum

feasible reduction) at a cost of £97 billion. Cost effective reduction potential,
determined by the point at which the cost curve becomes exponential, is
approximately 18%, with total on farm savings of £916 million. However, a reduction
of 20% could also be achieved at a negligible net cost.” CLA/AIC/NFU (2007)
reached a similar conclusion, and suggested that "combined improvements in
livestock and crop nitrogen efficiencies could mitigate (N 2 0) emissions by up to 20%".
These results appear consistent with our estimate for high feasible potential, which is
22.7% reduction. However, once again comparison is difficult without greater scrutiny
of the assumptions and metrics used in arriving at these estimates.

Displacement of production and emissions

If UK emissions are reduced by simply reducing levels of production, then there is a
danger of displacing production to other countries. This would harm the farming
industry without providing any benefit in terms of reducing global GHG emissions. It
is therefore important to highlight any measures that could lead to displacement.

There are four measures that can lead to reduced yields and five that can lead to
increase yields (see Annex D for further details):

Reduced yields
Using biological fixation to provide N inputs (clover)
Reduce N fertiliser
Species introduction (including legumes)
Adopting systems less reliant on inputs (nutrients, pesticides etc)

Increased yields
Improved drainage

Negligible yield increase

Controlled release fertilisers
Nitrification inhibitors
Improved timing of mineral fertiliser N application
Improved timing of slurry and poultry manure application

34
With the exception of improved drainage and improved timing of applications, none of
these measures appear cost-effective, and it is therefore unlikely that there will be
significant changes in production levels associated with the crops/soils mitigation.

Expert meeting:
discuss and Calculation of
remove measures maximum
(a) likely to have abatement
very low additional potential, based
Generate abatement on expert
potential in UK Interim list Short list
initial list interpretation
(e.g. already of 35 of 14
of 97 and published
current practice, measures measures
measures data (e.g. Smith
only applicable to et al 2008; BAU3)
very small % of
land) or (b) Removal of most
unlikely to be measures with
technically feasible potential of <2%
or acceptable to UK agricultural Costing
the industry. Also emissions exercise
aggregated some with
measures experts

Modelling of
measures
impact on
gross
margins

Figure 4.1 Approach to screening measures

35
Annex A4 Full list of measures and reasons for omission from interim list

Include in
ID Category Sub-category Measure interim list? Reason for omission
1 Cropland management Agronomy Improved crop varieties y
2 Cropland management Agronomy Extending the perennial phase of rotations y
3 Cropland management Agronomy Reducing bare fallow y
4 Cropland management Agronomy Adding nutrients when deficient n small % of land deficient

5 Cropland management Agronomy Adopting systems less reliant on inputs (nutrients, pesticides etc) y
6 Cropland management Agronomy Catch/cover crops y
7 Cropland management Agronomy Maintain crop cover over winter y
8 Cropland management Agronomy Keep pH at an optimum for plant growth n current practice

9 Cropland management Agronomy Changing from winter to spring cultivars y

10 Cropland management Nutrient management Precision farming y
11 Cropland management Nutrient management Avoiding N excess y
12 Cropland management Nutrient management Full allowance of manure N supply y
13 Cropland management Nutrient management Improved timing of mineral fertiliser N application y
Split fertilisation (baseline amount of N fertilizer but divided into
14 Cropland management Nutrient management
three smaller increments) y
15 Cropland management Nutrient management Wheat n Grouped under 14 split fertilisation

16 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated wheat n Grouped under 14 split fertilisation

17 Cropland management Nutrient management Maize n Grouped under 14 split fertilisation

18 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated maize n Grouped under 14 split fertilisation

19 Cropland management Nutrient management Use the right form of mineral N fertiliser y
20 Cropland management Nutrient management Improved timing of slurry and poultry manure application y
Cropland management Nutrient management Separate slurry applications from fertiliser applications by several y
21 days
22 Cropland management Nutrient management Use composts, straw-based manures in preference to slurry y
Cropland management Nutrient management Mix nitrogen rich crop residues with other residues of higher C:N y
23 ratio
24 Cropland management Nutrient management Placing N precisely in soil y

36
25 Cropland management Nutrient management Trailing hose n Grouped under 24 placing N precisely

26 Cropland management Nutrient management Trailing shoe n Grouped under 24 placing N precisely

27 Cropland management Nutrient management Injection n Grouped under 24 placing N precisely

28 Cropland management Nutrient management Increasing rate of infiltration into soil (dilution of manure, app. of water after spreading) n Potential risk of denitrification
29 Cropland management Nutrient management Controlled release fertilisers y
30 Cropland management Nutrient management Nitrification inhibitors y
31 Cropland management Nutrient management Wheat n Grouped under 30 nitrification inhibitors

32 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated wheat n Grouped under 30 nitrification inhibitors

33 Cropland management Nutrient management Maize n Grouped under 30 nitrification inhibitors

34 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated maize n Grouped under 30 nitrification inhibitors

35 Cropland management Nutrient management Production of natural nitrification inhibitors by plants n unlikely

36 Cropland management Nutrient management Application of urease inhibitor y

37 Cropland management Nutrient management Plant varieties with improved N-use efficiency y
38 Cropland management Nutrient management Using biological fixation to provide N inputs (clover) y
39 Cropland management Nutrient management Reduce N fertiliser (wheat, barley, oilseed rape) y
40 Cropland management Nutrient management Fertilisation reduction by 30% n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

41 Cropland management Nutrient management Wheat n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

42 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated wheat n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

43 Cropland management Nutrient management Maize n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

44 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated maize n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

45 Cropland management Nutrient management Fertilisation reduction by 20% n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

46 Cropland management Nutrient management Wheat n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

47 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated wheat n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

48 Cropland management Nutrient management Maize n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

49 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated maize n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

50 Cropland management Nutrient management Fertilisation reduction by 10% n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

51 Cropland management Nutrient management Wheat n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

52 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated wheat n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

53 Cropland management Nutrient management Maize n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

54 Cropland management Nutrient management irrigated maize n Grouped under 39 reduce N fertiliser

37
 Grouped under 39 reduce N
55 Cropland management Nutrient management Applying organic input on cropland instead of on grassland n fertiliser
Longer term structural and
Cropland management
management changes
Tightening the N cycles (regionally optimised plant and animal production) y
56
57 Cropland management Tillage/residue management Reduced tillage y
58 Cropland management Tillage/residue management Reduced tillage - CO2 sequestration n Grouped with 57 reduced tillage
59 Cropland management Tillage/residue management Retain crop residues y
60 Cropland management Tillage/residue management No-till n Grouped with 57 reduced tillage
61 Cropland management Tillage/residue management Wheat n Grouped with 57 reduced tillage
62 Cropland management Tillage/residue management irrigated wheat n Grouped with 57 reduced tillage
63 Cropland management Tillage/residue management Maize n Grouped with 57 reduced tillage
64 Cropland management Tillage/residue management irrigated maize n Grouped with 57 reduced tillage
65 Cropland management Tillage/residue management Avoid no-tillage, consider occasional deep ploughing n Current practice
66 Cropland management Tillage/residue management Plough in early spring, spread crop residues evenly and control compaction n Current practice
Current practice - burning
67 Cropland management Tillage/residue management Avoid burning of residues n unlikely to become legal again
68 Cropland management Water and soil management Improved irrigation y
69 Cropland management Water and soil management Land drainage y
70 Cropland management Water and soil management Loosen compacted soils / Prevent soil compaction y
71 Cropland management Rice management NA n No rice in UK
Grazing land management/
pasture improvement
Grazing intensity and timing Intensive grazing (cattle are frequently rotated between pastures) - beef n Current practice
73
Grazing land management/
pasture improvement
Grazing intensity and timing Intensive grazing (cattle are frequently rotated between pastures) - dairy n Current practice
74
Grazing land management/
pasture improvement
Take stock off from wet ground n Current practice
75
Grazing land management/
pasture improvement
Increased productivity Fertilization n -ve abatement potential
76
Grazing land management/
pasture improvement
Increased productivity Pasture renovation n Current practice
77
Grazing land management/
pasture improvement
Increased productivity Species introduction (including legumes) y
78

38
 Grazing land management/ Introducing /enhancing high sugar content plants (e.g. "high sugar"
79 pasture improvement
Increased productivity
ryegrass) y
Grazing land management/
80 pasture improvement
Increased productivity New forage plant varieties for improved nutritional characteristics y
Grazing land management/
81 pasture improvement
Nutrient management SEE AT CROPLAND MGTM - NUTRIENT MGMT n See crops

Grazing land management/

82 pasture improvement
Fire management n Small abatement potential

Grazing land management/

83 pasture improvement
Water and soil management Adjust pH to more than 5 by liming n Current practice

Grazing land management/

84 pasture improvement
Water and soil management Land drainage - SEE AT CROPLAND MGMT n See crops

Grazing land management/

85 pasture improvement
Water and soil management Prevent soil compaction y
86 Management of organic soils Avoid drainage of wetlands y
Unlikely due to high value of
87 Management of organic soils Avoiding row crops and tubers n land
88 Management of organic soils Avoiding deep ploughing n Small abatement potential
89 Management of organic soils Maintaining a shallower water table Peat y
90 Management of organic soils Maintaining a shallower water table Arable n Unlikely
Restoration of degraded Small amount of degraded
91 lands
Erosion control n land so small potential
Restoration of degraded Small amount of degraded
92 lands
Revegetation n land so small potential
Restoration of degraded Small amount of degraded
93 lands
Nutrient amendments n land so small potential
Restoration of degraded Organic amendments (manures, Small amount of degraded
94 lands biosolids, composts, etc.) n land so small potential
Restoration of degraded Small amount of degraded
95 lands
Reducing tillage n land so small potential
Restoration of degraded Small amount of degraded
96 lands
Retaining crop-residues n land so small potential
Restoration of degraded Small amount of degraded
97 lands
Conserving water n land so small potential

39
Annex B4 Interim list of measures and estimated abatement rates

Estimated maximum % additional area of Abatement Include in

Abatement
each land category that each measure potential (stand MACC
could be applied to in the UK by 2022 alone) by 2022

rates
Grassland Cereals Root Other Total area t CO2e/ Mt CO2e/ % of UK
(LFA + non- and oil crops crops (ha) ha/y year agri
LFA) not seeds emissions
including (2005)
rough
Sub- grazing
Category category Measure
Cropland Nutrient Using biological
management management fixation to provide 80 20 20 20 6,378,847 0.5 6.378847 14.3%
N inputs (clover) Y
Cropland Nutrient Reduce N fertiliser
management management 90 90 90 90 9,918,926 0.5 4.959463 11.1%
Y
Cropland Water and soil Improved land
management management drainage 40 30 20 20 4,002,082 1 4.002082 8.9%
Y
Cropland Nutrient Avoiding N excess
management management 20 20 20 20 8,816,823 0.4 3.526729 7.9%
Y
Cropland Nutrient Full allowance of
management management manure N supply 80 50 20 10 7,597,835 0.4 3.039134 6.8%
Y
Grazing land Increased Species
management/p productivity introduction
asture (including legumes)
60 40 30 30 5,799,959 0.5 2.899979 6.5%
improvement Y
Cropland Nutrient Improved timing of
management management mineral fertiliser N 70 80 70 50 8,121,050 0.3 2.436315 5.4%
application Y

40
Cropland Nutrient Controlled release
management management fertilisers 70 80 80 80 8,121,050 0.3 2.436315 5.4%
Y
Cropland Nutrient Nitrification
management management inhibitors 70 80 80 80 8,121,050 0.3 2.436315 5.4%
Y
Cropland Longer term Tightening the N
management structural and cycles (regionally
management optimised plant and 70 70 60 60 7,714,720 0.3 2.314416 5.2%
changes animal production) N - high level of
uncertainty
Cropland Nutrient Improved timing of
management management slurry and poultry 70 60 50 40 7,308,391 0.3 2.192517 4.9%
manure application Y
Management Avoid drainage N - high level of
of organic soils of wetlands uncertainty, also
likely to displace
10 5 0 0 898,938 2 1.797877 4.0%
significant amounts
of production and
emissions
Cropland Nutrient Application of N - N 2 0 reduction
management management urease inhibitor 70 60 50 50 7,308,391 0.2 1.461678 3.3% small and offset by
indirect N 2 0
emissions
Cropland Agronomy Adopting systems
management less reliant on
inputs (nutrients,
60 40 30 30 5,799,959 0.2 1.159992 2.6%
pesticides etc) Y
Cropland Nutrient Plant varieties with
management management improved N-use 20 60 40 40 3,829,523 0.2 0.765905 1.7%
efficiency Y
Cropland Nutrient Mix nitrogen rich
management management crop residues with
other residues of
30 40 30 20 3,712,638 0.2 0.742528 1.7%
N - marginal, too
higher C:N ratio localised
Cropland Nutrient Separate slurry
management management applications from
fertiliser 70 60 50 40 7,308,391 0.1 0.730839 1.6%
applications by
several days Y

41
Cropland Tillage/residue Reduced tillage /
management management No-till 0 50 10 10 2,031,647 0.15 0.609494 1.4%
Y
Cropland Nutrient Use composts,
management management straw-based
manures in
50 50 40 30 5,510,515 0.1 0.551051 1.2%
preference to slurry Y
Cropland Nutrient Precision farming
management management 20 25 40 30 2,407,370 0.2 0.481474 1.1%
N - small potential
Cropland Agronomy Improved crop N - small potential,
management varieties 5 50 25 25 2,379,533 0.2 0.475907 1.1% see plant varieties
with improved N
Grazing land Water and soil Prevent soil
management/p management compaction
asture
50 40 30 30 5,104,185 0.05 0.255209 0.6% N - small potential
improvement
Grazing land Increased New forage plant
management/p productivity varieties for
asture improved nutritional
60 20 20 10 4,987,300 0.05 0.249365 0.6% N - small potential
improvement characteristics
Cropland Tillage/residue Retain crop
management management residues 0 30 40 40 1,218,988 0.2 0.243798 0.5% N - small potential

Cropland Water and soil Loosen compacted

management management soils / Prevent soil 40 40 30 30 4,408,412 0.05 0.220421 0.5% N - small potential
compaction
Cropland Agronomy Catch/cover crops
management 0 50 30 30 2,031,647 0.1 0.203165 0.5% N - small potential

Cropland Water and soil Improved irrigation

management management 0 5 10 10 203,165 1 0.203165 0.5% N - small potential

Grazing land Increased Introducing

management/p productivity /enhancing high
asture sugar content 40 30 20 20 4,002,082 0.05 0.200104 0.4% N - small potential
improvement plants (e.g. "high
sugar" ryegrass)

42
Cropland Nutrient Split fertilisation
management management (baseline amount of
N fertilizer but 30 40 30 20 3,712,638 0.05 0.185632 0.4% N - small potential
divided into three
smaller increments)
Cropland Nutrient Use the right form
management management of mineral N 30 30 30 30 3,306,309 0.05 0.165315 0.4% N - small potential
fertiliser
Cropland Nutrient Placing N precisely
management management in soil 10 40 40 40 2,321,091 0.05 0.116055 0.3% N - small potential

Cropland Agronomy Maintain crop cover

management over winter 0 50 30 30 2,031,647 0.05 0.101582 0.2% N - small potential

Cropland Agronomy Extending the

management perennial phase of 0 20 20 20 812,659 0.1 0.081266 0.2% N - small potential
rotations
Cropland Agronomy Reducing bare
management fallow 0 20 10 10 812,659 0.1 0.081266 0.2% N - small potential

Cropland Agronomy Changing from

management winter to spring 0 40 5 0 1,625,317 0.05 0.081266 0.2% N - small potential
cultivars
Management Maintaining a peat
of organic soils shallower
water table 5 0 0 0 347,887 0 0.0% N - small potential

43
Annex C4 Description of the measures on the short list

Experts ranking of
abatement rate t

abatement rate2

abatement rate3
agreement with

the uncertainty
the estimated

regarding the
CO2e/ha/y 1
Estimate of
measures

Experts
Measure Description of the measure
Using Using legumes to biologically fix nitrogen
biological reduces the requirement for N fertiliser to a
fixation to minimum. Less N in the system, and
provide N therefore reduce N 2 0 emissions. It may also
inputs reduce yield.
(clover) 0.5 h m
Reduce N Reduces N in the system and therefore
fertiliser reduces N 2 O emissions. It may also reduce
yield
0.5 h l
Improving Improving drainage reduces N 2 O emissions
land drainage because the soil is drier. The yield may be
improved and thus more uptake of N from the
system.
1 m m
Avoiding N Reducing N application in areas where is
excess applied in excess reduces N in the system
and therefore reduces N 2 O emissions.
0.4 h m
Full This involves using manure N as far as
allowance of possible. The fertiliser requirement is adjusted
manure N for the manure N, which potentially leads to a
supply reduction in fertiliser N applied. In addition,
the manure N is more likely to be applied
when the crop is going to make use of the N,
and therefore N 2 O emissions will be reduced.
We have assumed that most of the species
introduced would be legumes or possibly use
N more efficiently
0.4 h h
Species The species are either legumes (see
introduction comment regarding biological fixation for
(including measure 38) or they are taking up more N
legumes) from the system and therefore less available
for N 2 O emissions 0.5 h h
Improved Matching the timing of application with the
timing of time the crop will make most use of the
mineral fertiliser. Hence reduced the likelihood of
fertiliser N N 2 O emissions.
application 0.3 h m

44
Controlled Controlled release fertilisers supply N, usually
release in the urea form, at a progressive rate over 2-
fertilisers 6months, more slowly than conventional
fertilisers. This progressive, slow release of
mineral N ensures that microbial conversion
of the mineral N in soil to nitrous oxide and
ammonia is reduced. It is assumed that the
fertiliser releases N at the promised rate, and
that the rate of release does not go up due to
unusual circumstances such as heavy rain,
warm weather, trampling by animals 0.3 h m
Nitrification Nitrification inhibitors slow the rate of
inhibitors conversion of fertiliser ammonium to nitrate.
This means that the rate of reduction of nitrate
to nitrous oxide (or dinitrogen) is decreased
and emissions of nitrous oxide decrease. It is
assumed that the inhibitor makes good
contact with the fertiliser or urine patch to be
effective, and that the inhibitor will be applied
at the right time and to the right fertiliser type.
0.3 h l
Improved Applying the N when and where the crop
timing of requires it. Reduces the likelihood of N 2 O
slurry and emissions as there is a better match of supply
poultry and demand
manure
application 0.3 h h
Adopting This is akin to moving from conventional
systems less production system, to a LEAF farm type of
reliant on system, with reduced input of pesticides,
inputs nutrients etc)
(nutrients,
pesticides
etc) 0.2 m h
Plant Adopting new plant varieties that can produce
varieties with the same yields using less N
improved N-
use efficiency 0.2 h m
Separate Applying slurry and fertiliser together because
slurry easily degradable compounds in the slurry
applications and increased water contents can greatly
from fertiliser increase the denitrification of available N and
applications thereby the emission of nitrous oxide. It is
by several assumed that weather conditions allow
days separation of the applications, that slurry can
be stored before spreading or is available for
spreading at the appropriate time. 0.1 h l

45
Reduced Not tillage, and to a lesser extent, minimum
tillage / No-till (shallow) tillage store carbon in soils because
of decrease rates of oxidation. The lack of
disturbance by tillage can also increase the
rate of oxidation of methane from the
atmosphere. It is assumed that nitrous oxide
emissions are not increased due to
concentration of microbial activity and
nitrogen fertiliser near the surface and due to
increase soil wetness associated with the
greater compactness of the soil, and that crop
growth and hence net primary productivity is
not reduced by use of these techniques. 0.15 h m
Use Composts provide a more steady release of N
composts, than slurries which increase soil moisture
straw-based content and provide a source of easily
manures in degradable products which increase microbial
preference to demand. Both these increase anaerobic
slurry conditions and thereby loss of nitrous oxide
which is avoided by use of composts.
Composts also have a higher C:N ratio so that
released N is more likely to be immobilised
temporarily and thereby reduce N 2 O
emissions. It is assumed that composts
contain enough N to provide fertiliser, and that
the composts will not immobilise soil or
fertiliser N and reduce crop productivity. 0.1 h m
Notes
1. This value is averaged across all sectors. C mitigation is restricted to on farm reduction without
accounting for C input to fertiliser manufacture etc.
2. Mode of the experts ranking of their agreement with the estimate of the measures abatement
rate (high, medium, low, don't know)
3.Mode of the experts ranking of the uncertainty regarding the abatement rate of this measure
(high, medium, low, don't know)

46
Annex D4 Assumptions used in calculating the costs of measures

Private costs Private benefits

Lifetime Timing of Description of
of One GHG ancillary
Measure measure One off Recurring off Recurring abatement Durability costs/benefits
Using biological Annual 0 Yield reduced by 30% 0 N purchase cost reduced immediate permanent
fixation to provide N by 60%; labour and
inputs (clover) machine costs reduced by
5%
Reduce N fertiliser Annual 0 Yield reduced by 20% 0 N purchase costs reduced immediate permanent Reduced N loss
by 30%; labour and
machine costs reduced by
5%
Improving land 20 years From Beaton et 0 - maintenance costs 0 Increased yield of 10% immediate 20 years Improved plant
drainage al (2007): low growth, reduces
£1850/ha to denitrification
build, then
£250/ha every 5
years to clean
Avoiding N excess Annual 0 no yield reduction 0 N purchase costs reduced immediate permanent Reduced N loss
by 10%, N limit reduced
by 10%

Full allowance of Annual 0 0 0 Reduce N purchase costs immediate permanent

manure N supply by 15%

Species Annual 0 Possibly an extra 0 reduction in N purchase immediate permanent improved soil
introduction sowing so mech and costs by 10% condition
(including legumes) labour costs increased
by 5%; yields reduced
by 7%
Controlled release annual 0 Fertiliser purchase 0 Yield increase 2% (Ball et immediate permanent reduces nitrate
fertilisers costs increased by 50% al. 2004); half the number leaching
of applications - so
machine and labour

47
 reduced by 5%

Nitrification Annual 0 Fertiliser purchase 0 Yield increase of 2%; immediate permanent

inhibitors costs increased by 50% machine and labour
reduced by 5%
Improved timing of Annual 0 0 0 Small yield increase immediate permanent
mineral fertiliser N (~5%); no N reductions
application
Improved timing of Annual 0 0 0 Small yield increase immediate permanent
slurry and poultry (~3%); no N reductions
manure application
Adopting systems Annual 0? Yield down by 10% 0 N purchase costs reduced immediate permanent Like becoming
less reliant on by 25% a LEAF farm -
inputs (nutrients, various effects
pesticides etc)

Plant varieties with Annual 0 Yield unaffected 0 N purchase costs down immediate permanent Risk of loss of
improved N-use 30% grain quality
efficiency
Separate slurry Annual 0 Yield unaffected 0 0 immediate permanent
applications from
fertiliser
applications by
several days
Reduced tillage / 20 £20,000 for a 0 0 Overall cultivation costs immediate permanent
No-till power harrow, (spraying, ploughing,
lifespan 20 years drilling, harvesting etc)
(Beaton et al reduced by 16% (Ball
2007, p252) 1985, p40)
Use composts, Annual 0 0 0 0 immediate permanent
straw-based
manures in
preference to slurry
Note the yield effects estimates are rough averages across grassland and
cropland.

48
Annex E4 Cost and stand-alone cost-effectiveness
Weighted mean cost Stand alone CE
(£/ha/y) (£/tCO2e)
Estimated 2012 2017 2022 2012 2017 2022
abatement
rate t
Measure CO2e/ha/y
Using biological fixation 0.5 16.42 40.71 43.27 16.42 40.71 43.27
to provide N inputs
(clover)
Reduce N fertiliser 0.5 42.43 54.97 61.52 84.86 109.95 123.04
Improved land drainage 1 37.57 32.78 14.12 37.57 32.78 14.12
3.5%
Improved land drainage 1 67.82 62.60 45.37 67.82 62.60 45.37
7%
Improved land drainage 1 72.23 66.62 47.72 72.23 66.62 47.72
7.5%
Avoiding N excess 0.4 -7.39 -10.40 -13.80 -18.48 -26.01 -34.50
Full allowance of 0.4 -52.27 -39.35 -20.55 -130.68 -98.38 -51.38
manure N supply
Species introduction 0.5 18.54 24.51 24.69 37.09 49.03 49.39
(including legumes)
Improved timing of 0.3 -17.76 -23.32 -32.43 -59.21 -77.74 -108.08
mineral fertiliser N
application
Controlled release 0.3 25.00 30.12 47.56 83.33 100.40 158.54
fertilisers
Nitrification inhibitors 0.3 25.00 30.12 47.56 83.33 100.40 158.54
Improved timing of 0.3 -8.40 -15.71 -21.48 -28.00 -52.35 -71.59
slurry and poultry
manure application
Adopting systems less 0.2 18.38 18.80 17.26 91.92 94.00 86.28
reliant on inputs
(nutrients, pesticides
etc)
Plant varieties with 0.2 -6.35 -10.66 -14.32 -31.75 -53.31 -71.60
improved N-use
efficiency
Separate slurry 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
applications from
fertiliser applications by
several days
Reduced tillage / No-till 0.15 71.00 -13.00 -65.00 236.67 -43.33 -216.67
3%
Reduced tillage / No-till 0.15 111.00 28.00 -24.00 370.00 93.33 -80.00
7%
Reduced tillage / No-till 0.15 117.00 34.00 -18.00 390.00 113.33 -60.00
7.5%
Use composts, straw- 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
based manures in
preference to slurry

49
Annex F4 Table of interaction factors, assuming 50% overlap
Measures interaction factors a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o
Using biological fixation to provide N
inputs (clover) a 1 0.55 0.7 0.55 0.9 0.5 0.55 0.55 0.62 0.9 0.65 1 0.55 1 1
Reduce N fertiliser
b 0.55 1 0.7 0.55 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.75 0.75 0.9 0.65 1 0.9 0.9 0.9
Improving land drainage 3.5%
c 0.7 0.7 1 0.9 0.9 1.05 1 1 1.05 1.05 1 1 1 1.1 1
Avoiding N excess
d 0.55 0.55 0.9 1 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.75 0.75 0.9 0.65 1 0.9 0.9 0.9
Full allowance of manure N supply
e 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 0.75 0.6 0.6 1 0.55 0.55 1 0.6 0.75 1
Species introduction (including legumes)
f 0.5 0.5 1.05 0.5 0.75 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.85 1 1 1
Improved timing of mineral fertiliser N
application g 0.55 0.9 1 0.9 0.6 0.9 1 0.95 1 1 0.9 1 0.6 1.05 1
Controlled release fertilisers
h 0.55 0.75 1 0.75 0.6 0.9 0.95 1 0.75 0.9 0.75 0.9 0.75 0.9 0.9
Nitrification inhibitors
I 0.62 0.75 1.05 0.75 1 0.9 1 0.75 1 0.9 0.75 1 1 0.9 0.9
Improved timing of slurry and poultry
manure application j 0.9 0.9 1.05 0.9 0.55 0.9 1 0.9 0.9 1 0.75 1 0.6 0.5 0.75
Adopting systems less reliant on inputs
(nutrients, pesticides etc) k 0.65 0.65 1 0.65 0.55 0.75 0.9 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 1 0.75 0.5 0.75
Plant varieties with improved N-use
efficiency l 1 1 1 1 1 0.85 1 0.9 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.9 0.9
Separate slurry applications from
fertiliser applications by several days m 0.55 0.9 1 0.9 0.6 1 0.6 0.75 1 0.6 0.75 0.9 1 1.05 0.75
Reduced tillage / No-till 3%
n 1 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.75 1 1.05 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.05 1 0.5
Use composts, straw-based manures in
preference to slurry o 1 0.9 1 0.9 1 1 1 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.75 0.9 0.75 0.5 1

50
Annex G4 Results
Table 4.6 Crops and Soils Measures Central Feasible Potential, 2012, 3.5% discount rate
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 388.53 -124.99 0.389
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 192.50 -94.38 0.581
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 158.01 -48.70 0.739
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 101.76 -30.37 0.841
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 85.68 -24.24 0.926
AO Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 43.85 0.00 0.970
AM Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 12.57 0.00 0.983
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 443.17 42.25 1.426
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 207.90 124.96 1.634
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 92.33 145.36 1.726
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 51.42 505.20 1.778
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 42.27 1,269.44 1.820
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 5.63 2,361.94 1.826
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 2.40 5,419.00 1.828
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 2.58 6,743.54 1.831

51
Table 4.7 Crops and Soils Measures Central Feasible Potential 2017, 3.5% discount rate
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 892.77 -94.09 0.893
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 445.29 -123.93 1.338
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 364.20 -91.05 1.702
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 238.36 -50.99 1.941
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 32.59 -233.92 1.973
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 178.00 -37.90 2.151
AO Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 50.63 0.00 2.202
AM Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 30.41 0.00 2.232
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 1,121.99 33.51 3.354
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 432.61 167.28 3.787
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 212.21 192.17 3.999
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 107.00 676.32 4.106
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 87.82 1,827.36 4.194
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 6.47 4,831.12 4.200
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 5.46 13,435.29 4.206

52
Table 4.8 Crops and Soils Measures Central Feasible Potential 2022, 3.5% discount rate
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 1,150.39 -103.38 1.150
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 1,027.16 -68.48 2.178
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 457.26 -148.91 2.635
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 55.77 -1,052.63 2.691
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 331.80 -76.10 3.022
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 276.06 -50.29 3.298
AO Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 78.51 0.00 3.377
AM Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 47.17 0.00 3.424
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 1,741.02 14.44 5.165
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 365.98 174.22 5.531
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 603.67 293.50 6.135
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 165.90 1,067.95 6.301
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 136.20 2,045.10 6.437
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 10.05 4,434.34 6.447
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 8.49 14,280.16 6.455

53
Table 4.9 Crops and Soils Measures High Feasible Potential 2022, 3.5% discount rate
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 2,172.95 -103.38 2.173
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 1,940.19 -68.48 4.113
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 863.71 -148.91 4.977
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 114.02 -1,052.63 5.091
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 678.34 -76.10 5.769
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 521.45 -50.29 6.291
AO Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 160.52 0.00 6.451
AM Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 89.11 0.00 6.540
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 3,559.42 14.44 10.100
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 748.23 174.22 10.848
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 1,140.27 293.50 11.988
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 313.37 1,067.95 12.302
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 257.26 2,045.10 12.559
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 20.55 4,434.34 12.579
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 17.36 14,280.16 12.597

54
Table 4.10 Crops and Soils Measures Low Feasible Potential 2022, 3.5% discount rate
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 460.15 -103.38 0.460
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 410.86 -68.48 0.871
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 182.90 -148.91 1.054
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 15.49 -1,052.63 1.069
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 132.72 -76.10 1.202
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 110.43 -50.29 1.313
AO Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 12.21 0.00 1.325
AM Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 18.87 0.00 1.344
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 270.83 14.44 1.614
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 56.93 174.22 1.671
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 93.90 293.50 1.765
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 25.81 1,067.95 1.791
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 21.19 2,045.10 1.812
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 1.56 4,434.34 1.814
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 1.32 14,280.16 1.815

55
 1,100 Crops-soils
1,068
2022, CFP, P, d.r.=7% 293

250
Cost Effectiveness [£2006/tCO2e]

200
174

150

100

46
50

0 0
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
-50
-50
-68 -68
First Year Gross Volume Abated [MtCO2e]
-100
-103

-149
-450 -432
AG AJ AE AL AD AM AC AF AI AH
AN AO

Figure 4.2 Crops and soils MACC, Central Feasible Potential 2022, private
discount rate

Measures with CE>£2000/tCO 2 e - i.e. AB, AK, AA - not included in the curve

Key
AA: Using biological fixation to provide N inputs (clover)
AB: Reduce N fertiliser
AC: Improved land drainage 3.5%
AD: Avoiding N excess
AE: Full allowance of manure N supply
AF: Species introduction (including legumes)
AG: Improved timing of mineral fertiliser N application
AH: Controlled release fertilisers
AI: Nitrification inhibitors
AJ: Improved timing of slurry and poultry manure application
AK: Adopting systems less reliant on inputs (nutrients, pesticides etc)
AL: Plant varieties with improved N-use efficiency
AM: Separate slurry applications from fertiliser applications by several days
AN: Reduced tillage / No-till
AO: Use composts, straw-based manures in preference to slurry

56
Annex H4 "Get Ranking"

Factors.txt: measure interaction factors; the matrix should be symmetric

Parameters.txt:

'Abatement': /unit averaged annual lifetime AP (tCO2e/unit/y) OR /unit total lifetime

AP (tCO2e/unit)
'Volume': total averaged annual lifetime AP (tCO2e/y) OR total lifetime AP (tCO2e) -
needed to calculate the number of units
'Cost': /unit averaged annual lifetime NPV (£2006/unit/y) OR /unit lifetime NPV
(£2006/unit); negative values mean cost, positive ones savings - ? Surely should be
other way round?

What does the program do?

1 calculates the number of units, total cost and cost effectiveness values
2 identifies those with negative costs (=savings)
3 ranks negative ones
3a chooses that one with smallest total cost (largest absolute value of total cost,
i.e. highest total savings)
3b multiplies all the rest's abatement potentials (including positive ones) with the
factors, recalculates cost-effectiveness (multiplying the APs of all the
remaining ones by the relevant interaction factors, to get a (generally)
reduced AP)
3c chooses the second highest saving
3d multiplies all the rest's APs with the factors, recalculates cost-effectiveness
3e etc - for negatives
4 ranks positive (and zero) ones
4a chooses the one wih smallest cost effectiveness (cheapest option)
4b multiplies all the rest's APs with the factors, recalculates cost-effectiveness
4c chooses the second lowest cost-effectiveness
4d multiplies all the rest's APs with the factors, recalculates cost-effectiveness
5 creates output table

57
Annex I4 Crops/Soils Measures Expert Group

Dr Bob Rees
Senior Soil Scientist
Crops and Soils Group
SAC

Dr Kairsty Topp
Agricultural Systems Modeller
Land Economy and Environment Group
SAC

Dr Bruce Ball
Senior Researcher (Soil Science)
Crops and Soils Group
SAC

Dr Steve Hoad
Researcher (Cereals)
Crops and Soils Group
SAC

58
5 Mitigation options from livestock

5.1 Key Findings

Total abatement potential (MtCO 2 e/y) at a cost of <=£100/tCO 2e , 3.5%, social metric
Potential 2012 2017 2022
High feasible 5.02
Central feasible 0.635 1.594 2.68
Low feasible 1.266

The feasible potentials in 2022 were estimated to range from 1.266 - 5.02MtCO 2 e,
i.e. an annual abatement of approximately 1.266 - 5.02MtCO 2 e could be achieved in
the livestock sub-sector at a cost of <=£25/t by 2022. The measures needed to
achieve this abatement are the same in each case, they are:

• Beef Animal-Ionophores
• BeefAn-Improved Genetics
• DairyAn-Improved Productivity
• DairyAn-Ionophores
• DairyAn-Improved Fertility
• DairyAn-Maize Silage
• On farm anaerobic digestion (OFAD)-PigsLarge
• OFAD-BeefLarge
• OFAD-PigsMedium
• Central anaerobic digestion (CAD)-Poultry-5MW
• OFAD-DairyLarge
• OFAD-BeefMedium
• OFAD-DairyMedium

The central feasible potential of 2.68 MtCO 2 e represents around 5 % of the 2005 UK
agricultural GHG emissions. The NAEI reported the 2005 GHG emissions from
agriculture as 44.733 MtCO 2 e (excluding LUC) of which approximately 44% were
due to enteric fermentation in ruminants and manure management). It should be
noted that the NAEI figures are based on the national inventory reporting of GHG
emissions. Due to the nature of inventory reporting, not all of the abatement potential
reported in this study would be reflected in the current inventory mechanisms.
Although proportion reflected in the current inventory reporting framework varies
across options, approximately 50% of the reported abatement potential would be
reflected in national inventory reporting.

As in the case of crop and soil abatement potential interactions can reduce the
abatement potential of some succeeding measures, many livestock options are
cancelled out due to incompatibility. These findings need to be treated with some
caution as the results are contingent on a series of assumptions that are outlined in
this section.

This chapter focuses on applying options within the livestock sector with the aim of
reducing emissions from livestock production in the UK. Some of the options includes
options that may rely on using arable land to support livestock feed requirements.
Therefore there is a risk of displacing some emissions, given competition with arable
land for feed options, but that yield from livestock if anything may be increased

59
Bio (anaerobic) digestion have been considered in this sector, in that managing the
manure of animals in this manner reduces the GHG emissions associated with the
usual manner of storing manure. There could be further benefit on these types of
measures as power is generated and therefore displaces some of the emissions in
wider power generation.

Although not considered in the economic appraisal of the efficiency of mitigation

options from livestock some of the options that show a favourable effect on GHG
emissions and are shown to be cost effective may also have ancillary impacts
(positive and negative) that need to be considered, particularly regarding animal
welfare.

5.2 Background

Livestock are an important source of methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O).
Methane is mainly produced from ruminant animals by the enteric fermentation of
roughages. A secondary source is from the anaerobic digestion in slurry storage.
Both ruminant and monogastric species produce N 2 O from manure due to the
excretion of nitrogen in faeces and urine. The main abatement options from the
livestock sector, independent of grazing/pasture management, are through the
efficiencies with which ruminant animals utilise their diet and manure management.
The following describes the mode of action of the main options.

5.3 Prioritisation of abatement options examined

A review of the literature highlighted a vast array of abatement options from the
livestock industry (Annex A5), which fell into two broad categories, those options that
focus on animal management options and those that focus on manure management.
These options were reviewed and ranked on their likely uptake and feasibility over
the 3 time points. Certain options were considered similar in mode of action and likely
outcome, and were therefore reduced to a single option. Animal management options
for sheep/goats were not studied further as traditional sheep management systems
would mean that an abatement option would be difficult to apply across the UK flock.
Options that included a simple reduction in animal numbers and/or product output,
above and beyond those assumed by the BAU3 scenario, were also eliminated as
there is a need to avoid displacing domestic demand overseas. Livestock land
management options (e.g., spreading of manures to crop/grassland) are dealt with in
the crop/land management section of this report. The final table of abatement options
examined for livestock are shown in Table 5.1 and detailed below.

60
Table 5.1 List of applicable livestock abatement options studied in this
report
Dairy Beef Pigs Poultry
Animal Management
Increasing concentrate in the diet 9 9
Increase proportion maize silage in the diet 9 9
Propionate precursors 9 9
Probiotics 9 9
Ionophores 9 9
Bovine somatotropin 9 9
Genetic improvement of production (or improved 9 9
uptake)
Genetic improvement of fertility 9
Use of transgenic offspring 9

Manure Management
Covering slurry tanks 9 9 9
Covering lagoons 9 9 9
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage (tanks) 9 9 9
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage (lagoons) 9 9 9
Aerating manure 9 9 9
Anaerobic digesters (farm scale and central) 9 9 9 9

5.4 Methodology for estimating the abatement potential and cost-

effectiveness of mitigation options from livestock

Information on the abatement potential of each option studied was reviewed. There
have been many studies examining various abatement options, examining different
aspects of their application, efficacy and/or cost effectiveness. Some of the
abatement options studied herein have used some base assumptions as quoted in
the IGER study on cost curve assessments of mitigation options (IGER, 2001). A
wider literature review was also conducted to ensure that the estimates fell within
other studies and on the whole they were. However, with many of these options there
will be differences in the reported effects due to differences in experimental protocol,
site effects, dose effects, animal variation, which means that the range can be far
wider than for more established and widely applied methods.

The input information required for each abatement option included the efficiency of
the abatement options (i.e., reduction on CH 4 per animal), the applicability (the
maximum percentage of animals to which the abatement options could be applied),
the effect on productivity, if any (i.e., percentage dis/improvement in production with
the application of the abatement options), and/or the effect on feed intake. Other
input data were adoption rates and animal numbers from BAU3, IPCC emission
factors, manure storage capacities and proportions of manure handled in different
systems, efficiency data for anaerobic digestion plants, lifetimes of each measure
and relevant cost data.

A productivity effect was applied when dealing with dairy animal abatement options,
in that it was assumed an improvement in dairy yield would result in a reduction in
the total number of animals under a quota scenario. The converse was also true such
that if an abatement option reduced production (mode of action was directly on
reducing methane emissions) then the number of dairy cows would increase to
obtain the previous level of milk output. This was only applied in the dairy scenario.

61
For beef it was assumed that producers would increase production output if output
were improved with a particular abatement option. The calculation of abatement
potential and associated costs was detailed in the spreadsheet to ensure that
changes to the expected impact of an option would update results automatically. A
brief summary of the assumptions in the livestock animal measures is given in
Table 5.6 and of manure management options in Table 5.7.

Table 5.2 Description of the “direct” and “indirect” costs associated with
dairy animal abatement measures
Direct Indirect Notes
Concentrate Switching to higher Fewer animals to Concentrate cost
concentrate maintain through the linked to cereal
content in the diet year price forecast
Maize silage Switching maize for “”
grass silage
Propionate Annual admin cost “”
Probiotics Annual admin cost “”
Ionophores Annual admin cost “”
Bovine Annual admin cost “”
Somatatrophin
Genetic Free “”
improvement in
production traits
Genetic Free “”
improvement in
fertility traits
Transgenic Estimated cost “” Capital cost with
offspring offspring of lifetime of 5 years
transgenic parents

Table 5.3 Description of the “direct” and “indirect” costs associated with
beef animal abatement measures
Direct Indirect Notes
Concentrate Switching to higher Increase income Concentrate cost
conc content diet from increased yield linked to cereal
price forecast
Propionate Annual admin cost “”
Probiotics Annual admin cost “”
Ionophores Annual admin cost “”
bSt Annual admin cost “”
Gen imp – prodn Free “”
Transgenic offsp Est. cost offspring of “” Cap. cost with
transgenic parents lifetime of 5 yrs

The cost of implementing each animal management abatement option was estimated
using the annual cost of administering the abatement option per treated animal and
multiplied by the number of animals treated. The costs of the nutrition options (e.g.,
increasing proportion of maize silage) accounted for the number of days that the
abatement option would be administered and change in the cost of the diet compared
to previous options. For dairy cattle, the cost-effectiveness also accounted for the
reduction in overall annual costs by reducing the cow herd size at a fixed level of
output if the abatement option improved productivity. The animal numbers for current
and the future time points were taken from mapped BAU3 livestock numbers

62
described earlier. The baseline annual CH 4 emissions (enteric fermentation and
manure) from a particular livestock industry were calculated using IPCC Tier 1
methodologies. For beef cattle the cost of implementing an abatement option
considered the direct costs of application of the options as well as any indirect benefit
that may accrue from increased production output through increased volume of meat
sales. Costs were considered at 2006 prices (adjusted from reported values). A
description of the costs assumed are given in Table 5.2 for dairy, Table 5.3 for beef
and Table 5.7 for manure management options with the actual costs assumed in the
three budget periods in Annex B5.

The costs of the manure management options were calculated by estimating the
investment required to implement the measure and the associated annual running
cost per storage unit. The numbers of storage units was estimated from the
proportion of manure volume and from the average storage capacities in each
manure management system.

The livestock options were developed in line with those for other agricultural sectors.
This included the use of the BAU3 estimates of livestock numbers such that each
measure was applied to the number of livestock in 2012, 2017 and 2022. The
assumed technical potential and feasibility levels for livestock and manure
management options also follow the values earlier in this report based on uptake and
compliance rates. The uptake/compliance rates were applied based on costs for
each abatement option (i.e., positive or negative) and if the measure was assumed to
be difficult or easy to enforce (see earlier section for further details). Some of the
livestock measures may never be applicable in all livestock systems (e.g., use of
feed additives is unlikely to become allowable in organic herds). This is not reflected
in the uptake/compliance rates per say but it was assumed that these abatement
options were only applicable to a proportion of the livestock population (e.g., 90%
applicability of bovine somatatrophin in dairy). Uptake levels for anaerobic digestion
options are set for central, high and low feasible potentials for 2022 at 45%, 75% and
30%, respectively. For 2008 0% uptake was assumed, and for the years in between
the same linear adoption function was set up to calculate the uptake rates as was
used for other livestock options.

Each of the abatement potentials and their cost-effectiveness was first studied on a
stand alone basis. However, it is unlikely that all measures studied will work
effectively together (e.g., there is no way of applying a manure management strategy
such as covering tanks if central or on farm anaerobic digestion is taking place). On
the other hand some of the abatement options may be complementary and can be
applied simultaneously (e.g., genetic improvement and dietary modifications). There
has been little work done on the effects of combined measures in livestock systems.
Therefore in this study interactions between livestock measures were assumed to be
either 0 or 1, such that 0 meant that the pair wise combination of measures could not
be applied simultaneously and 1 meant that measures could be applied
simultaneously and the effects could be additive. Taking interactions into
consideration resulted in a much shorter list of options than the original, stand alone
list.

5.5 Modifications to the diet and dietary supplementation

Methane emissions from ruminant species can be reduced by replacing the roughage
proportion of the diet with concentrates (e.g., Blaxter and Claperton, 1965). A higher
concentrate diet may increase the methane produced by an individual animal but will,
however, reduce the amount of methane produced per unit of product. Animals fed a

63
concentrate based diet tend to produce more (e.g., higher milk yields in dairy cattle)
and/or reach final weight faster (i.e., meat sheep and cattle reach slaughter weight at
a younger age). Overall, the impact of this is that fewer animals are required and
meat animals are kept for a shorter period thereby reducing emissions at a fixed
output level.

It is important to note that ruminant species can convert plant products unusable by
humans into a usable protein source. There will be an increasing conflict between
using cereals and the arable land for feeding animals with food for humans and or
the production of fuel crops. There is also the side effect that production of industrial
concentrates is energy-intensive and could lead to increased emissions of CO 2 and
N 2 O from increased fertiliser production and application throughout the entire
production chain.

Option 1: Increase the proportion of high starch concentrates in the diet

Estimates of the impact on production for dairy of using high starch feeds in the diet
were obtained from the IGER study (IGER, 2001). The IGER study (2001)
extrapolated the impact of methane emissions and milk yield when standard
concentrate ration in the diet was replaced with a high starch concentrate and when
the amount of concentrate was doubled at the expense of silage using simulation
models (Mills et al., 2001). The outcome of the model estimated that milk yield would
increase by 14% while CH 4 emissions decrease by 7% (Table 5.4). These values
were used to estimate the abatement potential of increasing starch content of diary
diet.

Table 5.4 Effect of increasing starch content of the diet in dairy cattle
(IGER, 2001)
Standard diet High starch diet Diff % Diff
Intake (dry matter) 15 15
Milk yield (kg) 21.76 24.71 2.95 13.56
CH 4 (kg) 16.84 15.73 -1.11 -6.59

The costs of changing the diet were also taken from the IGER study but adjusted to
2006 prices and then recalculated at each of the time points to account for increases
in cereal prices (IGER, 2001). These were derived based on a fixed indoor feeding
period of 205 days and the cost of changing the proportions of concentrates: grass
silage: maize silage in the diet per animal per annum. Concentrate price was linked
to the cereal forecast price assumed in the farm level modelling while grass and
maize silage price was assumed at the 2006 level.

It is important to note with this option, that there may be competition for resources for
components of a dairy/beef concentrate diet into the future, in that grain may be
required for human diets, for monogastric feed and potentially for fuel. It should also
be noted that there could be some life cycle emissions not considered by examining
the direct effect of this option on animal emissions only (e.g., energy required for
production of concentrates, management of crops for diets). This option was studied
for beef and dairy cattle.

64
Option 2 Increase the proportion of maize silage in the diet

Estimates of the impact on production for dairy of using high starch feeds in the diet
were obtained from the IGER study (IGER, 2001). The study examined the impact of
production and methane emissions if the proportion of grass: maize silage in the diet
was changed from 3:1 to 1:3. The outcome of the model estimated a 7% increase in
milk yield and a 2% increase in CH 4 production (Table 5.5). These values were used
to estimate the abatement potential of increasing the proportion of maize silage in a
typical dairy diet. The costs of switching to higher proportion of maize silage in the
diet were estimated in a similar manner to Option 1. This option was studied for beef
and dairy cattle.

Table 5.5 Effect of increasing proportion of maize silage in the diet (IGER,
2001)
Standard diet High starch diet Diff % Diff
Intake (dry matter) 15 15
Milk yield (kg) 21.76 23.23 1.47 6.75
CH 4 (kg) 16.84 17.14 0.3 1.78

Option 3 Propionate precursors

Hydrogen produced in the rumen through fermentation can react to produce either
CH 4 or propionate. By adding propionate precursors (e.g., fumarate) to animal feed,
more hydrogen is used to produce propionate and less CH 4 is produced. The effect
of administering propionate precursors to animals (daily) on methane production is
shown in Figure 5.1 (IGER, 2001). Reading from Figure x.1, increasing the
percentage of propionate at the expense of acetate by 25% results in a 22.3%
reduction in CH 4 . These results are in line other quoted experimental studies (e.g.,
Ungerfield et al., 2007) There is also a favourable effect on milk yield (15%). This
option was studied for beef and dairy cattle. The costs assumed for this option are
given in Annex B5 and are based on the feeding of propionate precursors to animals.

90

80

70
% decrease in meth

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
% increase in propionate portion

Figure 5.1 Impact of increasing the proportion of propionate in the rumen

on methane output (IGER, 2001).

65
Option 4 The use of probiotics

Probiotics (have also been referred to as directly fed microbials, examples being
Saccheromyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus oryzae) are used to divert hydrogen from
methanogenesis towards acetogenesis in the rumen. This means that acetate:
methane levels in the rumen are altered resulting in a reduction in the overall
methane produced by enteric fermentation. There is an added benefit in that acetate
is a source of energy for the animal and therefore can improve overall productivity of
the animal. These additives can be used in diets with high grain content. There is
variation in the extent to which probiotic additives reduce methane emission (van
Nevel & Demeyer, 1995; Moss et al, 2000). The use of probiotics as an abatement
option is estimated to reduce CH 4 production by 7.5% and improve production by
10%. This option was studied for beef and dairy cattle. The costs assumed for this
option are given in Annex B5 and are based on the feeding probiotics to animals.

Option 5 The use of ionophores

Ionophore antimicrobials (e.g., monensin) are used to improve efficiency of animal

production by decreasing the dry matter intake (DMI) and increasing performance
and decreasing CH 4 production. It should be noted that the use of these additives are
forbidden in the EU but they have been routinely used as a growth promoter in some
non-EU countries. The effect of these types of feed additives on production and/or
CH 4 output varies from study to study. The values used in this study are a 25%
reduction in CH 4 production coupled with a 25% improvement in production (van
Nevel & Demeyer, 1995). This option was studied for beef and dairy cattle. There
have been some reports of potential unfavourable side-effects with the application of
this treatment with an increase in metabolic disorders in the animal (McGuffey et al.,
2001; Duffield et al., 2008). This option was studied for beef and dairy cattle. The
costs assumed for this option are given in Annex B5 and are based on the feeding
ionophores to animals

Option 6. Bovine somatotrophin (bST)

Administering bST to dairy cattle has been shown to increase milk production and
has been used previously in various countries. This has also been shown to reduce
CH 4 emissions (Bauman et al., 1985). In many cases, this option increases CH 4
emissions per animal but typically increases milk production sufficiently to lower
emissions per unit of milk. The use of bST is widely unacceptable to European
consumers. In this study it was assumed that bST would improve milk production by
17.5% and increase CH 4 production by 10%. This option was studied for beef and
dairy cattle. The costs assumed for this option are given in Annex B5 and are based
on treating animals with bSt.

5.6 Breeding for improved efficiency

Generally, selection for efficiency of production in livestock species will help to

reduce emissions. In many cases this can be achieved simply through selection on
production traits and traits related to the efficiency of the entire production system
(e.g., fertility and longevity traits). The impact of selection on these traits is two fold

• Reducing the number of animals required to produce a fixed level of output:

There has been an overall reduction of annual methane emissions (28% from

66
• Increasing the efficiency of production will help reduce the finishing period for
meat animals, therefore reducing emissions per unit output. Hyslop (2003)
demonstrated that efficiency of the beef production system was paramount in
reducing the GHG emissions/unit output showing that intensive concentrate
based systems produce the lowest emissions (note: this study did not consider
the externalities of the system such as the carbon cost of producing concentrate
diets). Further analyses of the data showed that there was also a significant
breed difference suggesting that bigger continental breeds of cattle produced less
emissions/unit output than the smaller British type breeds (Hyslop, 2003). This
opportunity for switching breeds is not considered in this analysis, but may offer
abatement potential. However, genetic improvement of beef animals is examined
in this study and shows some of the abatement potential of improving the types of
animals in a system on overall economic and environmental efficiency.

A recently completed Defra funded project (AC0204) modelled the effect of genetic
improvement on emissions from UK livestock systems using Life Cycle Analysis. This
study showed that historic genetic improvement in UK livestock species has had a
favourable effect on the overall productivity of livestock species. It has also had a
favourable associated effect on the reduction of emissions from many livestock
species via improvements in efficiency of the production system. Improvement in
livestock species has resulted in a 0.8-1.2% per annum decrease in emissions from
species that readily adopt genetic improvements throughout the population (i.e., pigs,
poultry and dairy cattle). However the impact of genetic improvement in beef cattle
and sheep has a far lower penetration rate and the best genetics do not disseminate
through all strata of the livestock population.

Option 7 Genetic improvement

Genetic improvement was considered for beef and dairy animals. For dairy, 2 options
were considered. First, current conventional genetic improvement was considered
whereby milk production is expected to improve at a rate of 1.5% per annum (Simm,
1998). As genetic improvement, if carried out consistently, will lead to permanent and
cumulative change in the population, it was assumed that production would continue
to improve at a rate of 1.5% per annum. There was no associated effect on CH 4
emissions modelled, even though report to Defra (AC0204) that used life cycle
analysis, assumed a favourable effect in the reduction of greenhouse gases of
approximately 1% per annum. The method applied in the overall framework of
examining abatement potential from dairy, accounts for a reduction in animal
numbers with an improvement in milk production per cow. This will partly take
account of some of the wider life cycle issues with examining the potential of genetic
improvement. A second option for genetic improvement in dairy was considered, this
time considering a shift in the emphasis of the national breeding goal from dairy cows
to select animals with improved fertility. The study of Garnsworthy (2004) showed
that if fertility was returned its level in 1995 enteric methane emissions from the
milking herd would be reduced 11%. Using the results of Wall et al (2007) an index
that would bring about this improvement in fertility over a 10 year period would result
in a halving of the improvement in milk production. The impact of such a change of
selection emphasis in UK dairy cattle was modelled.

67
As discussed earlier, the recently completed Defra funded project (AC0204) showed
the potential impact of genetic improvement on overall GHG emissions within the
sections of the national beef herd that adopts genetic improvement on data
recording. The potential of the beef industry to reach this reduction is limited by the
low uptake and use of genetic indices and data recording across the population. The
impact of increasing the use of genetic improvement across a wider proportion of the
beef herd was modelled by examining the difference between current low rates of
uptake (10%) to a higher rate of uptake (50%). These values were simplified, with
expert guidance, from the study of Amer et al. (2007).

The costs for use of genetic improvement tools was deemed to be zero as these
tools are currently developed and calculated routinely for dairy and beef animals as
part of the levy contribution and other supported funds. The effect of genetic
improvement on CH 4 reduction and production improvement was cumulative over the
time period studied such that an annual reduction potential of 1% would become 2%
after two years. This cumulative effect would continue for as long at this measure
was applied.

Option 8. Use of transgenic offspring

Taking a longer term view of potential abatement options, it is possible to envisage

that genetically modified livestock may be developed with desirable trait
characteristics, one of which may include increased feed efficiency and therefore
reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This scenario is highly speculative. It was
assumed that directly genetically modified animals would not be used routinely in
production of livestock products (meat and milk). However, the offspring of
genetically modified/transgenic animals, via the use of semen and/or embryos of
genetically modified animals, may have some potential applicability to the production
of livestock products. It was assumed that the offspring of animal(s) genetically
modified would be more efficient and would produce 20% less CH 4 and 10% more
milk. The cost of administration was estimated based on the current value of a high
genetic merit dairy animal. This option was examined for dairy only. This is assumed
to be an expensive option as the cost of a high genetic merit animal is high as the
production potential of the animal is high relative to an average animal. It is hard to
estimate the cost of the a transgenic animal as it is mainly an experimental process.
However this may change with time and maybe a mitigation option in the medium to
long term.

68
Table 5.6 Summary of the abatement potential assumptions for animal
management options of dairy cows.*
Production CH 4 Notes
improvement reduction
(%) (%)
Concentrate 14 7
Maize silage 7 -2
Propionate precursors 15 22
Probiotics 10 7.5
Ionophores 25 25
Bovine somatatrophin 17.5 10
Genetic improvement – 7.5-22.5 0 Cumulative
production effect over
years
Genetic improvement - fertility 3.25-11.25 2.5-7.5 Cumulative
effect over
years
Transgenic offspring 10 20
* This table summarises the assumptions used for the dairy animal management options
giving the values assumed in the spreadsheet for the effect of each abatement option on
production and reduction in methane output.

5.7 Manure management options

The manure management options, excluding anaerobic digestion, which will be

discussed later, were developed to be driven by the livestock number projections of
BAU3. Assumptions on manure output per livestock category were taken from
Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity (PEPFAA, 2005).
Greenhouse gases from manure were calculated based on volume produced from
different livestock categories as described by the UK national inventory reporting
(Choudrie et al., 2008). Distributions of storage type were combined from various
reports (IGER, 2001; UK Choudrie et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2000 & 2001). The rate
of reduction of CH 4 and potential increase in CO 2 as a result and costs were taken
from IGER (2001) and are shown in Table 5.7. Options included the covering of
slurry tanks and lagoons and the aerating of slurry and manure while being stored.
These options were applied to beef and dairy cattle and pigs.

Table 5.7 Summary of the abatement potential and cost assumptions for
livestock manure management abatement options*
CH 4 CO 2 Capital cost Running
reduction produced (20 yrs) cost
(%)
Covering slurry tanks/lagoons 20 0 Cover 0
costs
Aerobic tanks/lagoons 20 5-7 t/yr Equipment annual
* This table summarises the assumptions used for the manure management options giving
the values assumed in the spreadsheet for the effect of each abatement option on reduction
in methane output and the overall carbon dioxide produced in applying that measure.

69
 5.8 Anaerobic digestion

5.8.1 On Farm Anaerobic Digestion (OFAD)

Three livestock types are considered to be suitable for OFAD: dairy cattle, other
cattle and fattening pigs (Mistry and Misselbrook, 2005). For each livestock type
three holding size categories are considered: small, medium and large. These are as
defined in Agriculture in the UK (Defra, various years)

Table 5.8 Livestock holding sizes assumed for estimating abatement

potential via anaerobic digestion.
Small Medium Large
Dairy cattle 1 to 49 50 to 99 Over 100
Other cattle 1 to 19 20 to 49 Over 50
Fattening pigs 1 to 199 200 to 999 Over 1000
Laying hens (CAD only) 1 to 9,999 10,000 to 99,999 Over 100,000

The livestock and holdings number projections (see note below) are used to
determine the average herd size for holdings in each size category. These were used
as the basis of the CH 4 emissions, and AD cost and income streams. IPCC
emissions factors were used for each livestock type and the typical proportion of year
(or herd) housed (from Mistry and Misselbrook, 2005) were used to determine
proportion of slurry/manure that can be collected for digestion.

Following adjustment for leakage (3%) energy potential from AD is calculated

(converted from GJ to kWh then kW). The required generator capacity is determined
by rounding up output energy (kW) to: 1 - 10 in increments of 1 kW, then 15, 20, 25,
30, then increments of 10 kW.

High, low and central capital costs are estimated using formulae reported in FEC
Services Ltd (2003) based on costs quoted in AD literature. Any capital costs can be
selected for remaining calculations. Note that no assumption has been made
regarding minimum capital costs; these would certainly apply to smaller farms.
Interest payments on borrowed capital are not currently included in the model
(although can be endogenous to the choice of discount rate used). Annual running
costs are set as 2% of capital costs (as per Mistry and Misselbrook, 2005).

Electricity generation was estimated to be 35% efficient, and 20% of output is

assumed to be used on AD plant (as per Mistry and Misselbrook, 2005). The value of
electricity and ROCs are linked to price forecasts defined by CCC in their Control
Panel. Grid connection costs have not been included in capital costs. Combined
income from electricity and ROCs can be assumed to approximate avoided cost of
purchased electricity to account for power used on-farm if not exported.

Heat output is included in the model, with 50% generated assumed to be available
for use on farm. Currently no assumption has been made regarding the source of
energy that this use of heat has displaced, and therefore the degree of CO 2 e
emission offset from elsewhere. The value of the heat used is again linked to price
forecasts defined by CCC in their Control Panel.

Methane abatement is calculated as tonnes CO 2 e. These are net of CO 2 avoided

from electricity generation (based on typical 0.43 kg CO 2 /kWhe), CO 2 emissions from

70
digester (40% of biogas, based on 1 tCO 2 = 556.2 m3) and CO 2 emissions from
methane combustion (based on 0.23 kg CO 2 /kWh). Cost per tonne CO 2 e avoided
over project lifetime is calculated as net emission saving divided by net project cost
for each farm size band.

5.8.2 Central Anaerobic Digestion (CAD)

The calculation of CAD potential takes a different starting point to that used for
OFAD. The OFAD calculations were built up from the average herd size for each
holding size category (small, medium or large) based on projected livestock and
holdings numbers. IPCC emissions factors were then used to determine the CH 4
emissions for the average holding and from that the potential AD generating potential
was determined. Costs, incomes and abatement potentials were then calculated for
the average holding.

In the case of central anaerobic digestion (CAD) the starting point was a range of
possible generator capacities between 1 and 5 MWh. This range of generating
capacities allows an exploration of the scale efficiencies of CAD plants, primarily due
to the reduction in per unit capital costs for larger plants. For each generator size the
required volume of CH 4 was calculated and IPCC emissions factors used to
determine the number of livestock of each category required to produce that volume
of CH 4 . Average herd sizes were then used to determine the number of farms
required to supply one CAD plant of each capacity and also the total number of CAD
plants that could be supported by each sector.

Capital and running costs were then determined on a per plant basis using the same
assumptions as for OFAD. A further cost element that arises with CAD is the
transport costs of slurry/manure. Transport costs 13 were based on Freight Transport
Association data 14 on costs per mile (converted to per kilometre) and cost per tonne
transported for a 17 tonne truck (with a payload of 11 tonnes). Average distances
from holding to CAD plant for each livestock category were based on the same
assumptions of 15km for cattle and pigs and 60km for poultry used by Mistry and
Misselbrook (2005). The quantity of slurry/manure produced by each holding was
then used to determine the number of trips required per annum to supply each CAD
plant.

The CAD calculations also include the installation of CHP under the assumption that
50% of the heat generated by the plant will be exported to a local district heating
installation. This provides a further income stream for each CAD plant.

5.8.3 Use of digestate

Neither the OFAD nor CAD calculations currently make any assumptions regarding
the use of the digestate resulting from the AD process. In both cases the digestate is
classed as waste. However in the case of OFAD, farmers can apply for a licence to
spread the waste on land. For cattle farms this would allow the digestate to be used
as a nutrient source for pasture in the same manner as slurry and manure.

13
Private transport costs only were considered, i.e. emissions and other social costs are
excluded. Transport related emissions are not expected to be large relative to the emissions
abated by CAD
14
http://www.fta.co.uk/about/about-the-industry/delivering-economy.pdf

71
With respect to CAD this situation becomes more complex as slurry/manure may be
mixed with other feedstocks such as municipal waste. This together with the mixing
of slurry/manure form several holdings creates a more complex regulatory
environment and also raises issues of biosecurity if spread on agricultural land.
Consequently, alternative sources of fertiliser may be required to compensate for the
nutrients present in the slurry/manure sent to CAD.

Fully considering the consequences of this situation within the AD calculations would
add a considerable layer of complexity. Although slurry/manure is a valuable source
of nutrients for pasture land, the extent to which adoption of CAD would result in
nutrient deficiencies would depend on the nutrient budgets of individual holdings and
the extent to which adequate application occurs during periods when livestock are
not housed. It could be the case, particularly in areas designated as Nitrate
Vulnerable Zones, where excess slurry/manure was being produced. In such
situations CAD would provide an important disposal route for surplus nutrients.

5.8.4 Livestock and holdings projections

Livestock numbers were projected for 2012, 2017 and 2022 from estimates produced
for BAUIII (for 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025) using linear changes for each year.
Holding numbers were calculated from projected trend lines from historical holdings
numbers between 1993 and 2005 published in Agriculture in the UK (various years).
The functional form chosen for these trends depended on which form gave the most
conservative projected trend. The future livestock numbers and projected holding
numbers then needed to be reconciled.

For fattening pigs and laying hens it was assumed that the structure of the industry
would not change from present observations. That is the percentage of total livestock
numbers would remain constant across each holding size category. For dairy and
other cattle it was assumed that average herd size for both small and medium
holdings would not change over time. However the numbers of both these types of
holdings was projected to decline over time. Consequently there was additional
livestock leaving these sized categories. Furthermore the number of large cattle
holdings declines at a relatively low rate. It was consequently assumed that there
would be a consolidation of these animals into large holdings, where average herd
sizes will increase over time.

A further complication arises with respect to dairy and other cattle because herd
sizes are typically only expressed in terms of breeding females (“dairy cows and
heifers” and “beef cows and heifers”). However, over 6 million cattle of other
classifications are not accounted for in these figures. The percentages of these
additional animals that are present on either dairy or beef farms were calculated for
the BAU3 projection (the percentages were found to be stable over time). The
animals were then apportioned to either dairy or beef sectors on this basis. IPCC
emissions factors for each type of animal were then used to express these animals in
terms of either dairy cow or beef cow equivalents.

72
 5.9 Results

Table 5.9 sets out the relevant potentials.

Table 5.9 Total abatement potential (MtCO 2 e/y) at a cost of <=£100/tCO 2 e,

3.5%, social metric
Potential 2012 2017 2022
High feasible 5.02
Central feasible 0.635 1.594 2.68
Low feasible 1.266

The feasible potentials in 2022 were estimated to range from 1.266 - 5.02MtCO 2 e,
i.e. an annual abatement of approximately 1.266 - 5.02MtCO 2 e could be achieved in
the livestock sub-sector at a cost of <=£100/t by 2022. The measures needed to
achieve this abatement are:

• BeefAn-Ionophores
• BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics
• DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity
• DairyAn-Ionophores
• DairyAn-ImprovedFertility
• DairyAn-MaizeSilage
• On farm anaerobic digestion (OFAD)-PigsLarge
• OFAD-BeefLarge
• OFAD-PigsMedium
• Central anaerobic digestion (CAD )-Poultry-5MW
• OFAD-DairyLarge
• OFAD-BeefMedium
• OFAD-DairyMedium

The central feasible potential of 2.68 MtCO 2 e represents around 5 % of the 2005 UK
agricultural GHG emissions (the NAEI reported these as 44.733 MtCO 2 e, excluding
LUC).

The results for livestock show that a range of options, both animal and manure
management options, show high potential for the abatement of GHG from livestock
systems. However, it should be noted that some options are currently prohibited by
EU law such as the use of ionophores as a feed additive in livestock rations. The
addition of ionophores in the diets of livestock is not prohibited else where in the
world (e.g., USA) and these systems see an increase in the efficiency of production.
In the future it could become an option in the EU, particularly if proven to be an
effective abatement tool. It should also be noted that reported effects, particularly in
the long term, of the use of ionophores can vary. To ensure the effects of ionophores
are consistent in UK livestock systems it would be necessary to study their effect in
practice and in actual livestock systems over the longer term.

Some of the top abatement options that proved cost effective were in the beef sector.
This can be expected given the range of efficiencies in UK beef systems ranging
from low input extensive grazing based systems with animals reaching final slaughter
weight at 2 years or more to high input grain based systems with systems with
animals reaching final slaughter weight at 1 year or less. Also, in beef sector, as

73
described earlier, the use of recording and genetic selection tools means the
productivity improvements experienced in the systems that utilise these tools is not
as widespread as in other livestock sectors (e.g., dairy, pig, poultry). The uptake of
such tools and increasing the efficiency of production in some beef systems will have
a large impact on overall GHG emissions but will also have an impact on the overall
farm profit and sustainability.

Other dietary options that could play a role in the abatement of GHG emissions
include changes to the diet that decrease the roughage content of the diet for
livestock. This could lead to potential land use resource conflict in that the land
suitable for growing cereal/maize for livestock diets is limited in the UK and therefore
there is a potential conflict with using the land for growing feed for livestock or food
for humans or fuel for biofuel production. The alternative option, if land is not
available in the UK, is to source these livestock diet components from outside the UK
and therefore run the risk of displacing emissions to elsewhere outside the UK. It is
also important to note that ruminants are particularly useful in that they convert a diet
indigestible by human (e.g, grass) in to product that can feed humans (meat and
milk). It is likely, that with climate change that the UK will be one of the places in the
world with favourable grass growth conditions and therefore may be able to utilise
this resource to produce animal products with other parts of the world utilising land
for the production of cereal etc for human food and fuel consumption. The balance
between these conflicts needs to be studied in far more detail considering the wider
world issues that will influence them.

Although not considered in the economic appraisal of the efficiency of mitigation

options from livestock some of the options that show a favourable effect on GHG
emissions and are shown to be cost effective may also have ancillary impacts
(positive and negative) that need to be considered, particularly regarding animal
welfare. For example, some of the options involve the administration of additives/
injections that increase the efficiency growth/production in the animal such that they
produce more product in a shorter space of time. These options can have adverse
effects on the animals as this maybe “pushing” the animals too much and negatively
affect other biological functions such as fertility. However, the example of selecting
animals for breeding based on information on production potential and their fertility
and “fitness” traits potential (broader and balanced breeding goals) could have
favourable effects for animal welfare such that the “fitness” traits are improved as
well as production traits, just in a more balanced manner.

The results highlight the role of anaerobic digestion (AD) in abating GHG emissions
from livestock systems, both on farm and in a central location. However, the on-farm
options tend to be only effective in larger scale farms. The potential to use central AD
to abate GHG emissions will be related to the spatial distributions of farms supplying
it around the central facility. It should be noted that the use of central or on-farm AD
could be supplemented and the overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness improved if
other waste sources mixed into the AD. This would require tying together some
aspects of the "waste" sector with the AD examples for the "agriculture" sector.
considering AD across the industry sectors could also play an important role as
power is generated and therefore displaces some of the emissions in wider power
generation.

74
Annex A5 Review and ranking of potential mitigation options from livestock

Extent to which the measure is likely to be a technically feasible and industry-acceptable means of abatement by the given year ranked from 1-
5, where: 1=will almost certainly be feasible and acceptable; 2=will probably be feasible and acceptable; 3=will possibly be feasible and
acceptable; 4= will probably be unfeasible or unacceptable; 5= will almost certainly be unfeasible and /or acceptable

Effects (+ denotes emission

Ranking reduction or enhanced removal)
Category Sub-category Measure 2012 2017 2022 CO 2 CH 4 N2O NH 3 NO 3 -
Livestock Increased nutrient use Feeding more concentrates (replacing forages) ? + ?
mgmt efficiency and improved Increased concentrate in diet - dairy 2 2 2
feeding practices Increased concentrate in diet - beef 2 2 2
Increased concentrate in diet - beef 2 2 2
Analysis of forage and fodder 3 3 2 + +
Target specific livestock nutrient requirements 3 3 2
Balance diet for energy and protein (e.g. reducing protein,
+/- + +
increasing carbohydrates, increasing condensed tannins)
High fat diet - dairy 2 2 2 +
High starch diet (maize) - dairy 2 2 2 + -?
High starch diet (maize) - beef 2 2 2
High starch diet (maize) - beef 2 2 2 + -?
Increase protein quality (balanced essential AA comp.) 3 2 2 + +
Increased milking frequency 3 2 2
Use of hormones
Steroids 5 4 4
Bovine somatotropin 5 4 4
bST - dairy 5 4 4
Estimating potential CH4 production from feeds 4 3 3
Mechanical treatment of feed 3 3 2 - +
Chemical treatment of low quality feedstuffs 4 3 3 +
(Multi)Phase feeding 3 3 3 + +
Improved feed conversion (increasing energy content and
2 2 2
digestibility) - beef
Improved feed conversion (increasing energy content and
2 2 2
digestibility) - dairy

75
 Use of antibiotics - beef 4 4 3
Continuing conventional dietary improvement 2 2 2
Improved diets for pigs 2 2 2
In general +
Adding certain oils to the diet 3 3 2 +
Ionophores and natural extracts to modify rumen microbial
3 3 3 +
fermentation
Ionophores - dairy 3 3 3 +
Antibiotics 4 4 4 +
Propionate precursors +
beef 4 4 3 +
beef 4 4 3
dairy 4 4 3
Specific agents and Hexose partitioning 4 4 3 +
dietary additives to Probiotics (e.g. yeast products) 4 3 3 +?
suppress Alternative hydrogen acceptors (e.g. unsaturated fatty
5 5 4 +
methanogenesis acids)
Promoting acetogens +
Genetic modification of rumen microflora 5 5 4 +
Immunogenic approaches to eliminate methanogens 5 5 4 +
Halogenated methane analogues 5 5 4 +
Organic acids 4 4 4 +
Defaunating agents 5 5 5 +
Naturally ocurring plant compounds (new species/GM) 5 4 3 +
Directly fed microbes (acetogens, methane oxidisers) 5 4 3 +
Adding certain enzymes to the diet 4 3 2 +
Antimethanogens 5 4 4
In general
beef 5 5 4
Vaccination against sheep 5 5 4
methanogens beef 5 5 4
dairy 5 5 4
sheep and goats 5 5 4
Structural and Reduction in the number of replacement heifers / Improved
2 1 1 + + + +
management changes fertility management
Multi use of cows (milk, calves and meat) 3 2 1 ? ? ?
More feed production on farm scale or local level 2 2 1 + +
Organic farming 3 3 3

76
 Organic farming - dairy 3 3 3
Winter management of cattle (collected and re-utilised
3 2 2 + +
excreta)
Increase of grazing in comparison to housing 3 3 3 -? +
Increase of housing in comparison to grazing 3 3 3
Reduce stocking rates
25% - dairy 3 3 3
25% - beef 3 3 3
25% - sheep 3 3 3
10% - dairy 2 2 2
10% - beef 2 2 2
Selection for reduced methane production 5 4 3 +
Selection for longevity , fertility, and other non-productive
2 1 1
traits
Selection for higher yield 2 1 1
Improved milk yield by 30% - dairy 4 3 2 + +
Cloning 5 5 5
Animal breeding and GM livestock 5 5 5
genetics Artificial insemination 1 1 1 + + +
Planned selection of male/female at insemination (embryo
2 2 2 + + +
and sperm sexing)
Twinning 3 3 3 + + +
Transgenic manipulation - dairy 5 5 4
Transgenic manipulation - beef 5 5 4
Improved genetic potential - dairy 1 1 1

Manure/ Housing New low-emission livestock and poultry housing systems 3 3 3 ? ? ? +

biosolid Natural ventilation 3 2 2 + + +
mgmt Decreasing of air velocity above manure 2 2 2 +
Cooling the manure covered surfaces 4 3 3 + + +
Filtration of animal house emissions 4 3 3 - +
Tied systems instead of loose-housing systems ? ? ? +
Slurry-based systems - dairy
Straw-based systems - dairy
Loose-housing, deep litter stalls - dairy
Cages and aviaries instead of floor systems for layer hens ? ? ? + +/-
Keeping surfaces, manure and animals dry 2 2 2 + +
Improved drinking systems 2 2 2 +

77
 Drying of manure (esp. poultry) 4 4 4 + +
Absorption of urine / Use of bedding material 2 2 2 -? +
Straw-based systems 2 2 2 - +
Deep litter systems 2 2 2 -? - ?
Deep litter systems - pigs 2 2 2
Slurry-based systems / Deep dung channels 3 3 3 + +
Partly or fully slatted floors 2 2 2 + + +
Frequent manure removal - dairy 2 2 2 +
Frequent manure removal - beef 2 2 2 +
Frequent manure removal - pigs 2 2 2 +
Improved storage and Cooling 4 3 3 + + +
handling Decreasing the airflow across slurry and FYM 4 3 3 +
Covering manure heaps 2 2 2 + -? -
Lowering the filling level of slurry storage 2 2 2 +
Covering slurry 2 2 2 +
Low technology covering: floating oil 3 3 3 - +
Allowing the build-up of and protecting the natural
2 2 2 + -? +
crust on cattle slurry
Low technology covering: straw, peat and bark - dairy 2 2 2 -/+? -? +
Low technology covering: granulates - dairy 2 2 2 + +
Flexible plastic cover - dairy 3 3 3 +
Rigid covers and roofs - dairy 3 3 3 + +
Low technology covering: straw, peat and bark - beef 2 2 2 -/+? -? +
Low technology covering: granulates - beef 2 2 2 + +
Flexible plastic cover - beef 3 3 3 +
Rigid covers and roofs - beef 3 3 3 + +
Developing a natural crust on pig slurry 2 2 2
Low technology covering: straw, peat and bark - pigs 2 2 2 -/+? -? +
Low technology covering: granulates - pigs 2 2 2 + +
Flexible plastic cover - pigs 2 2 2 +
Rigid covers and roofs - pigs 2 2 2 + +
Separating solids from slurry 4 4 3 +
Rapid separation of faeces and urine 5 4 4 - +
Handling manures in solid (aerobic) form (e.g., composting) 4 3 3 + +/- +
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic facilities - all pigs 3 3 3
Controlled aeration during slurry storage 3 3 2 + -? -?
Change from solid manure to slurry (anaerobic) system 3 2 2 - - +

78
 Minimising of stirring slurry 3 2 2 ? ? +
cows
-
Switch solid manure to slurry storage 3 2 2 -? + -
+pigs
Reducing the pH of manure 4 3 3 + + +
Reducing the surface per unit volume of slurry or FYM (e.g
3 2 2 0 +? +
tanks instead of lagoons)
Combustion of poultry litter 4 4 3
Controlled denitrification processes in slurry 4 4 3 +/-
Increasing the carbon content of the manure (adding straw) 3 2 2 +? +
Compaction of FYM 4 4 2 - - +
Comminution of FYM ? ? ? +
Increased frequency of slurry spreading - all pigs 2 2 2
Increased frequency of slurry spreading - beef 2 2 2
Increased frequency of slurry spreading - dairy 2 2 2
Anaerobic digestion In general 3 3 3 + + -/+? -?
and CH4 capture Centralised 3 2 2
On-farm - dairy 4 3 3
On-farm - dairy 4 3 3
High-tech digesters - dairy 4 4 4
Low-tech digester - dairy 4 3 3
Complete-mix digester with engine - dairy 4 4 3
Plug-flow digester with engine - dairy 4 4 3
Fixed-film digester with engine - dairy 4 4 3
Complete-mix digester without engine - dairy 4 4 3
Plug-flow digester without engine - dairy 4 4 3
Fixed-film digester without engine - dairy 4 4 3
Covered slurry tanks - dairy 3 2 2 +
Covered lagoons - dairy 3 2 2 +
Covered lagoon without engine - dairy 3 2 2
Covered lagoon with engine - dairy 3 3 2
On-farm - beef 4 4 4
On-farm - beef 4 4 4
High-tech digesters - beef 5 5 4
Low-tech digester - beef 4 4 4
Covered lagoons - beef 3 3 3 +
Covered slurry tanks - beef 3 3 3 +
On-farm - pig 3 3 3
High-tech digesters - fatteners 4 4 4

79
Low-tech digester - fatteners 3 3 3
High-tech digesters - sows and boars 4 4 4
Low-tech digester - sows and boars 3 3 3
Complete-mix digester with engine - hogs 4 4 4
Fixed-film digester with engine - hogs 4 4 4
Complete-mix digester without engine - hogs 4 4 4
Fixed-film digester without engine - hogs 4 4 4
Covered slurry tanks - all pigs 2 2 2 +
Covered lagoons - all pigs 2 2 2 +
Covered lagoon with engine - hogs 3 3 3
Covered lagoon without engine - hogs 2 2 2
On-farm - poultry 3 3 3

80
Annex B5 Summary of costing assumptions for livestock animal and livestock manure management options excluding anaerobic
digestion.

Abatement option Applied 2008 2012 2017 2022 Notes

Increased high starch concentrates 2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values.
in diet (cost of diet switch Dairy, Concentrate price varied following cereal
[£(2008)/hd/y]) beef 123.8567 136.6189 154.0611 173.3187 forecast
Increased maize silage in diet
Increased maize silage in diet (cost Dairy, 2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
of diet switch [£(2008)/hd/y]) beef -6.18679 -6.18679 -6.18679 -6.18679 and then held constant
Propionate precursors (cost of feed Dairy, 2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
additive [£(2008)/hd/y]) beef 22.95881 22.95881 22.95881 22.95881 and then held constant
Probiotics (cost of feed additive Dairy, 2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
[£(2008)/hd/y]) beef 13.70278 13.70278 13.70278 13.70278 and then held constant
Ionophores (cost of feed additive Dairy, 2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
[£(2008)/hd/y]) beef 6.621803 6.621803 6.621803 6.621803 and then held constant
Bovine somatotropin (cost of bST Dairy, 2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
[£(2008)/hd/y]) beef 80.67 80.67 80.67 80.67 and then held constant
Improved genetic potential for dairy
cows – productivity Dairy 0 0 0 0
Improved genetic potential for dairy
cows – fertility Dairy 0 0 0 0
Improved genetic potential for beef
cattle Beef 0 0 0 0
Transgenic manipulation of
ruminants (cost of transgenic Estimated based on the value of a high
offspring [£(2008)/hd/y]) Dairy 5000 5000 5000 5000 genetic merit animal

General costs of dairy herds

Variable cost of upkeep (VC)
[£(2008)/hd/y]

81
 2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy cows (cubicles) 114.794 114.794 114.794 114.794 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy cows (litter) 151.0448 151.0448 151.0448 151.0448 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy heifers (cubicles) 99.08538 99.08538 99.08538 99.08538 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy heifers (litter) 135.3361 135.3361 135.3361 135.3361 and then held constant
Herd depreciation (HD) [£(2008)/hd/y]
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy cows (cubicles) 118.1533 118.1533 118.1533 118.1533 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy cows (litter) 118.1533 118.1533 118.1533 118.1533 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy heifers (cubicles) 0 0 0 0 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy heifers (litter) 0 0 0 0 and then held constant
Feeding [£(2008)/hd/y]
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy cows (cubicles) 363.2446 363.2446 363.2446 363.2446 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy cows (litter) 363.2446 363.2446 363.2446 363.2446 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy heifers (cubicles) 246.1184 246.1184 246.1184 246.1184 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Dairy heifers (litter) 246.1184 246.1184 246.1184 246.1184 and then held constant

www.fwi.co.uk, (10/07/08, Total Cat: Avg

Price) for 2008 value, and then annual
growth based on forecasts used in farm-
Beef price [£2008/liveweight kg] 1.57 1.71838 1.923727 2.153614 scale modelling

82
Covering lagoons
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Annual running cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 0 0 0 0 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
One-off cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 13710.03 13710.03 13710.03 13710.03 and then held constant
Covering slurry tanks
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Annual running cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 0 0 0 0 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
One-off cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 20171.73 20171.73 20171.73 20171.73 and then held constant
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic
storage - slurry tanks
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Annual running cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 1812.537 1812.537 1812.537 1812.537 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
One-off cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 8458.508 8458.508 8458.508 8458.508 and then held constant
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic
storage - lagoons
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Annual running cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 2416.717 2416.717 2416.717 2416.717 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
One-off cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 12083.58 12083.58 12083.58 12083.58 and then held constant
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic
storage - concrete pads
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
Annual running cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 725.015 725.015 725.015 725.015 and then held constant
2001 IGER values inflated to 2008 values
One-off cost [£(2008)/hd/y] 3625.075 3625.075 3625.075 3625.075 and then held constant

83
Annex C5 Livestock measures results

Table 5.10 Livestock Measures Central Feasible Potential, 2012

First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 103.39 -1,384.37 0.103
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 4.60 -2,873.75 0.108
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 215.77 -49.99 0.324
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 27.99 -270.22 0.352
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 41.82 -0.07 0.394
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 33.38 -0.04 0.427
EF OFAD-BeefLarge 27.47 3.36 0.454
EI OFAD-PigsLarge 14.18 6.63 0.469
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 61.36 9.43 0.530
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 4.77 11.67 0.535
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 64.19 13.63 0.599
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 15.56 18.33 0.614
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 20.76 26.12 0.635
BG DairyAn-bST 38.60 230.48 0.674
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 147.13 1,739.62 0.821
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 24.12 2,110.15 0.845

Table 5.11 Livestock Measures Central Feasible Potential 2017

First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 227.68 -1,556.29 0.228
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 20.26 -3,217.28 0.248
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 174.13 -0.07 0.422
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 480.61 -49.28 0.903
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 62.39 -266.23 0.965
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 160.70 -0.04 1.126
EF OFAD-BeefLarge 62.35 3.33 1.188
EI OFAD-PigsLarge 31.45 3.82 1.220
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 10.58 8.14 1.230
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 154.53 10.60 1.385
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 139.15 10.80 1.524
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 33.80 18.07 1.558
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 36.40 25.53 1.594
BG DairyAn-bST 86.00 227.17 1.680
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 327.68 1,715.14 2.008
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 53.11 2,394.58 2.061

84
Table 5.12 Livestock Measures Central Feasible Potential 2022
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 347.38 -1,747.79 0.347
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 46.32 -3,602.93 0.394
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 377.36 -0.07 0.771
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 739.66 -48.59 1.511
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 346.26 -0.04 1.857
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 95.98 -262.63 1.953
EI OFAD-PigsLarge 47.77 0.96 2.001
EF OFAD-BeefLarge 97.79 2.52 2.099
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 16.06 4.69 2.115
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 250.81 7.96 2.365
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 219.34 11.43 2.585
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 50.77 16.96 2.635
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 44.12 24.10 2.680
BG DairyAn-bST 132.31 224.10 2.812
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 504.29 1,691.28 3.316
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 80.96 2,704.54 3.397

Table 5.13 Livestock Measures High Feasible Potential 2022

First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 656.16 -1,747.79 0.656
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 94.69 -3,602.93 0.751
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 771.49 -0.07 1.522
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 1,397.13 -48.59 2.919
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 707.92 -0.04 3.627
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 181.29 -262.63 3.809
EI OFAD-PigsLarge 79.61 -0.89 3.888
EF OFAD-BeefLarge 162.98 0.53 4.051
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 26.77 2.52 4.078
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 418.01 5.51 4.496
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 365.57 11.43 4.862
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 84.61 13.75 4.946
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 73.54 20.29 5.020
BG DairyAn-bST 270.49 224.10 5.290
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 1,030.99 1,691.28 6.321
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 152.92 2,704.54 6.474

85
Table 5.14 Livestock Measures Low Feasible Potential 2022
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 138.95 -1,747.79 0.139
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 18.53 -3,602.93 0.157
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 150.94 -0.07 0.308
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 295.86 -48.59 0.604
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 138.51 -0.04 0.743
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 38.39 -262.63 0.781
EI OFAD-PigsLarge 31.84 1.89 0.813
EF OFAD-BeefLarge 65.19 3.52 0.878
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 10.71 5.78 0.889
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 167.20 9.18 1.056
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 146.23 11.43 1.202
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 33.85 18.57 1.236
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 29.42 26.01 1.266
BG DairyAn-bST 20.58 224.10 1.286
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 78.44 1,691.28 1.365
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 12.59 2,704.54 1.377

Cost Effectiveness Livestock, 2022, CFP, P, d.r.=7%

[£2006/tCO2e] (Measures with CE>1000 are not shown)
250 224
200

150

100

50
11 12 20 r
5 68
0
-0.07
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
-50
-49
-100

-150

-200

-250
-263
-1,748

-3,650
CE CG BF BE BI BB EF EC HT EE BG
EI EH EB
First Year Gross Volume Abated [ktCO2e]

Figure 5.2 Livestock MACC with interactions for the central feasible in 2022
with a discount rate = 7%

86
6 Mitigation options in forestry

6.1 Key Findings

Forest biomass trees and soil sequester carbon, and biomass may be used to
displace emissions in other sectors. We have undertaken an indicative analysis of
the associated potential and the estimates presented here come with a number of
important caveats.

We distinguish between abatement potential through sequestration and through

substitution. The former offers direct abatement in the forestry sector and may be
considered fairly reliable. Current estimates of the latter are based on incomplete
data and assumed savings may not accrue to the UK inventory.

Total sequestration abatement potential (MtCO 2 e/y) at a cost of <=£100/tCO 2e , 3.5%,

social metric
Potential 2012 2017 2022
High feasible -0.03 0.54 1.67
Central feasible -0.02 0.32 0.98
Low feasible -0.003 0.06 0.20

The feasible potentials in 2022 were estimated to range from 0.20 – 1.67 MtCO 2 e,
i.e. this annual abatement could be achieved in the forestry sub-sector at a cost of
<=£100/t by 2022. Actual cost-effectiveness is a saving of £7.12/tCO 2 e (£2006).

This abatement is achieved by afforestation – increasing the planting rate to up to

30,000 ha/year from 2009 without any additional substitution of harvested timber. It is
also possible to consider afforestation with an additional element of substitution
abatement provided by wood products that can then be used to displace emissions in
energy generation and/or other sectors, though this will not accrue until beyond the
budget periods.

Substitution abatement potential is more obviously relevant to a measure of shorter

rotation lengths specifically aimed at increasing the amount of wood harvested. This
substitution potential offsets the likely increase in emissions resulting from the shorter
rotations themselves (e.g. from increased soils disturbance). Where harvested wood
substitutes for fossil fuels in power generation, abatement potential from substitution
from shorter rotations is 0.79 MtCO 2 e in 2022 (central feasible potential). This rises
to 10.53 MtCO 2 e when the wood is used directly to substitute for carbon intense
materials (steel and cement) in other sectors. This comes at a cost of £12.07/tCO 2 e
(£2006) or £0.52/tCO 2 e (£2006), respectively.

These figures demonstrate the significant role that increased biomass resource may
be able to play in substituting for carbon-intensive end uses. However, we expect the
true abatement may be lower and the true cost higher as:
• Forest biomass may be used overseas, or displace imported products, with
no impact on UK emissions
• Any resources shifted from steel/concrete production may move into other
emitting activities
• Downstream costs in biomass use are not considered
• Future energy systems are likely to be less carbon intensive
• There is a risk that carbon saving potentials are also reflected in projected
biomass/timber prices

87
Our illustrative abatement potential is derived from scenarios involving coniferous
species. The potential ancillary benefits offered by broadleaf forests are likely to be
an important policy determinant of the true species mix. But this afforestation
trajectory (and thus the likelier true potentials) is currently difficult to specify.

6.2 Overview of the sector

The process of photosynthesis combines atmospheric carbon dioxide with water,

subsequently releasing oxygen into the atmosphere and incorporating the carbon
atoms into the cells of plants. Additionally, forest soils capture carbon. Trees are
long-lived plants that develop a large biomass, thereby capturing large amounts of
carbon over decades. A young forest, when growing rapidly, can sequester relatively
large volumes of additional carbon roughly proportional to the forest’s growth in
biomass. An old-growth forest acts as a reservoir, holding large volumes of carbon,
even if it is not experiencing net growth. Managed forests offer the opportunity for
influencing forest growth rates and providing for full stocking, both of which allow for
more carbon sequestration. It has to be emphasised that wood products represent
significant carbon stores. More importantly, wood products substitute to CO 2
intensive products as:
- fossil fuels in the energy generation sector;
- concrete or steel in the construction sector.

In broad terms two forms of abatement potential are inherent in longer term
afforestation and stand management, versus shorter term rotations aimed at
increasing product substitution potential. We term these sequestration potential and
substitution potential, and it is important to consider them separately, as the next
section identifies.

Forestry is significant land use in the UK, occupying 11.6% of the total land area
(Smith & Gilbert, 2003). Brainard et al (2003) show that the UK’s forests contain 163
million tonnes of carbon. Existing data show that forestry has the potential to remove
significant amounts of CO 2 through tree plantations and forest management.

6.3 Mitigation measures

IPCC (2007) identifies several measures likely to increase the forestry abatement
potential. For European countries, measures that could be implemented are:
- afforestation of agricultural lands;
- forest management to increase carbon density at the stand/landscape level
(maintaining forest cover, minimising forest carbon soils losses, increasing
rotation lengths, increasing growth and managing drainage, low thinning
regime);
- storing carbon in wood products.

The initial focus was on measures aimed at increasing carbon storage in the forest
stand. Four measures described in IPCC (2007) were selected: afforestation and low
thinning regimes for conifers forests and longer rotations for both broadleaf and
conifer forests. These measures were selected more for their illustrative technical
potential than for their likelihood of adoption across the whole forest stock (including
wood products).

88
However, data limitations in relation to broadleaf plantings and the importance of
abatement potential in product substitution was emphasised by the project steering
group. Specifically, it was suggested that focusing on forest carbon storage with low
harvest rates ignores the fact that wood products are substitutes to CO 2 intensive
products. There is an argument for accrediting these displaced emissions potential to
the cost-effectiveness of appropriate harvesting regimes. Clearly this potential can
be increased depending on the assumed harvest rates and life cycle of harvested
forest products.

We therefore consider two measures both of which include benefits estimates of the
impact of wood products on substitution issues:
• afforestation
• implementation of shorter rotations (increasing average timber harvests
providing more wood products, and so more substitution possibilities).

Sequestration and Substitution

There are important reasons to distinguish between sequestration abatement

potential that derives from removing carbon from the atmosphere by increasing the
carbon contained in the forest stock and substitution abatement potential that
displaces fossil fuel use in other sectors by substituting biomass produced in the
forestry sector.
ƒ Sequestration abatement directly affects the emissions attributed to the
LULUCF sector in the UK emissions Inventory. Substitution abatement will
accrue in other sectors.
ƒ Sequestration abatement is a one-off opportunity. Once a forest reaches
its full size it will no longer sequester significant carbon from the
atmosphere. Converting land to forest therefore can only be done once,
offering abatement for the years whilst the forest is growing (49 years in
our assumptions), but then little more. In contrast biomass may be
produced year after year, offering ongoing opportunities to reduce
emissions.
ƒ Substitution abatement may not be reflected in the UK Inventory at all. For
example, timber products may substitute for imported steel (or timber),
meaning emissions savings would be captured in another country’s
emissions inventory. Alternatively, timber or biomass may be exported
and used overseas, without affecting UK emissions.
ƒ Even if timber substitutes for UK produced steel, the UK steel industry
may maintain output by increasing exports. Even if output is reduced the
released resources could be deployed in other carbon-emitting industry.
ƒ It is beyond the scope of this analysis to consider the best use of
produced biomass, e.g. whether it should be co-fired with coal in power
stations, or used for off-gas-grid heating. There will be different costs
associated with these different uses, which will in part be determined by
the carbon price in the EU ETS and by the UK’s renewable energy
strategy. A full analysis requires a full assessment of the costs of the use
of the biomass (which is likely to entail higher costs than conventional
fossil fuel use) as well as its production.
ƒ The precise use chosen will affect the cost-effectiveness of the biomass
production and we must be wary of double-counting the benefits where
the price paid for biomass may reflect the EU ETS and hence the value of
any carbon saving. Any estimate of cost-effectiveness must therefore be
interpreted with considerable caution.

89
 ƒ There are however, clear benefits of increasing the UK’s production of
biomass as a low-carbon renewable fuel. We therefore make indicative
estimates of how much carbon saving could result from increased
biomass production for our two chosen measures. However, we do not
present these savings in the headline results given the key issues outlined
but that are not fully addressed in this report.

Afforestation measure

The analysis concentrates on conifer forests (Sitka Spruce) as an established

species in the UK, where management practices are also well established.
Afforestation involves planting new forests on land previously used for other
purposes (or not used at all). In this report we assume that all trees planted will be
harvested (and then replanted) after 49 years. We assume that an increased planting
regime begins in 2009 and continues through the carbon budget periods.
Afforestation is a source of CO 2 emissions for several years after planting. This is
reflected in the projections. However, the first years after planting, which is presented
in the MAC curves, do not reflect accurately what the carbon balance of afforestation
is over the lifetime of the measure, where later forest growth offsets emissions due to
planting. A longer time horizon offers even greater potential to offset initial emissions.

Shorter rotation measure

The analysis again concentrates on conifer forests. For the broadleaf forest, changes
in rotation lengths do not have a major impact over the next 50 years, for three major
reasons:
• slow growth rates
• a well balanced age structure
• planting rates have been relatively low until the 90s (Thomson & Van
Oijen, 2007). As the main impact of the implementation of short rotations
is offered by wood products and substitution, low planting rates mean low
harvest rates as well and finally few substitution possibilities.

While broadleaf planting has been at low levels in the last 50 years, the same is not
the case for the conifers. This implies that a strategy aiming at some significant
results by 2020 should focus on the conifers forest because of
- the faster growth rates
- the high plantation rates in the 60s, 70s.

Shortening rotation length means that existing forests of 49 years old will be
harvested in each year the measure is implemented, instead of harvesting 59-year
old forests, as would occur in the baseline. The forests will be replanted after each
harvest. Although implementing shorter rotations result in net emissions due to the
decrease in the biomass, possible benefits in the energy sector and in product
substitution mean high direct plus indirect abatement potential for this measure.

6.4 Data, measurement and assumptions

6.4.1 Baselines, rotation lengths, carbon sequestration and

substitution benefits

Afforestation measure

90
As with the agricultural analysis, abatement potential needs to be determined relative
to a business as usual baseline, which in this case was provided by CEH projections
for LULUCF activities (Thomson & Van Oijen, 2007).

For afforestation, CEH use three scenarios for forestry (see Error! Reference
source not found.). Projections deal with the period 2006-2020. A high emissions
scenario does not consider any new planting. A second scenario projects the 2005
planting rate to occur every year between 2006 and 2020 (8,500 ha/year). This is the
mid emissions scenario and this is considered as the baseline for afforestation. The
third scenario anticipates a high planting rate (30,000 ha/year). It is described as the
low emissions scenario and is taken as our abatement option for afforestation. This
level of planting is below what could be deemed as a full technical potential, which in
turn is dependent on the availability of alternative land classes. But the achievable
annual rate of afforestation is likely to be limited by a range of factors including
environmental constraints, licensing regulations and requirements and the
practicable ability to carry out the necessary administrative functions, including
Environmental Impact Assessments. A figure with which to constrain the potential
extent of afforestation is more difficult to arrive at. In England, the extent of poor
agricultural land (Grade 4 land class) currently without woodland cover and on
mineral or organo-mineral soils is 1.6 million hectares. This clearly provides little
constraint on the abatement potential, although could be reduced further through
more detailed constraint analysis

The maximum area of forest planted in the UK in any one year was 42,600 ha in
1971, covering the period 1920 to the present day. At that time, policy levers
favoured woodland creation and the environmental and regulatory framework were
less demanding than at present. It could therefore be assumed that this implies a
maximum technical potential that is below this limit, which is the rationale behind the
30,000 hectares. This is arguably a conservative approach, given that the MACCs
are constructed with an open mind to changes in policy stance. Within this area, the
species mix is more difficult to determine. Although the analysis will use sitka spruce,
the demand for other public good benefits from forestry will likely mandate a mix of
coniferous and broadleaf species. This in turn will influence abatement potentials.

91
Table 6.1 Emissions under low, mid and high planting scenarios

Low emissions Mid emissions High

scenario scenario emissions
(0 kha/yr) (2005 planting scenario
rate - baseline) (30 kha/yr)

1990 -12202.570 -12202.570 -12202.570

1991 -12714.630 -12714.630 -12714.630
1992 -13340.088 -13340.088 -13340.088
1993 -13714.070 -13714.070 -13714.070
1994 -14192.631 -14192.631 -14192.631
1995 -13948.207 -13948.207 -13948.207
1996 -13720.064 -13720.064 -13720.064
1997 -13511.595 -13511.595 -13511.595
1998 -13406.214 -13406.214 -13406.214
1999 -13504.370 -13504.370 -13504.370
2000 -13804.884 -13804.884 -13804.884
2001 -14347.999 -14347.999 -14347.999
2002 -15045.160 -15045.160 -15045.160
2003 -15645.808 -15645.808 -15645.808
2004 -16302.033 -16302.033 -16302.033
2005 -15737.997 -15737.997 -15737.997
2006 -15205.635 -15239.353 -15259.682
2007 -14180.213 -14333.378 -14425.722
2008 -13606.969 -13790.522 -13901.187
2009 -12817.627 -12936.192 -13007.676
2010 -10813.033 -10775.589 -10753.013
2011 -10968.687 -10711.147 -10555.874
2012 -10460.796 -9956.893 -9653.087
2013 -9709.760 -8960.616 -8508.953
2014 -9527.819 -8546.414 -7954.718
2015 -9033.881 -7835.465 -7112.932
2016 -9127.373 -7725.446 -6880.215
2017 -9344.324 -7749.405 -6787.818
2018 -9531.022 -7750.499 -6677.011
2019 -8750.501 -6788.830 -5606.126
2020 -7186.131 -5045.117 -3754.285

Source: Table A1. 1: United Kingdom data for 2005 UK GHG Inventory: A: LULUCF GPG
Format – with MID projection, B: LULUCF GPG Format – with LO projection, C: LULUCF
GPG Format –with HI projection page 142
http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/ukcarbon/docs/2007/LULUCF_2007.pdf

From the assumed baseline (the mid emissions scenario), the difference in removals
to the low emissions scenario gives the full technical abatement potential at 100%
adoption. These effectively assume higher planting rates occur for every year from
2006, whereas of course the earliest increased planting could begin is 2009. To
control for this we simply move the abatement potential back 3 years, so 2019 in
table 6.1 forms the basis for the 2022 MAC curve, which therefore has 1.96MtCO 2 e 15
full technical potential.

15
This is calculated as 8750.5 ktCO 2 e (for the low emissions scenario in 2019) minus 6788.8
ktCO 2 e (in the baseline)

92
High, central and low feasible potentials were defined at 85%, 50% and 10%
adoption, respectively.

The lifetime of the afforestation measure is set to 49 years, corresponding to the

economic optimum rotation length for conifer management. This does not affect
abatement potential in the period to 2022 as none of the newly planted trees are
harvested; its relevance is in calculating cost effectiveness.

Shorter rotation length measure

CEH assumes a rotation length of 59 years for the conifer forests, which means that
every year the harvested area corresponds to the area planted 59 years earlier. The
assumption made here is that shorter rotation length of 49 years will be introduced.
49 years tends to be closer to the economic optimum. At this age, trees are also old
enough to provide good quality timber; which is likely to substitute to CO 2 intensive
products.

Since these two options (baseline and shorter rotations) have to be compared
regarding their lifetime greenhouse gas emissions/savings and costs/benefits, it has
been decided to use a longer lifetime (100 years) for this measure. This means that
we assume that for the next 100 years forests will be harvested at 49 years of age
rather than 59, meaning on average more biomass is produced each year. Data from
the most recent forest inventory (Smith & Gilbert, 2003), as well as carbon storage
models (Bateman & Lovet, 2000) have been used to simulate carbon storage per age
class.

High, central and low feasible potentials were defined in a similar way as for the
afforestation measure, i.e. as 85%, 50% and 10% of full potential respectively. For
the full technical potential we assume that the shorter rotations mean that an
additional 14,200 ha is harvested each year up to 2012 (21,700 ha rather than 7,500
ha in the baseline), and then an extra 8,400 ha each year up to 2022, (30,100 ha
rather than 21,700). These rates are not sustainable in the long-term of course, as
moving from a 59 year rotation to a 49 year rotation can ultimately only increase
harvesting rates on average by a sixth (10/59) on a given harvested area (this implies
average increases in harvest rates of no more than 3,000-4,000 ha in the long term).
Some of the identified abatement is therefore likely to be offset by future lower
harvesting rates.

Additional assumptions
- It is assumed that all new conifer plantations have the same growth
characteristics as Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) under an
intermediate thinning management regime. Sitka spruce is the most common
species in UK forests, being about 50% by area of all conifer forest. Milne et
al. (1998, quoted by Thomson & Van Oijen, 2007;
- the carbon sequestration rate for the new plantations is averaged over the
length of the rotation and is 3.6 tons of carbon per hectare (sitka spruce, YC
16, estimated from Bateman & Lovet,2003; in the range of other estimates;
see Broadmeadow & Matthews, 2003);
- we assume an additional storage capacity of one and a half tonnes/ha/yr to
take into account carbon storage in soils and dead organic matter. The
equilibrium carbon density after the transition from grassland to forestland is
47 kg per m2 (average UK, from Thomson &Van Oijen, 2007). It is considered
that this transition occurs over an intermediate time scale (300 years).
- as in the projections, it is assumed that the forests planted before 1920 are
neutral in terms of their contribution to carbon storage (822,000 hectares);

93
 - Substitution benefits have been estimated with numbers provided by the
Forest Research (taken as given for this indicative analysis). Previous work
undertaken by FC has shown that every forest management operation
generates some avoided emissions in the energy sector and in other sectors.
Some high and low estimates are given for thinning operations and clear
cutting. Conservative estimates have been used for the purpose of this study.
However, the assumptions are based on current production practices in
energy, steel and concrete production, which are likely to become less carbon
intense in future, implying the assumptions will become less conservative for
later years. The assumptions are:
o 0.25669 ktCO2/ha for substituting fossil fuels in the energy sector
o 2.576 ktCO2/ha for substituting energy-intense products, and they are
non-additive.

6.4.2 Costs and incomes

Afforestation measure

New forest plantations involve two types of costs: planting costs and the value of land
used for planting
- Planting costs are estimated at £1250 per hectare (FC, 2006).;
- Land values are driven by the opportunity costs using different land types.
Uncultivated land
Low yielding cultivated land
Marginal land
Existing forest

Ultimately the assumption made here is that woodlands will displace uncultivated
land with a low agricultural potential: rough grazing areas. BAU3 predictions show
5.5 million ha of this land type. Therefore the value of the next best land use, derived
from the Farm Management Handbook (Beaton et al., 2007), is £141/ha sheep
grazing area. This assumption can be altered in the spreadsheet developed for the
measure

Forest management generates some incomes (thinning and clear cutting operations).
These are based on timber prices (Error! Reference source not found.) showing
the standing sales timber prices for conifers provided by the Forestry Commission
(2008), and income generated from each harvest Error! Reference source not
found.(thinnings and clear cut).

94
Table 6.2 Timber prices: sales contracts for standing coniferous timber
from forest enterprise areas

Average
volume Average
Volume
per tree price Total price £
m3
in cubic £/m3
metres
0.074 £2.94 3,103 £9,118
0.124 £5.23 58,958 £308,260
0.174 £6.91 104,474 £721,487
0.224 £5.21 316,050 £1,646,409
0.274 £7.99 309,413 £2,470,974
0.424 £7.34 738,329 £5,422,152
0.499 £11.22 251,245 £2,819,917
0.599 £6.18 195,075 £1,206,248
0.699 £7.22 113,592 £819,842
0.799 £11.35 127,778 £1,450,644
0.899 £16.70 29,288 £489,014
0.999 £9.67 33,801 £326,848
1 £15.09 68,075 £1,027,212
2,348,781

Source: Forestry Commission website

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/SSPI_Ave_Prices_Mar08.pdf/$FILE/SSPI_Ave_Prices_Mar08.
pdf

Table 6.3 Income generated from harvest (thinnings and clear cut)
Age Volume Volume Timber prices Income
per tree harvested [m3] [£(2008)/m3] [£(2008)/harvest]
[m3]
1st thinning 25 0.29 40 7.99 319.6
2nd
thinning 30 0.474 40 7.34 293.6
3rd thinning 35 0.728 40 7.22 288.8
4th thinning 40 1.036 40 15.089 603.56
Clear cut 49 1.2 495 15.089 7469.055
Clear cut 59 1.2 552.66 15.089 8339.0867

Projections of future timber prices are needed to get a picture of how the curves
should evolve through time. Increasing demand from processors, new developments
and increased usage of wood fibre in power generation create the conditions for
rising prices. International shortages are also contributing to rising prices.
Discussions with the Forestry Commission led us to assume a constant real rate of
increase (2.5% per year).

Shorter rotation measure

The rotation length option generates a change in the forest value, since harvesting
occurs earlier, but provides a lower income per hectare.

95
The additional cost involved in this option again is planting cost. It is estimated at
£1250 per hectare (FC, 2006). Incomes are generated from thinnings and harvesting.
These values are based again on the timber prices shown in the previous section,
and estimated to be the same as in the case of afforestation, with the only difference
is that income from harvesting a 59 year old forest generates higher income than
harvesting a 49 year old forest.

6.5 Results

6.5.1 Abatement potential

Afforestation measure

Error! Reference source not found. gives the abatement potentials for the
afforestation measure at 50% adoption (central feasible potential), with increased
planting rates beginning from 2009. The first year abatement potential is negative as
it is likely that soils disturbances due to forest operations before planting will
constitute a source of CO 2 . This is offset in the later years, resulting in a high annual
average abatement potential through the lifetime, and positive abatement from 2013
onwards.

The higher planting rate for this measure will also generate more biomass resource,
which in theory may offer further indirect benefits. However, the first year abatement
potential for wood products is nil; harvest occurs only at the end of the rotation. This
means assumptions on substitution would be particularly speculative as the energy
sector is likely to be significantly decarbonised when products are harvested, so that
the Forest Research assumptions on substitution benefits are unlikely to apply. We
therefore do not attempt to quantify potential savings but note the co-benefit of
increased biomass production.

Table 6.4 Sequestration abatement potential for afforestation, central

feasible potential
AP [kt CO 2 ]

Sequestration AP - 2012 -17

Direct benefits 2017 315
(biomass + soils C 2022 981
sequestration)

Shorter rotation length measure

Table 6.5 presents the abatement potentials for the short rotation option, including
both (small negative) sequestration and (larger) substitution impacts. Most of the
results (the annual variations are important) are due to the age structure of the forest,
i.e. the area that would be harvested in each year under baseline and under the
option differ greatly due to different planting rates 49 and 59 years before the
harvest. Considering the direct effects alone, this option would cause a small amount
of net CO 2 emissions over the lifetime and in the first year. Direct effects are
completely offset by the greenhouse gas benefits in the energy sector and especially

96
by benefits in product substitution. First years abatement potentials from wood
products and energy are positive as more areas are harvested under the 49 years
assumption (as outlined in section 6.4.1). Lifetime abatement however cannot sustain
these rates – as noted above the measure implies on average up to a one sixth
increase in the amount of wood harvested, whilst these figures represent a 50%
increase for 2017 and 2022 (and 200% increase in 2012).

Table 6.5 Abatement potential for shorter rotations, central feasible

potential
First yr AP
[kt CO 2 ]
AP - Direct benefits 2012 -466
(biomass + soils C 2017 -437
sequestration) 2022 -287
2012 521
AP - Indirect benefits
- energy end use 2017 693
2022 1,078
2012 5,226
AP - Indirect benefits
- product substitution 2017 6,955
2022 10,819

6.5.2 Cost effectiveness

Both measures are expected to broadly break-even over their lifetimes, and hence
imply a cost per tonne close to zero.

Table 6.6 Cost effectiveness of the forestry measures, 2022, CFP, social metric
Cost Effectiveness
Measure [£2006/tCO 2 e]
Afforestation, sequestration only -7.12
Afforestation, substitution in energy sector -5.54
Afforestation, substitution in other sectors -1.82
Rota length, substitution in energy sector 12.07
Rota length, substitution in other sectors 0.52

6.5.3 Discussion

The range of assumptions used in this analysis means that our estimated potentials
are indicative and sensitivity analysis should be undertaken to determine the impact
of a range of domestic and international factors. The absence of ancillary benefits is
a key weakness in the analysis, since the provision of public good benefits from a
broader species mix may potentially influence the abatement cost effectiveness. A
full analysis would require a much more involved model and set of assumptions than
we have used here.

In addition to the assumptions made here significant further uncertainties relate to:

97
• The extent to which product substitution will be driven by changes in relative
prices between wood and traditional construction material and fossil fuel
energy sources
• how growth patterns will alter under climate change scenarios. Some effects
could be positive (more CO 2 and N 2 O in the atmosphere could improve
growth) whereas other factors (rainfall changes, extreme events) could have
a negative impact;
• how international oil price increases could lead to a major switch to wood
energy generation; which could have a greater impact on wood prices
(compared to the rate of increase we assumed);
• however, these assumptions on wood prices are also a function of
investments in timber processing

98
7 Mitigation options in Land Use and Land Use Change
(LULUC)

7.1 Key findings

This section does not report any significant stand alone abatement potentials arising
from analysis of land uses and land use change as they are defined in this chapter.
The key measures considered are:

• Peatland restoration
• Halting liming of organic soils
• land use transitions between grassland transitions and other agricultural uses

Measures are discounted on the basis of either small abatement potential and or
relatively high cost. Peatland restoration may offer small volume of cost-effective
abatement potential but there is scientific uncertainty about the volume.

7.2 Background

By affecting the flux of carbon to and from soils, land use changes have the potential
to aid mitigation efforts. That is, protecting existing carbon stores and enhancing the
sequestration of carbon can be achieved through encouraging some land use
changes, including conversion of agricultural land to forestry and transitions between
different forms of agricultural use. The former are reported separately elsewhere in
this report, but changes of use within agriculture are considered here. Although there
are some data and modelling issues, the analysis presented suggests that aggregate
emission savings from changes between agricultural land uses may be fairly modest
and that unit costs per tonne of CO 2 e are relatively high due to the value forgone in
reduced farm output. The unit costs are sensitive to valuation of agricultural output
which is highly dependent on both global commodity prices and support payments.
Given structural changes in global demand for commodities, there are few reasons to
suppose that these costs might be lower between now and 2022. We can speculate
that increased adoption of biotechnology may provide options for alternative land use
over a longer time horizon (i.e. to 2050).

Limited evidence on the extent of potential peatland restoration in Scotland suggests

that the marginal cost of emissions reduction may be as low as £27/t CO 2 e. This
accords with US-EPA studies that suggest that wetland restoration was generally
worthwhile. While such restoration may only account for a small proportion (0.9%)
of LULUCF emission and a small fraction of the total national target, it is probably
worth doing, although not in isolation from other measures.

7.3 Overview of sector

Land use change can result in both emissions and removals of greenhouse gases,
which can be widely dispersed in space and highly variable in time. The factors
governing these emissions and removals can be both natural and anthropogenic
(direct and indirect) and it can be difficult to clearly distinguish between causal
factors. Land-use change is often associated with a change in land cover and an
associated change in carbon stocks. For example, if a forest is cleared, the carbon
stocks in aboveground biomass are either removed as products, released by

99
combustion, or decay back to the atmosphere through microbial decomposition.
Stocks of carbon in soil will also be affected, although this effect will depend on the
subsequent treatment of the land. Cropland soils can lose carbon as a consequence
of soil disturbance (e.g., tillage). Tillage increases aeration and soil temperatures,
making soil aggregates more susceptible to breakdown and physically protected
organic material more available for decomposition. Conversion of cropland back into
grassland can result in a build-up in the level of carbon in the soil again, but this
usually takes considerably longer than the loss of soil carbon resulting from
conversion of grassland into cropland.

The Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector is estimated to
have been a net sink since 1999, amounting in 2006 to some 1.95 Mt CO 2 equivalent
(Choudrie et al., 2008). However, most of this is due to the uptake of CO 2 by forestry
– if this is excluded, then land use and land use change emits 13.7 Mt CO 2 e y-1
(calculated from Table 1-27 in Thomson & van Oijen (Thomson & van Oijen, 2008)).

7.4 Main modelling complexities

7.4.1 Criteria/rationale and brief description for screening measures

in each sector

Since land management change within agriculture is considered in the crop and soils
measures and transitions to and from forestry fall are considered in that section, this
section considers the significance of a range of land use transitions outside the
forestry sector.

Potential land use transitions were examined according to the area of land
undergoing a given transition and the size of the emission / sink caused by the
transition. Land use transitions that are very infrequent or that occur on only very
small areas of land were not considered further since even high per-area emissions /
sinks would have little impact upon overall GHG emissions at the national level. The
other criteria considered were cost effectiveness. If mitigation of an emission or
creation of a sink by a given transition relies upon prohibitively expensive technology
/ methods, it was not considered further. The land use transitions considered are
discussed below.

7.5 Mitigation measures

This section details the potential abatement measures considered.

7.5.1 Conversion from arable to grassland

The abatement potential and costs of transitions from various crops to different
grassland uses were calculated for the four regions, England, Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland. It is important to consider this from not only from the point of view of
the effect of the transition on changes in soil carbon, but also to include the uses to
which the cropland and grassland are put before and after the transition, to estimate
the opportunity costs and overall abatement potential.

The following crops were considered: wheat, winter barley, spring barley, oats, other
cereals, oil-seed rape, and potatoes, while set-aside, sheep, beef and dairy were

100
considered as uses of grassland. Transitions from the seven crops to the three
grassland uses gave a total of 28 potential abatement options.

7.5.2 Reduced ploughing of grassland

About 40% of the impacts of agriculture in Scotland are through CO 2 released from
ploughing of grassland (e.g. Moxey, 2008). According to the land use transition
matrix used in the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2006 (Choudrie et al.,
2008), some 95,948 ha of grassland are converted annually to cropland. However, it
is unclear whether this is a real transfer, and not just grassland that regularly goes
between cropland and grassland, rather than conversion to permanent cropland. In
any case, grassland can arguably only be maintained with adequate livestock
numbers (which are declining), encouraging more livestock would have negative
GHG consequences (Smith et al., 2008)- so overall a reduction in ploughed
grassland area is not considered to be a viable option.

7.5.3 Peat restoration

A functioning peat-bog should sequester in the order of 200 kgC ha-1 y-1, while a
degraded one could lose up to 200 kgC ha-1 y-1. Hence restoration could, in time,
result in a net gain of 400 kgC ha-1 y-1. Restoration could typically involve a one-off
cost of £400-1000 per ha, although there might be smaller recurrent costs depending
upon the degree of success (S. Chapman, pers. comm.). There is some variation in
this cost however with Natural England (2008) citing a median project cost from a
review of restoration projects of £1600/ha, which includes the cost of land purchase.
However, assuming the lower cost is spread over 10 years, this would be a unit cost
of £27-68 tCO 2 e-1.

In Scotland, the area of degraded ‘basin peat’ is cited as 12,000 ha, but this is an
underestimate. The area of ‘eroded blanket peat’ is about 150,000 ha, but only about
6% of this is actually eroded, giving 9,000 ha (S. Chapman, pers. comm.). Using
these figures, the technical abatement potential for restoration of basin peat in
Scotland is 24,000 × 400 = 9.6 kt C y-1, and for blanket peat, if erosion can be
stopped, 3.6 kt C y-1. This gives a total for Scotland of 13.2 kt C y-1, ignoring any
methane emission reinstated to the restored peatland. Assuming a similar picture for
England & Wales, (actually more basin peat, less blanket peat but more eroded) the
UK total might be 26 kt C y-1 (or 0.026 Mt C y-1) (S. Chapman, pers. comm.).

Assuming these figures are correct, the 13.2 kt C y-1 (~0.05 MtCO 2 y-1) saved
through peat restoration in Scotland represents about 0.09% of the country’s total
emissions of about 55 MtCO 2 y-1 (2003), or about 0.9% of its LUCF emissions of 5.2
MtCO 2 yr-1 (2003), if all of the peat is restored. A more recent estimate from Natural
England (2008) suggests a combined saving as high as 1.47 MtCO 2 e/year might be
available from restoration in England. However, the same document notes a range
of scientific uncertainties that could reduce this figure and we therefore do not
consider it further.

7.5.4 Halting liming of organic soils

Rangel-Castro et al. (2004) estimate that liming of organic soils in Scotland causes
the loss of about 1400-2800 tC y-1 (0.005-0.010 MtCO 2 y-1) of soil carbon, which
represents between 0.01% and 0.02% of total GHG emissions in Scotland, or about

101
0.1% to 0.2% of LUC emissions. Assuming that this percentage will be similar across
the UK (it will likely be substantially less for England and Wales, due to the lower
proportion of organic soils present), the cessation of liming of organic soils as an
abatement option has not been included in this analysis.

7.6 Data and Measurement

7.6.1 Land use transition matrices

Land use transition matrices are used within the LULUCF inventory. Methods are
detailed in the LULUCF inventory and were summarised by Amanda Thomson (CEH)
as follows for the ECOSSE final report. The land use transition matrices and are
based on three national datasets on land use change covering the period 1950 to the
present.
• The Monitoring Landscape Change (MLC) project (Hunting Technical
Services Ltd, 1986) which assessed land use change in England and Wales
between 1947, 1969 and 1980 using aerial photography.
• The National Countryside Monitoring Scheme (NCMS) (Mackey et al., 1998)
which assessed land cover change in Scotland between 1947, 1973 and
1988 using aerial photography.
• The Countryside Surveys (Barr et al., 1993; Firbank, 2003), which are
national (GB) field surveys managed by the Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology. These are available for 1984, 1990 and 1999.

Each of these data sources uses a different land classification system, so the original
classes are grouped into the land use categories used for the GHGI to allow
comparison between datasets and over time.

To date, only country-level (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) land use
change matrices for the GHGI have been developed but recently Amanda Thomson
and colleagues have begun developing matrices at 20km x 20km, as this is the scale
found to achieve an acceptable balance between detail and accuracy in other
components of the GHGI. However, it is the country-level land use transition matrices
that are used for the GHGI and in this study.

Amanda Thomson notes in the ECOSSE final report “For Scotland and Wales
(England also) measured land area and change data are available from surveys
taken in 1947, 1969/1973, 1980 (England and Wales only), 1984, 1990 and 1998.
Measured land use change data over the different periods were used to estimate
annual changes by assuming that these were uniform across the measurement
period, e.g. the period 1980-84 was filled using data from the Countryside Survey
(CS) assuming the same annual rate of change as seen for 1984-90. The period
1999-2003 was extrapolated forward from the CS assuming the same annual rate of
change as seen for 1990-98. Another CS is planned for 2007-2008, which will allow
the land use change estimates to be updated in the future.”

102
Figure 7.1 Land use transition matrices calculated in the UK Greenhouse
Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2006 (Choudrie et al., 2008). The 1990-91 areas were
estimated from the Countryside Survey data, translated into IPCC land use
categories and adjusted to take account of other data sources.

7.6.2 Baselines

In the Annual Report 2007 (Thomson & van Oijen, 2008, Chapter 4), projections of
the emissions for years from 2006 to 2020 were made for each activity for the UK
and for each of the Devolved Administration areas, England, Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland. For each, three scenarios were developed – ‘low’, ‘mid’ and ‘high’,
based on particular assumptions. For the Land Use Change (Soils) activity, the
annual rates of change in land use area for 1990 to 2005 were used as a basis to
project forward for the period 2006-2020, but this was modified for each of the three
scenarios in the following way. A Monte Carlo approach was used to vary the inputs
of the equation calculating the changes in soil carbon for each year following a
change in land use – i.e. the rate of change (k), the area activity data (A T ), and the
values for soil carbon equilibrium under initial and final land use (C f – C 0 ). The model
was run 1000 times using values for these inputs selected from within a range. The
minimum value of these simulations was used for the ‘low’ scenario, the mean value
for the ‘mid’ scenario, and the maximum value for the ‘high’ scenario. Results were
presented as the net flux of CO 2 for four of the land use categories (forest land,
cropland, grassland, and settlements) for each of the regions.

For the purposes of the present analysis, it was not possible to obtain the land use
change trajectories used for the CEH projections. Similarly, there were uncertainties
with the land use transition matrices above, particularly for the cropland to grassland
transition which we are interested in, which are discussed in more detail below. Thus,
we employed BAU3 estimates which assumed a small increase in the area of
grassland from 2004 to 2025 equivalent to a 3% change in England, 2% change in
Scotland, no change in Wales, and 2% change in Northern Ireland, which were
obtained after balancing land after growth in crops and also predicted changes in
livestock numbers, and also assuming 50% of set-aside which remained in the
system under other cropping activities. On an annual basis, this equated to a 0.15%,
0.10%, 0.0% and 0.10% increase respectively. Aggregated to the whole of the UK,
this gave an annual increase in grassland area of around 7500 ha per year.

103
 7.7 Costs

7.7.1 Sources of data

The gross margins (GM, £ ha-1) for the various enterprises, typical fertiliser inputs for
the crops, and liming rates for grassland, were obtained from Beaton et al. (2007),
and are shown in Table 7.1. For the purposes of the analysis, it was assumed that
lime was applied pro rata annually, although in reality, it is more likely that it would be
applied every five years. Stocking densities were obtained from Beaton et al. (2007).
In the absence of more detailed information, the same values were used in each of
the four regions.

Table 7.1 Input data for the various enterprises used in the analysis. Gross
margins , fertiliser and lime data from Beaton et al. (2007).
Enterprise Area GM N fertiliser Lime Stocking
(ha) (£ ha-1) (kg N ha-1) (kg ha-1) rate
(head ha-1)
Wheat 1748400 738 200
W Barley 321300 688 180
S Barley 274200 490 110
Oats 65500 783 120
Other 19900 482 180
cereals
OSR 480000 436 210
Potatoes 102400 1311 220
Vegetables 108700 2432 100

Beef 198 175 1000 0.5

Sheep 141 0 1000 5.5
Dairy 751 250 1000 2.9
Set aside 0 0 0 0.0

7.7.2 Costs

The cost of the abatement option was calculated as the opportunity cost foregone of
the cropping system being converted subtracted from the return from the new land
use (i.e. set-aside, dairy, beef, sheep). Opportunity costs foregone were calculated
as the gross margin values for each crop. Returns from the new land use were
calculated as follows. For the ‘set-aside’ option, it was assumed that returns were
zero – our understanding is that, although compulsory set-aside remains in
existence, it has a 0% value for this year. For the other land uses involving livestock,
returns were calculated as the gross margin values from Beaton (2007).

We have not explicitly included the costs of labour of conversion of cropland into
grassland. We have not currently included any changes in input (fertilisers, lime,
etc.) over time.

104
 7.7.3 Other assumptions

We have assumed that the gross margin data from Beaton (2007) are the same for
all four of the Devolved Regions. We recognise that this is not realistic, but in the
absence of more detailed data, we believe that it is a fair assumption.

7.7.4 Farm scale model description

Results for each of the regions are shown in Table 7.2, Table 7.3, Table 7.4 and
Table 7.5 respectively, and for the whole of the UK in Table 7.6, ordered by unit cost
(£ tCO2e). In each region, a switch from arable to dairy resulted in a net increase in
GHG emissions, so these data are not shown. In some transitions, there is an
extremely high unit cost (e.g. £132275 tCO2e in the case of oats-to-beef in England,
Table 7.2) – this was generally due to a high opportunity cost involved in the
transition, and very small reductions in GHG emissions.

Table 7.2 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e)
of various land use transitions from arable to grassland for England.
From To Unit Cost Technical
(£ tCO 2 e-1) abatement potential
(MtCO 2 e)
OSR Setaside 170 1.230
Other cereals Setaside 203 0.047
OSR Sheep 246 0.575
S Barley Setaside 251 0.536
W Barley Setaside 289 0.765
Wheat Setaside 295 4.373
Other cereals Sheep 336 0.020
Oats Setaside 389 0.132
OSR Beef 431 0.265
Potatoes Setaside 500 0.269
Wheat Sheep 525 1.988
W Barley Sheep 539 0.326
S Barley Sheep 592 0.162
Other cereals Beef 768 0.007
Potatoes Sheep 929 0.129
Oats Sheep 988 0.043
Wheat Beef 1099 0.859
W Barley Beef 1325 0.119
Potatoes Beef 1815 0.063
Oats Beef 132275 0.000
Only those transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG
emission reductions) are shown.

105
Table 7.3 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e)
of various land use transitions from arable to grassland for Scotland. Only
those transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG
emission reductions) are shown.
From To Unit Cost Technical
(£ tCO 2 e-1) abatement potential
(MtCO 2 e)
OSR Setaside 170 0.091
Other cereals Setaside 203 0.004
OSR Sheep 229 0.046
S Barley Setaside 251 0.475
W Barley Setaside 289 0.122
Wheat Setaside 295 0.239
Other cereals Sheep 308 0.002
OSR Beef 369 0.023
Oats Setaside 389 0.040
Wheat Sheep 486 0.117
W Barley Sheep 494 0.057
Potatoes Setaside 500 0.002
S Barley Sheep 513 0.166
Other cereals Beef 615 0.001
Oats Sheep 866 0.015
Potatoes Sheep 866 0.001
Wheat Beef 926 0.056
W Barley Beef 1062 0.024
Potatoes Beef 1579 0.001
Oats Beef 6088 0.002
S Barley Beef 8296 0.009
Only those transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG
emission reductions) are shown.

106
Table 7.4 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e)
of various land use transitions from arable to grassland for Wales. Only those
transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG emission
reductions) are shown.
From To Unit Cost Technical
(£ tCO 2 e-1) abatement potential
(MtCO 2 e)
OSR Setaside 170 0.008
Other cereals Setaside 203 0.005
S Barley Setaside 251 0.028
OSR Sheep 276 0.003
W Barley Setaside 289 0.018
Wheat Setaside 295 0.037
Other cereals Sheep 384 0.002
Oats Setaside 389 0.006
Potatoes Setaside 500 0.006
OSR Beef 561 0.001
Wheat Sheep 592 0.015
W Barley Sheep 617 0.007
S Barley Sheep 757 0.007
Potatoes Sheep 1035 0.002
Other cereals Beef 1176 0.000
Oats Sheep 1231 0.002
Wheat Beef 1487 0.005
W Barley Beef 2029 0.002
Potatoes Beef 2295 0.001
Only those transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG
emission reductions) are shown.

107
Table 7.5 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e)
of various land use transitions from arable to grassland for Northern Ireland.
From To Unit Cost Technical
(£ tCO 2 e-1) abatement potential
(MtCO 2 e)
OSR Setaside 170 0.001
Other cereals Setaside 203 0.001
OSR Sheep 238 0.000
S Barley Setaside 251 0.042
W Barley Setaside 289 0.010
Wheat Setaside 295 0.021
Other cereals Sheep 322 0.000
Oats Setaside 389 0.004
OSR Beef 400 0.000
Potatoes Setaside 500 0.012
Wheat Sheep 506 0.010
W Barley Sheep 517 0.004
S Barley Sheep 552 0.014
Other cereals Beef 688 0.000
Potatoes Sheep 899 0.006
Oats Sheep 927 0.001
Wheat Beef 1011 0.004
W Barley Beef 1188 0.002
Potatoes Beef 1696 0.003
Oats Beef 12394 0.000
Only those transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG
emission reductions) are shown.

108
Table 7.6 Unit costs (£ tCO 2 e-1) and technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e)
of various land use transitions from arable to grassland for the whole of the
United Kingdom.
From To Unit Cost Technical
(£ tCO 2 e-1) abatement
potential
(MtCO 2 e)
OSR Setaside 170 1.329
Other cereals Setaside 203 0.057
OSR Sheep 244 0.628
S Barley Setaside 251 1.081
W Barley Setaside 289 0.914
Wheat Setaside 295 4.670
Other cereals Sheep 332 0.025
Oats Setaside 389 0.182
OSR Beef 421 0.293
Potatoes Setaside 500 0.289
Wheat Sheep 519 2.148
W Barley Sheep 532 0.395
S Barley Sheep 580 0.333
Other cereals Beef 742 0.009
Potatoes Sheep 920 0.140
Oats Sheep 968 0.060
Wheat Beef 1070 0.942
W Barley Beef 1280 0.147
Potatoes Beef 1777 0.069
Oats Beef 33553 0.002
Only those transitions with a positive technical abatement potential (i.e. GHG
emission reductions) are shown.

A point to notice is that the unit costs of each transition are relatively high – the
lowest transition giving a positive reduction in GHG emissions in each region is
£170 tCO2e in the case of OSRÆset-aside, with other transitions to set-aside
ranging up to £500 tCO2e in the case of potatoes. For the transition from oats to
beef, a unit cost of £33553 tCO2e was calculated, a combination of the high
opportunity cost involved in the transition and relatively small reductions in GHG
emissions.

7.8 Abatement potential

7.8.1 Sources of data

For the various enterprises, typical fertiliser inputs for the crops, and liming rates for
grassland, were obtained from Beaton et al. (2007), and are shown in Table 7.1.
Total area under each crop for each of the devolved regions were obtained from
Welsh Assembly Government, Dept. of Environment 2005 data. Rates of carbon
sequestration in the soil were calculated from the equilibrium soil carbon density
figures presented in Tables 1-19 to 1-22 in Choudrie (2008). IPCC emission factors
were used to calculate the GHG emissions from fertiliser inputs, liming, and stock
numbers, and are shown in Table 7.1. Emissions of non-CO2 GHGs were converted
to CO2-equivalents using the IPCC values (1 CH4 = 21 CO2e; 1 N2O = 310 CO2e).

109
Technical abatement potential was calculated as the product of the reductions in net
emission rates per ha and the total area under each crop.

7.8.2 Modelling abatement potential

The abatement potential of conversion of cropland to grassland was calculated as

the difference between the GHG emissions from the cropping system being
converted from and the emissions from the new land use (i.e. set-aside, dairy, beef,
sheep), plus the carbon sequestered as a result of the transition from cropland to
grassland. GHG emissions from each crop were calculated as the amount of fertiliser
multiplied by the fertiliser emission factor then converted to CO2 equivalents, and
from the livestock by multiplying the head per hectare by the per head emission
factors. Rates of C accumulation under grassland were calculated from the
differences in the equilibrium soil carbon densities under each land use presented in
Tables 1-19 to 1-22 in Choudrie (2008), and assuming times to reach equilibrium of
100, 300, 100, and 300 years for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
respectively (Choudrie et al., 2008, Tables 1-23 and 1-24). C accumulation was
assumed to be linear over this time. This gave values of 0.35, 0.375, 0.315, and 0.36
t C ha-1 y-1 for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively.

For the projections out to 2020, only the changes in soil carbon were considered. The
uptake of the abatement option of converting cropland to grassland was modelled
according to the actual conversion to set-aside in the early 1990s (Figure 7.2). This
started in 1990 and by 1994 has reached an area of 728,000 throughout the whole of
the UK, or about 12% of the 6 million ha total arable land at that time. This was
assumed to represent 100% uptake; we also considered 90% (maximum technical
abatement potential), 85% (high feasible abatement potential), 50% (central feasible
abatement potential) and 10% uptake (low feasible abatement potential).

7.8.3 What is included and excluded

Biomass changes between land uses were not considered, as it was assumed that
the differences between biomass contained on cropland and grassland were
negligible in comparison to changes in soil carbon and other GHG emissions. We
have also not included the GHG emissions from machinery used in cultivating the
cropping system, or any GHG emissions associated with livestock production other
than the emissions on a per head basis from the livestock themselves.

We have not assumed that any of the input parameters have changed over time. We
have assumed that the fertiliser and stocking rate data from Beaton (2007) are the
same for all four of the Devolved Regions. We recognise that this is not realistic, but
in the absence of more detailed data, we believe that it is a fair assumption.

7.8.4 Uncertainties

The CEH Annual Inventory report (Choudrie et al., 2008) (Table 7.1 & 7.2) gives
values of 83,447 ha y-1 cropland-to-grassland, and 95,948 ha y-1 from grassland-to-
cropland (i.e. a net change of -12,501 ha y-1) for both 1990-01 and 2005-06. The
description indicates that the 1990-01 data have come from the Countryside Survey
data and the 2005-06 by rolling these forward, and for the crop/grass transitions are
assumed to be the same for each year. It is not clear if these 1990-01 data include
conversion of arable to set-aside. According to the Defra agricultural statistics data,

110
land converted to set-aside in 1990 was 72,000 ha (Figure 7.2), very similar to the
83,447 ha y-1 figure above (indeed, the average of the 1990-1991 set-aside figures
is 84,500 ha y-1), but conversion to set-aside varies considerably between 1990 and
2006, with a gradual decline of about 60,000 ha y-1 from about 2001 onwards
(Figure 7.2).

Indeed, a check with CEH Edinburgh indicated that although set-aside was recorded
separately from grassland in the Countryside Survey, it was lumped in with grassland
for the Inventory. If this is the case, then the assumption that the figure for cropland-
to-grassland conversion is constant from 1990-01 to 2005-06 would be incorrect, and
inappropriate to use as a baseline for future conversions. Further difficulties will arise
from distinctions between short-term, rotational and long-term set-aside too, not to
mention its use for non-food crops. Thus, we must acknowledge that the Inventory
was not designed for the uses to which we are now trying to put it. In principle,
annual data from IACS (as was, but perhaps not now) and the Agricultural Census
would be better - but the former is difficult to access and the latter lacks spatial
precision, although can be used to estimate Markov transition matrices.

111
 900
area of set-aside (000 ha)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
90
91

92
93

94
95

96
97

98
99

00
01

02
03

04
05

06
07
19
19

19
19

19
19

19
19

19
19

20
20

20
20

20
20

20
20
Figure 7.2 Areas of set-aside in the United Kingdom 1990-2007. Source:
Defra Agricultural Land Use; United Kingdom (Table 3.1).
change in set-aside area (000 ha/yr)

600

500

400

300

200
100

- 100
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98

99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19

19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

- 200

- 300

Figure 7.3 Annual changes in set-side in the United Kingdom 1990-2007.

Source: Defra Agricultural Land Use; United Kingdom (Table 3.1).

7.9 Results

Results showed that, apart from transitions to set-aside, the technical

abatement potentials are relatively low. Looking at the values for the whole of
the UK (Table 7.6) the highest abatement potential is for converting all arable
land to set-aside at 8.52 MtCO2e reduction (

112
Figure 7.4), which is 1.3% of the UK’s total GHG emissions of 654 MtCO2e (2005).
Other transitions from arable to grassland are significantly less than this, with dairy
even representing a large increase in GHG emissions.

15
8.52
abatement potential (MtCO2e)

10
3.73
5 1.44
0
-5 beef sheep dairy setaside
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-29.36
-35

Figure 7.4 Technical abatement potential (MtCO 2 e) of converting all arable

land in the UK into grassland with different uses (beef, sheep, dairy, no
livestock).

This combination of high unit costs and low technical abatement potentials would
seem to suggest that, apart from set-aside, land use changes from arable-to-
grassland will not be a significant option for achieving overall national GHG emission
reductions. Moreover, this analysis takes no account of whether it is feasible in terms
of soils, distance to markets, etc. that may further constrain these potential land use
transitions.

113
8 Discussion

The combined total central feasible abatement potential estimates for 2012, 2017
and 2022 (social discount rate) are 2.66 MtCO 2 e 6.58 MtCO 2 e and 10.83 MtCO 2 e
respectively. The combined total MTP abatement estimates for 2012, 2017 and 2022
(social discount rate) are 5.83 MtCO2e, 14.91 MtCO2e and 23.86 MtCO2e
respectively.

For demonstration purposes, using the 2022 central feasible potential MACC (Table
8.1 and Figure 8.1) this total central feasible potential is divided between crop and
soil measures 6.46 MtCO 2 e, livestock measures 3.40 MtCO 2 e, and forestry
measures 0.98 MtCO 2 e.

The 2022 MACC also suggests that all three sub sectors offer measures capable of
delivering abatement at zero or low cost (expressed in 2006 prices) below thresholds
set by the Shadow Price of Carbon (currently about £36/t CO 2 e projected for 2025).
Indeed around 6.34 MtCO 2 e could possibly be abated at negative or zero cost. As
demonstrated by Table E1 and associated MACC, costs then rise progressively.
After measure AC (crop-soils drainage) there is a steep rise in the abatement cost
per tonne.
The overall abatement potential is highly influenced by forestry potential, which we
stress is subject to a range of potential caveats. For agriculture alone, the central
feasible potential of 7.85MtCO 2 e (at <£100/t) represents 17.3% of the 2005 UK
agricultural GHG emissions (which the NAEI reported to be 45.253MtCO2e in 2005 –
not including emissions from agricultural machinery). Although there are no similar
benchmark studies, the results presented here partly corroborate conclusions on
abatement potential identified in IGER (2001), which concluded that:

“Cost effective (CH 4 ) reduction potential, determined by the point at which the cost
curve becomes exponential, is approximately 12% with total on farm savings of £128
million. However, a 15% reduction in emissions can be achieved with negligible net
costs. Cost-effective (N 2 O) reduction potential is approximately 18%, with total on
farm savings of £916 million. However, a reduction of 20% could also be achieved at
a negligible net cost.”

CLA/AIC/NFU (2007) reached similar conclusions about N 2 O, and suggested that

"combined improvements in livestock and crop nitrogen efficiencies could mitigate
(N 2 0) emissions by up to 20%". Finally, Pollock (2008, p23) concluded that "overall
reductions using currently viable approaches are likely to be modest (maximally
some 10-15% of current emissions assuming similar levels of production)".

While these results have reached similar conclusions (i.e. that the mitigation potential
is of the order of 15%+/- 5%), some caution should be exercised in making direct
comparison as they are based on different methodologies and assumptions.

Table 8.1 also shows how the 2022 potential can be broken down over the UK
devolved administrations. Each administration abatement potential was allocated
based on the proportion of land area and animal numbers in each administration. At
this point we have not allocated projected abatement from forestry or bio digestion
plant to any of the administrations. Thus the current DA figures do not show a
country split for this overall potential. For forestry, we could use CEH assumptions
about the relative planting for the budget time periods, but have not at this point.

114
In the case of anaerobic digestion, our ability to split the overall potential is hampered
by uneven data availability across the administrations. For example, country level
data for farm sizes in Wales and Northern Ireland were not available.

Table 8.2 presents the 2022 CFP for a higher discount rate of 7.0%. This rate has
the effect of re ordering some crop measures and has negligible overall impact on
the cumulative abatement potential.

A number of caveats need to be stressed regarding the results presented in this

report. The first is that the results do not include a quantitative assessment of
ancillary benefits and costs, i.e. other positive and negative external impacts likely to
arise when implementing some greenhouse gas abatement measures. Reduced
water pollution related to more efficient use of nitrogen fertiliser is a classic example.
Some ancillary impacts will be significant, and they ideally need to be quantified and
added to the cost estimates. At this stage, the report only provides a qualitative
assessment of the ancillary impacts (see Annex 1). Work is currently underway to
include estimates of these largely non -market impacts

A similar caveat applies to the need to extend the consideration of costs to the life
cycle impact of some measures. Annex 2 provides a qualitative assessment of these
impacts and we suggest that the analysis does need to be extended to consider
selected life cycles assessments (LCA), which could change the MACC ordering.

It should also be noted that projections of emission savings are also highly
dependent on assumed rates of adoption given appropriate incentive or regulatory
frameworks. For example, ADAS et al. (2007) project emission savings of around
6% in the near future on the basis of the uptake of best practice. Yet prior experience
would perhaps suggest that best practice is not necessarily adopted rapidly nor
universally - due to, for example, risk aversion or capital constraints (Kurkalova et al.,
2006; Engler-Palma & Hoag, 2007; Smith et al., 2007c).

Indeed, recent studies of UK farmer attitudes and behaviour towards (especially)

agri-environmental schemes and regulations imply that much remains to be done.
Key areas for further consideration include the provision of information and advice,
but also understanding motivations and constraints in relation to responses to policy
signals (Allman et al., 2006; Garforth et al., 2006; Barnes et al., 2007; Burton et al.,
2007; Smith et al., 2007c). This may be of particular importance given on-going
changes to (other) aspects of agricultural policy and to commodity market trends.
This suggests that further attention to communication and knowledge transfer (KT)
activities should accompany R&D efforts directed at identifying and costing mitigation
options.

As with other sectors, the effectiveness of measures is influenced by interactions

between measures and their environment. We have tried to reduce this uncertainty
by explicit consideration of how interactions can change the order and effectiveness
of measure implementation. These interaction effects were considered within the
sub sectors (i.e. crops/soils and livestock), but we note that there are potential
interactions between these sub sectors that we have been unable to address in this
report.

This report raises a number of further complicating factors that increase the
uncertainty inherent in the definition of MACC’s, and that distinguish the ALULUCF
exercise from that undertaken in other sectors characterised by fewer firms and a
common set of relatively well-understood abatement technologies. In contrast
agriculture and land use are more atomistic, heterogeneous and regionally diverse.

115
These factors can alter the abatement cost-effectiveness outlined here, and we
stress there is inherent uncertainty in trying to extrapolate field scale results on
emissions to a national scale and vice versa. We stress that further work is required
to derive more targeted abatement potentials e.g. across a variety of farm types and
on a regional basis.

The time profile of abatement potential can evidently be altered by technological and
regulatory change that can alter the feasibility and cost of rolling out some options.
Some changes are potentially more imminent (e.g. regulatory reforms on controlled
wastes), while others are more uncertain or dependent on societal attitudes. Looking
out to 2050 is speculative, but Annex D details a list of potential changes that could
enhance abatement potentials we have identified. In addition to technology and
societal acceptance, an increasing carbon price is also likely to induce innovation
and adoption.

Taking the baseline of 1990 emissions of approximately 56MtCO2e (1990) 16 this

exercise suggests that around 9MtCO2e (around 16%) may be reduced under a
reasonable cost threshold (i.e £100/tCO2e) by 2022. This is in addition to the 12
MtCO2e reduction in emissions from 1990 to 2006, giving an overall reduction of 21
MtCO2e (38%). Beyond this, various scenarios can be painted for further reductions
involving
• Increased penetration of the existing measures
• Penetration by horizon technologies
• A combination of both with demand side measures

In crops the current list of measures shows considerable potential to reduce N use. It
is not theoretically possible to reduce N2O to zero whilst maintaining yield, but a
range of precision technologies and genetic modification may offer substantial further
efficiency savings. In livestock, the prospect of lower demand for livestock products
(through changing diets) offers further potential for reducing methane emissions. A
combination of increasing prices and changing tastes are likely to further reduce
domestic consumption of red meat products, but more explicit modelling is required
to determine the extent to which this will reduce emissions.

Afforestation offers modest savings (e.g. 2MtCO2e) through increased sequestration,

but we note that these savings cannot go on for ever as they rely on increasing the
amount of forest (which is limited by the availability of land). Substitution benefits
from biofuels are likely to diminish as currently carbon intense sectors (like power
generation) decarbonise – although biomass could have a potentially important role
in facilitating such decarbonisation in other sectors of the economy.

As annex D shows, there is a broad range of potential technological developments

that could contribute to increasing the sector abatement potential. While there is little
evidence of the adoption potential and considerable scientific uncertainty about the
efficacy of some technologies, it would not seem implausible for abatement to rise
from projected BAU of 18% to between 50 and 70% of 1990 emissions. A
reasonable though cautious assessment is that the high feasible abatement potential
identified in the full MAC curves (17MtCO2e) could be achieved by 2050. This would
imply emissions from agriculture in 2050 of around 50% below 1990 levels (with
12MtCO2e AP in crops/soils at <£300/tCO2e in 2020 and 6MtCO2e from livestock
and manure management). Accepting that the MACC's are not exhaustive and that
looking forward to 2050 new (currently unanticipated) technologies may develop and
diets may change away from emissions intensive foods (like beef) an ambitious
16
http://www.ghgi.org.uk/documents/ES3_table_from_2005_NIR.pdf

116
scenario could see emissions reduced as low as 20MtCO2e (63% below 1990) or
even less. But clearly any outlook to 2050 is unavoidably speculative.

117
 Table 8.1 MACC, central feasible potential 2022, social metric

First Year
Cost Total Cost Cumulative First
Gross Volume England NI Scotland Wales
Effectiveness [£2006, Year Abatement
Abated [ktCO2e] [ktCO2e] [ktCO2e] [ktCO2e]
[£2006/tCO2e] Millions] [MtCO2e]
Code Measure [ktCO2e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 347.38 167.12 54.78 83.69 41.78 -1,747.79 -607.157 0.347
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 46.32 22.28 7.30 11.16 5.57 -3,602.93 -166.880 0.394
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 1,150.39 777.34 83.63 176.58 112.83 -103.38 -118.928 1.544
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 1,027.16 672.24 82.29 161.66 110.97 -68.48 -70.336 2.571
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 457.26 287.22 40.74 74.42 54.87 -148.91 -68.089 3.029
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 55.77 47.64 0.59 6.75 0.79 -1,052.63 -58.705 3.084
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 377.36 245.95 51.09 38.08 42.24 -0.07 -54.210 3.462
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 739.66 482.08 100.15 74.64 82.78 -48.59 -35.939 4.201
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 346.26 225.68 46.88 34.94 38.76 -0.04 -29.846 4.548
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 331.80 248.49 15.75 46.26 21.30 -76.10 -25.249 4.879
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 95.98 62.55 12.99 9.69 10.74 -262.63 -25.213 4.975
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 276.06 184.71 20.76 42.56 28.03 -50.29 -13.885 5.251
DA Forestry-Afforestation 980.84 + + + + -7.12 -284.9068 6.232
AO Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 78.51 52.22 6.00 12.21 8.09 0.00 0.000 6.311
AM Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 47.17 30.87 3.78 7.42 5.10 0.00 0.000 6.358
EI OFAD-PigsLarge 47.77 * * * * 0.96 0.920 6.406
EF OFAD-BeefLarge 97.79 * * * * 2.52 4.933 6.503
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 16.06 * * * * 4.69 1.508 6.520
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 250.81 * * * * 7.96 39.908 6.770
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 219.34 * * * * 11.43 50.136 6.990
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 1,741.02 1,121.94 145.62 277.16 196.30 14.44 25.138 8.731
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 50.77 * * * * 16.96 17.224 8.781
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 44.12 * * * * 24.10 21.270 8.826
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 365.98 233.25 31.52 58.73 42.49 174.22 63.762 9.192
BG DairyAn-bST 132.31 86.23 17.91 13.47 14.70 224.10 29.659 9.324

118
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 603.67 410.08 43.27 91.88 58.44 293.50 177.174 9.928
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 165.90 112.70 11.89 25.25 16.06 1,067.95 177.174 10.093
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 504.29 328.68 68.28 50.89 56.44 1,691.28 4,264.463 10.598
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 136.20 91.13 10.24 21.00 13.83 2,045.10 278.539 10.734
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 80.96 38.95 12.77 19.50 9.74 2,704.54 219.221 10.815
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 10.05 6.41 0.87 1.61 1.17 4,434.34 44.565 10.825
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 8.49 4.99 0.88 1.44 1.18 14,280.16 121.284 10.833

* It has not been possible to disaggregate the savings from anaerobic digestion due to limitations in available data
+ In theory the forestry abatement potential can be split based on the CEH figures for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we
have not undertaken such an analysis here

119
 Total UK Agriculture, 2022, CFP, P, d.r.=7%
Cost Effectiveness (Measures with CE>1000 are not shown)
[£2006/tCO2e]
300 293
280
260
240 224
220
200
180 174
160
140
120
100
80
60 27 46
40 20
0 8 11 12
20 0 56
0
-20 0 -0.07 -0.04 -0
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000
-40
-60 -49 -50
-80 -68 -68
-100
-120 -103
-140
-160 -149
-180
-200
-220
-240
-260
-280 -263
-300
-320
-340
-360
-380
-400
-420
-432
-1,748
-3,620 -3,603

CE CG AG AJ AE BF BE BI AL BB AD DA AO EI EH EC HT EB AC AF BG AI
AN AM EF EE
First Year Gross Volume Abated [ktCO2e]
Figure 8.1 MACC, central feasible potential 2022, private discount rate

120
Table 8.2 Central Feasible Potential 2022 using a 7.0% discount rate
First Year Cumulative
Cost
Gross Volume First Year
Code Measure Effectiveness
Abated Abatement
[£2006/tCO2e]
[ktCO2e] [MtCO2e]
CE BeefAn-Ionophores 347.38 -1,747.79 0.347
CG BeefAn-ImprovedGenetics 46.32 -3,602.93 0.394
AG Crops-Soils-MineralNTiming 1,150.39 -103.38 1.544
AJ Crops-Soils-OrganicNTiming 1,027.16 -68.48 2.571
AE Crops-Soils-FullManure 457.26 -148.91 3.029
BF DairyAn-ImprovedProductivity 377.36 -0.07 3.406
BE DairyAn-Ionophores 739.66 -48.59 4.146
BI DairyAn-ImprovedFertility 346.26 -0.04 4.492
AL Crops-Soils-ImprovedN-UsePlants 368.67 -68.49 4.860
BB DairyAn-MaizeSilage 95.98 -262.63 4.956
AN Crops-Soils-ReducedTill 50.19 -431.85 5.007
AD Crops-Soils-AvoidNExcess 276.06 -50.29 5.283
DA Forestry-Afforestation 980.84 -0.43 6.264
AO Crops-Soils-UsingComposts 78.51 0.00 6.342
AM Crops-Soils-SlurryMineralNDelayed 47.17 0.00 6.389
EI OFAD-PigsLarge 47.77 4.64 6.437
EF OFAD-BeefLarge 97.79 6.11 6.535
EH OFAD-PigsMedium 16.06 8.17 6.551
EC OFAD-DairyLarge 250.81 11.26 6.802
HT CAD-Poultry-5MW 219.34 11.56 7.021
EE OFAD-BeefMedium 50.77 19.80 7.072
EB OFAD-DairyMedium 44.12 26.57 7.116
AC Crops-Soils-Drainage 1,741.02 46.38 8.857
AF Crops-Soils-SpeciesIntro 365.98 174.22 9.223
BG DairyAn-bST 132.31 224.10 9.355
AI Crops-Soils-Nis 603.67 293.50 9.959
AH Crops-Soils-ControlledRelFert 165.90 1,067.95 10.125
BH DairyAn-Transgenics 504.29 1,691.90 10.629
AB Crops-Soils-ReduceNFert 136.20 2,045.10 10.765
CA BeefAn-Concentrates 80.96 2,704.54 10.846
AK Crops-Soils-SystemsLessReliantOnInputs 10.05 4,434.34 10.856
AA Crops-Soils-BiolFix 8.49 14,280.16 10.865

121
 8.1 Exclusions

This section provides a summary of the main exclusions from the report estimates,
followed by recommendations for further work.

General

• Life cycle costs

• Ancillary costs and benefits
• Demand-side measures, e.g. management through taxation of GHG-intensive
products such as common CO2e tax on all consumption, or specific taxes on
GHG-intensive food (i.e. meat)
• The study does not explicitly model demand and output reductions as a result
of measure implementation
• CO2 emissions from heating for farm buildings are excluded

Crops/soils specific
Measures excluded during the scoping:
• Those judged likely to be technically unfeasible or unacceptable to the
industry in the time period
• Measures likely to have very low additional abatement potential in UK (e.g.
already current practice, only applicable to very small % of land). However,
several measures with small (<2% of UK agricultural emissions) abatement
measures were included in the short list, in particular measures likely to have
negative costs.

Livestock specific
Measures excluded during the score
• All abatement measures for sheep were excluded due to the difficulty in
applying animal or manure management options in many sheep systems
• Very few poultry animal or manure management (apart from anaerobic
digestion options) showed much abatement potential and were therefore not
considered
• Many of the nutritional management options (e.g., feed additives) are likely
not to be allowable on organic (or equivalent) certified production systems
and therefore it was assumed that these would not be applied on these types
of systems in dairy or beef
• Any option that may lead to displacement of livestock production from UK to
elsewhere (i.e., reducing national herd/flock size with no pro rata increase in
production to maintain current levels of output) were not considered in this
study

Forestry specific
• Increased afforestation area scenarios on a range of land classes
• Afforestation scenarios using mixed broad leaf and coniferous species
• Other non market benefits related to forest types

Land use and land use change specific

• Improved data on peatland restoration potential

122
 8.2 Recommendations for further work

Time constraints meant that quantitative estimates of relevant ancillary costs and
benefits were not possible under the project. Similarly, the project was unable to
calculate the full life cycle costs and benefits of some measures. There was also
some concern that the forestry MAC required further work to develop a central
feasible storyline. This observation is however related to the development of policy
scenarios. In addition, the lack of specific curves for different farm types is a
weakness in the context of this project. Specific recommendations are:

1. Improving forest policy scenarios in the current MAC;

2. Reviewing and improving the interactions matrix for measures developed in the
initial project;
3. Further inclusion of ancillary costs and benefits data;
4. Further inclusion of LCA data;
5. Development of MACs for different farm types. This would provide more farm-
specific detail as a basis for targeted policy implementation than can be offered
by the current level of aggregation.
6. Complete and full partitioning of effects into those measurable in the national
inventory and those not, along with recommendations on improvements to
inventory to estimate complete emissions from agriculture

Improvement of the forestry MAC requires a continuation of current work with further
input on policy scenarios from Forest Research. The main issue with the current
forestry MAC relates to the depiction of realistic policy scenarios.

The estimation of ancillary costs and benefits and the LCA are more significant
pieces of work that require more inputs than the improvement to the forestry MAC.
In the case of the ancillary costs and benefits, SAC already has access to a
considerable data base of non market benefit (transfer) estimates that can be used to
improve our estimates of the further ancillary impacts of abatement at farm level.
The aim here would be to merge these data with existing spreadsheet model.

The incorporation of LCA is more problematic in terms of the data requirement for
some measures, however significant LCA impacts should be quantified and included
in the MAC “bars”.

123
References
Amer, P.R., Nieuwhof G.J., Pollott G.E., Roughsedge T., Conington J. & Simm G.
(2007) Industry benefits from recent genetic progress in sheep and beef populations.
Animal 1: 1414-1426.

Ball B.C. (1985) Broadcasting cereal seed: a review of recent experimental and
farming experience SIAE Technical Report 6 Bush Estate: SIAE

Ball B.C., McTaggart I.P. & Scott A. (2004) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
from soil under silage production by use of organic manures or slow-release fertilizer.
Soil Use and Management, 20, 287-295.

Ball B.C., Rees R.M., & Sinclair A.H. (2008) Mitigation of Nitrous Oxide and Methane
Emissions from Agricultural Soils – A Summary of Scottish Experience. SAC/SEPA
conference.

Barr C.J., Bunce R.G.H., Clarke R.T., Fuller R.M., Furse M.T., Gillespie M.K., Groom
G.B., Hallam C.J., Hornung M., Howard D.C. & Ness M.J. (1993) Countryside Survey
1990, Main Report. Department of the Environment, London.

Bateman I.J. & Lovett A.A. (2000), Estimating and valuing the carbon sequestered in
softwood and hardwood trees, timber products and forest soils in Wales, Journal of
Environmental Management 60 pp 301-323.

Bates J. (2001). Economic Evaluation of Emission Reductions of Nitrous Oxides and

Methane in Agriculture in the EU: Bottom-up Analysis. Contribution to a Study for DG
Environment, European Commission by Ecofys Energy and Environment. AEA
Technology Environment and National Technical University of Athens.

Bauman DE, Eppard PJ, de Geeter MJ & Lanza GM (1985) Responses of high-
producing dairy cows to long-term treatment with pituitary somatotrophin and
recombinant somatotrophin. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 1352-1362.

Beaton, C., Catto, J. & Kerr, G., (2007). The Farm Management Handbook. Scottish
Agricultural College, Edinburgh. 489 pp.

Blanco-Canqui H. & Lal R. (2008) No-Tillage and Soil-Profile Carbon Sequestration:

An On-Farm Assessment. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72, 693-701.

Blaxter, K.L. & Claperton, J.L., (1965) Prediction of the amount of methane produced
by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19: 511–522.

Brainard J, Bateman I.J. and Lovett A.A. (2003) The social value of carbon
sequestered in Great Britain’s woodlands, CSERGE Working Paper EDM 05-03

Broadmeadow M. & Matthews R. (2003) Forest, Carbon and Climate change: the UK
contribution, information note Forest Research, June 2003.

Carter M.S. & Ambus P. (2006) Biologically fixed N-2 as a source for N2O production
in a grass-clover mixture, measured by N-15(2). Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,
74, 13-26.

124
Choudrie S.L., Jackson J., Watterson J.D., Murrells T., Passant N., Thomson A.,
Cardenas L., Leech A., Mobbs D.C. & Thistlethwaite G. (2008) UK Greenhouse Gas
Inventory, 1990 to 2006: Annual Report for submission under the Framework
Convention on Climate Change. AEA Technology, Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK. 243 pp.
http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/cat07/0804161424_ukghgi-90-
06_main_chapters_UNFCCCsubmission_150408.pdf

CLA/AIC/NFU (2007) Part of the Solution: Climate Change, Agricultue and Land
Management. Report of the joint NFU/CLA/AIC Climate Change Task Force. Country
Land and Business Association, Agricultural Industries Confederation, and National
Farmers’ Union
http://www.agindustries.org.uk/document.aspx?fn=load&media_id=2926&publicationI
d=1662

Defra (2001) Third National Communication under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change Published by the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs

Defra (2002) CC0233 Scientific Report London: Defra

Defra (various years) Agriculture in the United Kingdom. Defra, London

https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/default.asp

Désilets E. (2006) Greenhouse gas mitigation program from Canadian Agriculture.

Final Report for the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

Duffield T.F., Rabiee A.R. & Lean I.J. (2008) A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of
Monensin in Lactating Dairy Cattle. Part 3. Health and Reproduction. Journal of Dairy
Science 91:2328–2341

EPA (2006) Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases

FEC Services Ltd (2003) Anaerobic digestion, storage, oligolysis, lime, heat and
aerobic treatment of livestock manures. Final report to Scottish Executive
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1057/0002224.pdf

Firbank L. (2003) Countryside Survey 2000. Journal of Environmental Management

67(3):205-290.

Forestry Commission (2006) Forestry facts and figures

Galbraith D., Smith P., Mortimer N., Stewart R., Hobson M., McPherson G.,
Matthews R., Mitchell P., Nijnik M., Norris J., Skiba U., Smith J. & Towers W. (2006)
Review of greenhouse gas life cycle emissions, air pollution impacts, and Economics
of biomass production and consumption in Scotland, Final report SEERAD Project
FF/05/08

Garnsworthy P.C (2004) The Environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a

modeling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions. Animal Feed
Science and Technology 112; 211-223.

Godwin R.J., Richards T.E., Wood G.A., Welsh J.P., & Knight S.M. (2003) An
economic analysis of the potential for precision farming in UK cereal production,
Biosystems Engineering 84 (4), 533–545

125
Hunting Technical Services Ltd (1986) Monitoring landscape change. Report No.
Final report to the Department of the Environment. DoE, London.

Hyslop, J. (2003) Simulating the greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from UK
suckler beef systems. Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs.

IGER (2001) Cost Curve Assessment of Mitigation Options in Greenhouse Gas

Emissions from Agriculture CC0229 report London: MAFF

IGER (2001) Cost curve assessment of mitigation options in greenhouse gas

emissions from agriculture. Final Project Report to Defra (project code: CC0209).
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&
Completed=0&ProjectID=8018

IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; 2006.
Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IPCC, Japan.

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change [B.
Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Janssens I.A., Freibauer A., Ciais P., Smith P., Nabuurs G.J., Folberth G.,
Schlamadinger B., Hutjes R.W.A., Ceulemans R., Schulze E.D., Valentini R. &
Dolman A.J. (2003) Europe's terrestrial biosphere absorbs 7 to 12% of European
anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Science 300, 1538-1542.

Keller M., Mauch S., Iten R., Gehrig S., Lambrecht U., Helms H., Fehrenbach H.,
Gode J., Särnholm E., Smokers R., & Hausberger S. (2006) Cost-effectiveness of
greenhouse gases emission reductions in various sectors. INFRAS, IFEU
Heidelberg, IVL Stockholm, TNO Delft, TU Graz

King J.A., Bradley R.I., Harrison R. & Carter A.D. (2004) Carbon sequestration and
saving potential associated with changes to the management of agricultural soils in
England. Soil Use and Management 20, 394–402.

Liebig M.A., Morgan J.A., Reeder J.D., Ellert B.H., Gollany H.T. & Schuman G.E.
(2005) Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential of agricultural practices
in northwestern USA and western Canada. Soil & Tillage Research, 83, 25-52.

Mackey E.C., Shewry M.C. & Tudor G.J. (1998) Land cover change: Scotland from
the 1940s to the 1980s. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.

Martens D.A., Emmerich W., Mclain J.E.T. & Johnsen T.N. (2005) Atmospheric
carbon mitigation potential of agricultural management in the southwestern USA. Soil
& Tillage Research, 83, 95-119.

McGuffey R.K., Richardson L.F., & Wilkinson J.I.D. (2001) Ionophores for Dairy
Cattle: Current Status and Future Outlook. Journal of Dairy Science 84(E.
Suppl.):E194-E203

Mills J.A.N, Dijkstra J., Bannink A., Cammell S.B., Kebreab E. & France J. (2001) A
mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating dairy

126
cow: model development, evaluation, and application. Journal of Animal Science 79:
1584–1597.

Mistry P., & Misselbrook T. (2005) Assessment of Methane Management and

Recovery Options of Livestock Manures and Slurries. Final report to Defra, AEA
Technology and IGER

Moorby J., Chadwick D., Scholefield D., Chambers B. & Williams J. (2007) A review
of research to identify best practice for reducing greenhouse gases from agriculture
and land management, IGER-ADAS, Defra AC0206 report.

Moss A.R., Jouany J.P. & Newbold J. (2000) Methane production by ruminants: its
contribution to global warming. Annales de Zootechnie 49: 231-253.

Moxey A. (2008) Reviewing and Developing Agricultural Responses to Climate

Change. Report prepared for the Scottish Government Rural and Environment
Research and Analysis Directorate (SG-RERAD) Agricultural and Climate Change
Stakeholder Group (ACCSG). Report No. CR/2007/11. Pareto Consulting,
Edinburgh. 59 pp.

Natural England (2008) Case for peatland restoration as mitigation measure (mimeo
- provided by David Thompson) July

NERA (2007) Market Mechanisms for Reducing GHG Emissions from Agriculture,
Forestry and Land Management London: Defra

O’Hara P., Freney J. and Ulyatt M. (2003) Abatement of Agricultural Non-Carbon

Dioxide Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Paustian K., Andren O., Janzen H.H., Lal R., Smith P., Tian G., Tiessen H., Van
Noordwijk M. & Woomer P.L. (1997) Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2
emissions. Soil Use and Management, 13, 230-244.

PEPFAA, (2005) Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/03/20613/51384

Pollok C. (2008) Options for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in the UK April 2008
Rangel-Castro J.I., Prosser J.I., Scrimgeour C.M., Smith P., Ostle N., Ineson P.,
Meharg A. & Killham K. (2004) Carbon flow in an upland grassland: effect of liming
on the flux of recently photosynthesized carbon to rhizosphere soil. Global Change
Biology 10:2100-2108.

Rees R.M., Bingham I.J., Baddeley J.A. & Watson C.A. (2004) The role of plants and
land management in sequestering soil carbon in temperate arable and grassland
ecosystems. Geoderma, 128, 130-154.

Rochette P. & Janzen H. (2005) Towards a Revised Coefficient for Estimating N2O
Emissions from Legumes. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 73, 171-179.

Simm, G. (1998) In Genetic Improvement of Cattle and Sheep. Published by Farming

Press. Ipswich UK.

Sinclair A.H. (2002). Nitrogen recommendations for cereals, oilseed rape and
potatoes. SAC Technical Note. T516

127
Smith P., Martino D., Cai Z., Gwary D., Janzen H., Kumar P., McCarl B., Ogle S.,
O'Mara F., Rice C., Scholes B., Sirotenko O., Howden M., McAllister T., Pan G.,
Romanenkov V., Schneider U., Towprayoon S., Wattenbach M. & Smith J. (2008)
Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 789-813.

Smith P., Milne R., Powlson D.S., Smith J.U., Falloon P. & Coleman K. (2000)
Revised estimates of the carbon mitigation potential of UK agricultural land. Soil Use
and Management 16, 293-295.

Smith S. & Gilbert J. (2003), National Inventory of woodland and trees-Great Britain,
Forestry Commission.

Smith, K.A., Brewer A.J., Crabb J. & Dauvin A. (2001) A survey of the production and
use of animal manures in England and Wales. III. Cattle manures. Soil Use and
Management 17: 77-87

Smith, K.A., Brewer A.J., Dauvin A. & Wilson D. (2000) A survey of the production
and use of animal manures in England and Wales. III. Pig manure. Soil Use and
Management 16: 124-132.

Smith, P., Martino D., Cai Z., Gwary D., Janzen H., Kumar P., McCarl B., Ogle S.,
O’Mara F., Rice C., Scholes B. & Sirotenko O. (2007) Agriculture. In Climate Change
2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz B., Davidson O.R.,. Bosch
P.R, Dave R. & Meyer L.A. (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Solomon S., Qin D., Manning M., Chen Z., Marquis M, Averyt K.B., Tignor M. & Miller
H.L. (2007): The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2007. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Soussana J.F., Allard V., Pilegaard K., Ambus P., Amman C., Campbell C., Ceschia
E., Clifton-Brown J., Czobel S., Domingues R., Flechard C., Fuhrer J., Hensen A.,
Horvath L., Jones M., Kasper G., Martin C., Nagy Z., Neftel A., Raschi A., Baronti S.,
Rees R.M., Skiba U., Stefani P., Manca G., Sutton M., Tubaf Z. & Valentini R. (2007)
Full accounting of the greenhouse gas (CO2, N2O, CH4) budget of nine European
grassland sites. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 121, 121-134.

Sutton M.A., Nemitz E., Erisman J.W., Beier C., Bahl K.B., Cellier P., de Vries W.,
Cotrufo F., Skiba U., Di Marco C., Jones S., Laville P., Soussana J. F., Loubet B.,
Twigg M., Famulari D., Whitehead J., Gallagher M.W., Neftel A., Flechard C.R.,
Herrmann B., Calanca P.L., Schjoerring J.K., Daemmgen U., Horvath L., Tang Y.S.,
Emmett B.A., Tietema A., Penuelas J., Kesik M., Brueggemann N., Pilegaard K.,
Vesala T., Campbell C.L., Olesen J.E., Dragosits U., Theobald M.R., Levy P., Mobbs
D.C., Milne R., Viovy N., Vuichard N., Smith J.U., Smith P., Bergamaschi P., Fowler
D. & Reis S. (2007) Challenges in quantifying biosphere-atmosphere exchange of
nitrogen species. Environmental Pollution 150, 125-139.

Thomson A.M. & van Oijen M. (2008) Inventory and projections of UK emissions by
sources and removals by sinks due to land use, land use change and forestry:
Annual Report, June 2007. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
Climate, Energy, Science and Analysis Division, London. 200 pp.

128
Thomson A.M., van Oijen M. (2007) UK emissions by sources and removals by sinks
due to land use, land use change and forestry, Report for DEFRA June 2007.

Ungerfeld, E.M., Kohn R.A., Wallace R.J. & Newbold C.J. (2007) A meta-analysis of
fumarate effects on methane production in ruminal batch cultures. J Anim Sci
85:2556-2563.

van Nevel C.J. & Demeyer D.I. (1995) Feed additives and other interventions for
decreasing methane emissions. Biotechnology in Animal Feeds and Feeding, 17:
329-349.

van Nevel C.J. & Demeyer D.I. (1996) Control of rumen methanogenesis.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 42: 73-97.
Wall E., Coffey M.P. & Brotherstone, S. (2007) Developing a robustness index for UK
dairy cows. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2007. Abstract No.
52.

Weiske A. & Michel, J. (2007) Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation costs of
selected mitigation measures in agricultural production, MEACAP WP3 D15a

Weiske A. (2005) Survey of Technical and Management-Based Mitigation Measures

in Agriculture, MEACAP WP3 D7a

Weiske A. (2006) Selection and specification of technical and management-based

greenhouse gas mitigation measures in agricultural production for modelling.
MEACAP WP3 D10a

Weiske A. (2007) Potential for Carbon Sequestration in European Agriculture,

MEACAP WP3 D10a appendix

129
Annex A Systems LCA Perspectives on Measures Proposed
to Reduce GHG emissions from Agriculture
Agricultural abatement measures can be considered in isolation, but in reality, most
measures cause interactions with other aspects of farming operations or crop-soil
processes (systems effect). This report has attempted to develop an interactions
matrix to account for some of these processes in so far as they are currently
understood in UK systems.

But some measures also have implications for other GHG emissions that would be
considered in an environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in which all the abiotic
resource use and GHG emissions associated with a unit output of production are
quantified. Several agricultural measures have complex LCA stories associated with
their use. The message that comes out is that livestock measures are more complex
and than arable measures and that some measures have greater potential LCA
impacts than others. Any recalculation of cost effectiveness should perhaps prioritise
the high impact measures.
There are also time dependent effects, e.g. reducing the N fertiliser for one year only
will give a lower reduction in yield and than if the same measure is applied year on
year, because the soil N pool.

In the timeframe of this report, it has not been possible to pursue the full LCA costs
as adjustments to the MACC analysis. In this section we highlight the relevance of
these costs and suggest how LCA might influence the estimated cost-effectiveness.

A simple arable example

Controlled release fertilisers supply N, usually in the urea form, at a progressive rate
over 2-6 months, more slowly than conventional fertilisers and leads to lower losses
of N 2 O and NH 3 and hence improves N utilisation efficiency (NUE). In theory, we
thus need less N per ha to maintain yield or apply the same N per ha and increase
yield.
The systems consequences include the potential for fewer fertiliser applications
(hence less fuel used and so less fossil CO 2 emitted) and reduced nitrate leaching
(hence a reduction in secondary N 2 O emissions). If yields per ha a re increased for
the same N supply, then the cultivation and harvesting energies per tonne are
reduced.

From the LCA perspective, urea takes more fossil energy (hence CO 2 release) to
produce 1 kg synthetic N than NH 4 NO 3 . Other materials must be used to control the
N release rate and prevent the higher field losses of NH 3 that are common from urea
and these manufacturing costs must also be accounted for.
From a long term perspective, the measure will have variable performance
depending on factors like the weather, e.g. heavy rain or unseasonably warm
weather. If long term performance does not match initial expectations (e.g. yield vs N
input) farmers may over-supply this form of N in some years (another systems
effect). There should be relatively little interaction with other crops or implication for
land use change.

The true overall, long-term effects are thus the balance between higher
manufacturing costs against the benefits of reduced application costs (both number
of applications and the amounts of N used and associated field emissions), based on
the long term N rates that allow for variable performance.

130
A complex “arable” example

Replacing synthetic N fertilisers with N from biological fixation by legumes can have
considerable savings in manufacturing fertiliser as well as field emissions of N 2 O and
N 2 O emissions during manufacturing and less fuel for fertiliser application. Also,
N 2 O is not emitted during fixation (according to IPCC 2006) unlike applied N
(whether as synthetic, manure or arable residues).

This has, however, major implications, because arable yields will be lower per
hectare. In addition, land is needed for legumes such as clover-grass leys. With
lower yields per ha, more energy is needed per t for crop cultivation and harvesting
(apart from what is attributable to the clover-grass ley). The inclusion of leys may
also require more inversion tillage in primary cultivation after the ley and potentially
increase cultivation energies over what may have been possible using direct drilling
or reduced input tillage. If a non-organic system, herbicide use may still allow
reduced tillage methods to be used.

The move to arable with leys will increase average soil C content per ha over a
rotation (although not by as much as if the leys were permanent), so contributing to
increased soil C storage. It will change N leaching and hence secondary N 2 O
emissions, but cultivating leys does cause leaching and elimination cannot be
expected.

The change in land use is profound and raises questions about what will the land be
used for. It is a proposal that will be much more applicable to the drier east,
especially in England. Introducing grass-clover leys suggests either they are
dedicated to N fixation and little offtake is expected or that the leys become stocked
with ruminants in order to use the leys in situ. A third option is to export conserved
forage to the west. The former will clearly increase land requirements and could
induce more arable cropping in the wetter west, presumably cultivating formerly
grassed areas. In that case, soil C in those areas will be lost. If stocked, there will
be a need for new infrastructure (buildings, fences, forage stores, manure stores),
with associated resource use for construction (and economic cost). There is also a
question of whether animal production in the west is expected to fall to balance
increase production in the East and whether functioning facilities become redundant.
If so and if grassland is taken out of production in the West, soil C loses there will
partly offset the gains in the East.

The overall effects are thus complex and depend on many interacting changes in
farming systems at local and National levels. Although nominally an arable measure,
the systems effects clearly interact with the arable sector.

A simple animal example

In the finishing stage of beef production bovine somatotropin can increase

productivity and increase overall resource use efficiency, so leading to reduced
enteric emissions and emissions associated with each t feed needed. This has little
effect of systems, but the fossil energy (hence CO 2 emissions) in manufacture must
be accounted for.

A more complex animal example

Increasing maize silage, instead of grass silage, in the diet can increase productivity
per cow and hence lead to reduced GHG emissions per litre milk. Maize silage
contains less protein than grass silage so that the concentrates for dairy cows

131
contain more protein. The proportions of crops used for the concentrates thus differ
(and the LCA inventory of crop nutrition, cultivation and harvesting for their
production is thus different). There also limits on the location of land that is suitable
for maize (mainly latitude) and the relative ease of growing grass or maize differ
between soil types and location. Furthermore, in the Cranfield LCA, we assume that
milk production requires calves, so all burdens of calf deliveries are debited to milk
and the spare calves available for beef finishing enter beef systems “free of breeding
overheads”. If a cow produces more milk, we need fewer to derive the same national
yield (assuming longevity and fertility remain unchanged). Thus, fewer spare calves
would be available to be finished as beef. To maintain the national beef supply with
fewer dairy calves thus requires more single suckle beef, which emits more GHG per
unit output because of its high breeding overheads.

Manure management –an example that embraces arable and animal production
The use of composts or straw-based manures in preference to slurry has been
costed for arable production with the rationale of reducing N 2 O emissions at the time
of application and N uptake by crops. This omits other factors that should be
accounted for. This proposed measure has both systems and LCA interactions.

First, emissions during animal housing and subsequent manure storage and land
application must be accounted for, including direct emissions of GHG (N 2 O and CH 4 )
and N losses as N 2 and NH 3 ). Active composting tends to create more emissions
than passive storage. The overall N losses determine how much excreta is needed
ultimately to supply the N to crops to obtain a set yield response. This in turn
determines how much feed is needed to supply that manure. The energies needed
for manure management must also be considered, in housing, storage (plus more if
actively composting) and land application. If changing from slurry to straw based
systems, many housing types will need modification, e.g. straw blocks slurry
channels, so that extensive modification or renewal may be required. Running costs
for straw systems tend to be higher, e.g. slurry channels can be emptied by gravity,
while FYM must be dug or pushed out. Straw is not universally available. In the
wetter west, some must be transported from drier areas, so adding to fossil CO 2
emissions, with proportion imported depending on local conditions. This will also
relocate C and N to animal areas from arable ones where the straw could otherwise
have been incorporated into soil, with consequences for soil C balances.
So, what starts as a simple single-approach method actually has major systems
effects together with large LCA implications.

In following tables we attempt to provide a qualitative LCA caveat to some of the

measures identified in the MACC cost-effectiveness hierarchy A ranking scale of 0 –
4 (0 = no impact; 4 = high impact) indicates the LCA-systems potential or
implication for that measure. The rankings are applied for each measure
independently rather than a universal global scale. The overall effect is thus
proportional to the apparent impact of the measure combined with the ranking. Most
animal measures have complex effects, e.g. changed cropping requirements and or
effects on beef if the measure is applied to dairy. Most manure practices also have
complex interactions.

132
 LCA-Systems CE results
Measure Description of the measure LCA-Systems Observation
Ranking 0-4 * (2022, CFP, S)
Animal management
Reduces enteric CH 4 , but land use CE>100
changes (more arable per unit
output), possible loss of soil C if
Increased high starch
more grassland cultivated. # 4
concentrate in diet
Potential reduction of “free” beef calf
supply through higher productivity
(PRBC).
Needs higher protein concentrates CE<0
Increased maize silage
for dairy. Limits on land suitability for 3
in diet
maize. PRBC.
Need to allow for fossil energy (CO 2 CE<0
Propionate precursors 3
emissions) in manufacture. PRBC.
Need to allow for fossil energy (CO 2 CE<0
Probiotics 3
emissions) in manufacture. PRBC.
Need to allow for fossil energy (CO 2 CE<0
Ionophores 3
emissions) in manufacture. PRBC.
Need to allow for fossil energy (CO 2 CE>100
Bovine somatotropin 3
emissions) in manufacture. PRBC.
Potential benefits of smaller cows CE<0
Improved genetic
with capacity to digest more forage.
potential for dairy cows – 4
PRBC. Extra benefit if male dairy
productivity
calves have enhanced beef potential.
Improved genetic CE<0
potential for dairy cows – Reduced overheads. PRBC. 3
fertility.
Little effect if the improvement is only CE<0
Improved genetics for better nutrient utilisation, if higher
1
beef cattle performance requires a dietary
change, someMISSING land use is

133
 LCA-Systems CE results
Measure Description of the measure LCA-Systems Observation
Ranking 0-4 * (2022, CFP, S)
implied
Transgenic manipulation CE>100
PRBC 3
of ruminants

Manure management
N losses as NH 3 , N 2 and N 2 O 0<CE<100
reduced, so potential fertiliser N
savings, but require low loss
Covering lagoons applicators. Water management can 4
save money in wet areas, but cost
more in drier. Must include fossil
energy of cover.
Covering slurry tanks As above 4 0<CE<100
CH 4 emissions reduced, but N 2 O Dairy, Pigs :
emissions increase and must allow for CE>100
fossil CO 2 from electricity. More N lost Beef : 0<CE<100
Switch from anaerobic to
as NH 3 , so less synthetic N fertiliser 3
aerobic storage – tanks
replacement is possible and
secondary N 2 O emissions occur.
Side benefits of odour control.
Switch from anaerobic to D, B: 0<CE<100
aerobic storage – As above 3 P: CE>100
lagoons
Variable depending on whether other CE variable (-6
wastes are imported and on the on- <CE<113)
farm use of generated electricity and
Anaerobic digestion heat. A side benefit of the Holsworthy 4
operation was much better manure
management by participating farmers
because each load of digestate had

134
 LCA-Systems CE results
Measure Description of the measure LCA-Systems Observation
Ranking 0-4 * (2022, CFP, S)
an analysis certificate for NPK and
was easier to spread than raw
manure.
#
Potential reduction of “free” beef calf supply through higher productivity (PRBC). In LCA, dairying requires calves so all burdens of calf rearing are debited
to milk and the spare calves available for beef finishing enter beef systems free of overheads. To maintain the beef supply if fewer dairy calves are available
requires more single suckle beef with its high overheads.
• The rankings are applied for each measure independently rather than a universal global scale. The overall effect is thus proportional to the apparent
impact of the measure combined with the ranking.

135
 Crop/soil LCA-Systems MACC rank
Description of the measure LCA-Systems Observation
measures Ranking 0-4 * (2022, CFP, S)
Using biological Using legumes to biologically fix nitrogen reduces 15 (CE>100)
Reduced yields of crops, massive
fixation to the requirement for N fertiliser to a minimum. Less
effects on land use, possible 4
provide N N in the system, and therefore reduce N 2 0
relocation of livestock nationally.
inputs (clover) emissions. It may also reduce yield.
Long term yield reductions expected 13 (CE>100)
Reduce N Reduces N in the system and therefore reduces N 2 O (increases cultivation energy per t),
3
fertiliser emissions. It may also reduce yield particular problems with bread wheat
quality and N supply.
Improving drainage reduces N 2 O emissions because Good as long as yield up for same N 9 (0<CE<100)
Improving land
the soil is drier. The yield may be improved and thus in, expect more P and K as offtake 2
drainage
more uptake of N from the system. increases.
Reducing N application in areas where is applied in 6 (CE<0)
Avoiding N Good rational use of resources, but
excess reduces N in the system and therefore 1
excess how widespread these days?
reduces N 2 O emissions.
This involves using manure N as far as possible. 3 (CE<0)
The fertiliser requirement is adjusted for the manure
Excellent rational use of resources
N, which potentially leads to a reduction in fertiliser
and will provide positive benefits.
Full allowance N applied. In addition, the manure N is more likely
The practical challenge is in
of manure N to be applied when the crop is going to make use of 1
implementation because manures,
supply the N, and therefore N 2 O emissions will be reduced.
especially solid, have variable
We have assumed that most of the species
chemical properties.
introduced would be legumes or possibly use N
more efficiently
Species The species are either legumes (see comment 10 (CE>100)
Increasing N utilisation efficiency
introduction regarding biological fixation for measure 38) or they
must be good, secondary effects 2
(including are taking up more N from the system and therefore
may be larger.
legumes) less available for N 2 O emissions
Improved Matching the timing of application with the time the Secondary effect may be in more N 1 (CE<0)
1
timing of crop will make most use of the fertiliser. Hence applications, so more fuels, but

136
 Crop/soil LCA-Systems MACC rank
Description of the measure LCA-Systems Observation
measures Ranking 0-4 * (2022, CFP, S)
synthetic reduced the likelihood of N 2 O emissions. expect 2nd order.
fertiliser N
application
Controlled release fertilisers supply N, usually in the 12 (CE>100)
urea form, at a progressive rate over 2- 6 months,
Urea takes more fossil energy (i.e.
more slowly than conventional fertilisers. This
CO 2 release) to produce 1 kg N than
progressive, slow release of mineral N ensures that
Controlled NH 4 NO 3 . What are these ones?
microbial conversion of the mineral N in soil to
release NH 3 field losses from urea tend to be 3
nitrous oxide and ammonia is reduced. It is assumed
fertilisers higher than. Need to allow for sub-
that the fertiliser releases N at the promised rate,
optimal performance. Great potential
and that the rate of release does not go up due to
if all benefits fully realisable.
unusual circumstances such as heavy rain, warm
weather, trampling by animals
Nitrification inhibitors slow the rate of conversion of 11 (CE>100)
fertiliser ammonium to nitrate. This means that the
rate of reduction of nitrate to nitrous oxide (or
Must allow for manufacturing energy
Nitrification dinitrogen) is decreased and emissions of nitrous
costs and CO 2 emissions and 2
inhibitors oxide decrease. It is assumed that the inhibitor
possible extra field applications.
makes good contact with the fertiliser or urine patch
to be effective, and that the inhibitor will be applied
at the right time and to the right fertiliser type.
Improved Good rational use of resources. Can 2 (CE<0)
timing of slurry Applying the N when and where the crop requires it. be practical conflict in timing field
and poultry Reduces the likelihood of N 2 O emissions as there is operations, sometimes causing 2
manure a better match of supply and demand cropping changes, e.g. winter to
application spring.
Adopting 14 (CE>100)
This is akin to moving from conventional production Expect land use changes; must allow
systems less
system, to a LEAF farm type of system, with reduced for long term effects of yield of 3
reliant on
input of pesticides, nutrients etc) reductions in inputs.
inputs

137
 Crop/soil LCA-Systems MACC rank
Description of the measure LCA-Systems Observation
measures Ranking 0-4 * (2022, CFP, S)
Plant varieties 4 (CE<0)
with improved Adopting new plant varieties that can produce the Excellent, secondary effects of more
1
N-use same yields using less N P and K with more off take
efficiency
Applying slurry and fertiliser together because easily 8 (CE=0)
degradable compounds in the slurry and increased May need extra slurry storage, may
Separate slurry
water contents can greatly increase the be conflict in field operation timing
applications
denitrification of available N and thereby the causing secondary effects.
from fertiliser 1
emission of nitrous oxide. It is assumed that weather
applications by
conditions allow separation of the applications, that Q: Is the current practice that
several days
slurry can be stored before spreading or is available common anyway?
for spreading at the appropriate time.
No tillage, and to a lesser extent, minimum (shallow) 5 (CE<0)
tillage store carbon in soils because of decrease
rates of oxidation. The lack of disturbance by tillage
can also increase the rate of oxidation of methane Also affects cultivation energy, hence
from the atmosphere. It is assumed that nitrous reduced fossil CO 2 , more herbicides
Reduced tillage oxide emissions are not increased due to needed, not always possible to
3
/ No-till concentration of microbial activity and nitrogen maintain indefinitely, hence soil C
fertiliser near the surface and due to increase soil storage potential reduced, not for all
wetness associated with the greater compactness of crops (e.g. potatoes).
the soil, and that crop growth and hence net primary
productivity is not reduced by use of these
techniques.
Composts provide a more steady release of N than Must allow for emissions in housing 7 (CE=0)
Use composts,
slurries which increase soil moisture content and and manure storage (both direct GHG
straw-based
provide a source of easily degradable products and N as NH 3 ), changes in housing
manures in 4
which increase microbial demand. Both these systems from slurry to straw (both
preference to
increase anaerobic conditions and thereby loss of capital and higher running fossil
slurry
nitrous oxide which is avoided by use of composts. energy costs), transport of straw to

138
Crop/soil LCA-Systems MACC rank
Description of the measure LCA-Systems Observation
measures Ranking 0-4 * (2022, CFP, S)
Composts also have a higher C:N ratio so that areas where not currently grown and
released N is more likely to be immobilised effects on land where straw was once
temporarily and thereby reduce N 2 O emissions. It is incorporated in soil.
assumed that composts contain enough N to provide
fertiliser, and that the composts will not immobilise
soil or fertiliser N and reduce crop productivity.

• The rankings are applied for each measure independently rather than a universal global scale. The overall effect is thus proportional to
the apparent impact of the measure combined with the ranking.

139
Annex B Qualitative assessment of ancillary costs and
benefits of measures
The MACC curves include direct economic costs and benefits to producers of each
measure to determine their cost effectiveness. However, it is likely that further
ancillary or external costs and benefits could arise that do not directly affect
producers. These cost or benefits could either accrue to other sectors (where they
could take the form of increased GHG emissions) or society as a whole. In the case
of increased GHG emissions arising in other sectors these should properly be
assessed as part of a LCA of each measure.

Ancillary benefits are likely to be particularly significant in the case of forestry

measures, and an existing body of non market valuation studies demonstrates values
for recreation, biodiversity and landscape, which are all relevant to the choice of
species and the location of new planting. Indeed, forestry policy appears to be trying
to deliver on a range of non market outputs that may not be based on optimising on
greenhouse gas abatement at all.

An initial scoping of ancillary costs and benefits is presented in the table below for
arable and livestock measures. Full assessment of these ancillary costs and benefits
would require quantification of the both the physical effect and the application of
economic values to provide a common metric across a range of impacts. These
economic values can be derived from existing valuation data such as those
contained in the Environmental Accounts for Agriculture 17 or valuation databases
such as EVRI 18 . Some of the less tangible effects such as the public acceptance of
livestock measures such as transgenic manipulation may not have existing valuation
data. However, these values may in practice be revealed in changes in demand for
products where such measures have been applied. This is a potentially important
market effect that could present a barrier to uptake of some measures.

An arable example – “Adopting systems less reliant on inputs”

In this measure the reduced use of inputs is likely to lead to local water quality
improvements due to a reduction in puts with a consequent improvement in
ecological status. Lower inputs of pesticides might also result in improved biodiversity
on farms adopting this measure. However, if the measure is accompanied by a
reduction in yield then more land will need to enter production either in the UK or
abroad to maintain production levels. Consequently the ancillary benefits may be
offset be costs elsewhere.

A livestock example – “Anaerobic digestion”

The ancillary costs that arise from anaerobic digestion are associated with central
anaerobic digestion. Primarily these relate to the additional road transport required to
move slurries and manures from farms to AD plants, specifically: congestion,
accident costs, noise and infrastructure depreciation. The removal of a nutrient
source from some farms may also result in an increase in the use of mineral N with
associated manufacturing externalities (this should be included in LCA). There may
also be further externalities arising from disposal of digestate (land fill or incineration)
unless this is allowed to be applied to land as a nutrient.

17
https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/envacc/SFS0601%20EnvAccForAgriculture_FULL.pdf

18
http://www.evri.ca/english/default.htm

140
AD also offers potential for improvements in water quality due to reduced run-off and
has been considered for this purpose in Scotland 19 .

19
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Water/bathingwaters/Biogasandcomposting

141
 MACC rank (2022, CFP,
Measure Description of the measure Potential ancillary cost/benefits
S)
Using Using legumes to biologically fix nitrogen
• Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off
biological reduces the requirement for N fertiliser to
• Lower externalities from N production/transport
fixation to a minimum. Less N in the system, and 15 (CE>100)
• Improved biodiversity
provide N therefore reduce N 2 0 emissions. It may
inputs (clover) also reduce yield. • Greater land take for arable to counteract reduced yield
Reduces N in the system and therefore • Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off
Reduce N
reduces N 2 O emissions. It may also • Lower externalities from N production/transport 13 (CE>100)
fertiliser
reduce yield • Greater land take for arable to counteract reduced yield
Improving drainage reduces N 2 O
Improving land emissions because the soil is drier. The
• Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off 9 (0<CE<100)
drainage yield may be improved and thus more
uptake of N from the system.
Reducing N application in areas where is
Avoiding N applied in excess reduces N in the • Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off
6 (CE<0)
excess system and therefore reduces N 2 O • Lower externalities from N production/transport
emissions.
This involves using manure N as far as
possible. The fertiliser requirement is
• Lower externalities from N production/transport
adjusted for the manure N, which
Full allowance • Increased road transport externalities (congestion, noise,
potentially leads to a reduction in fertiliser
of manure N accidents, infrastructure, fuel use) from manure transport 3 (CE<0)
N applied. In addition, the manure N is
supply
more likely to be applied when the crop is • Potentially higher land take for arable to counteract
going to make use of the N, and reduced yield due to nutrient variability
therefore N 2 O emissions will be reduced.
The species are either legumes (see
Species
comment regarding biological fixation for
introduction • Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off
measure 38) or they are taking up more 10 (CE>100)
(including • Lower externalities from N production/transport
N from the system and therefore less
legumes)
available for N 2 O emissions. We have

142
 MACC rank (2022, CFP,
Measure Description of the measure Potential ancillary cost/benefits
S)
assumed that most of the species
introduced would be legumes or possibly
use N more efficiently
Improved
Matching the timing of application with
timing of
the time the crop will make most use of
synthetic • Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off 1 (CE<0)
the fertiliser. Hence reduced the
fertiliser N
likelihood of N 2 O emissions.
application
Controlled release fertilisers supply N,
usually in the urea form, at a progressive
rate over 2- 6 months, more slowly than
conventional fertilisers. This progressive,
slow release of mineral N ensures that
Controlled
microbial conversion of the mineral N in • Higher externalities from N (urea) production
release 12 (CE>100)
soil to nitrous oxide and ammonia is • Increased run-off if N release assumptions not realised
fertilisers
reduced. It is assumed that the fertiliser
releases N at the promised rate, and that
the rate of release does not go up due to
unusual circumstances such as heavy
rain, warm weather, trampling by animals
Nitrification inhibitors slow the rate of
conversion of fertiliser ammonium to
nitrate. This means that the rate of
reduction of nitrate to nitrous oxide (or
Nitrification dinitrogen) is decreased and emissions
• Higher externalities from manufacturing 11 (CE>100)
inhibitors of nitrous oxide decrease. It is assumed
that the inhibitor makes good contact with
the fertiliser or urine patch to be effective,
and that the inhibitor will be applied at the
right time and to the right fertiliser type.

143
 MACC rank (2022, CFP,
Measure Description of the measure Potential ancillary cost/benefits
S)
Improved
Applying the N when and where the crop
timing of slurry
requires it. Reduces the likelihood of
and poultry • Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off 2 (CE<0)
N 2 O emissions as there is a better match
manure
of supply and demand
application
Adopting This is akin to moving from conventional • Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off
systems less production system, to a LEAF farm type • Biodiversity improvement (on-farm)
14 (CE>100)
reliant on of system, with reduced input of • Potentially higher land take for arable to counteract
inputs pesticides, nutrients etc) reduced yield
Plant varieties
with improved Adopting new plant varieties that can
• Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off 4 (CE<0)
N-use produce the same yields using less N
efficiency
Applying slurry and fertiliser together
because easily degradable compounds in
Separate
the slurry and increased water contents
slurry
can greatly increase the denitrification of
applications
available N and thereby the emission of
from fertiliser • Water quality improvement due to reduced run-off 8 (CE=0)
nitrous oxide. It is assumed that weather
applications
conditions allow separation of the
by several
applications, that slurry can be stored
days
before spreading or is available for
spreading at the appropriate time.
No tillage, and to a lesser extent,
minimum (shallow) tillage store carbon in
soils because of decrease rates of
Reduced • Reduced soil erosion
oxidation. The lack of disturbance by 5 (CE<0)
tillage / No-till • Water quality improvement
tillage can also increase the rate of
oxidation of methane from the
atmosphere. It is assumed that nitrous

144
 MACC rank (2022, CFP,
Measure Description of the measure Potential ancillary cost/benefits
S)
oxide emissions are not increased due to
concentration of microbial activity and
nitrogen fertiliser near the surface and
due to increase soil wetness associated
with the greater compactness of the soil,
and that crop growth and hence net
primary productivity is not reduced by
use of these techniques.
Composts provide a more steady release
of N than slurries which increase soil
moisture content and provide a source of
easily degradable products which
increase microbial demand. Both these
Use increase anaerobic conditions and
composts, thereby loss of nitrous oxide which is • Lower emissions from N production/transport
straw-based avoided by use of composts. Composts • Higher emissions from manure storage
7 (CE=0)
manures in also have a higher C:N ratio so that • Increased road transport externalities (congestion, noise,
preference to released N is more likely to be accidents, infrastructure, fuel use) from straw transport
slurry immobilised temporarily and thereby
reduce N 2 O emissions. It is assumed that
composts contain enough N to provide
fertiliser, and that the composts will not
immobilise soil or fertiliser N and reduce
crop productivity.

145
 Measure Potential ancillary cost/benefits CE results (2022, CFP, S)
Animal management
Increased high starch concentrate in diet • Increased arable production impacts CE>100
Increased maize silage in diet • Increased arable production impacts CE<0
• Manufacturing externalities
Propionate precursors CE<0
• Public/consumer acceptance
• Manufacturing externalities
Probiotics CE<0
• Public/consumer acceptance
• Manufacturing externalities
Ionophores CE<0
• Public/consumer acceptance
• Manufacturing externalities
Bovine somatotropin CE>100
• Public/consumer acceptance
• Public/consumer acceptance
Improved genetic potential for dairy cows – productivity CE<0
• Animal health/welfare
• Public/consumer acceptance
Improved genetic potential for dairy cows – fertility. CE<0
• Animal health/welfare
• Public/consumer acceptance
Improved genetic potential for beef cattle CE<0
• Animal health/welfare
• Public/consumer acceptance
Transgenic manipulation of ruminants CE>100
• Animal health/welfare

146
 Measure Potential ancillary cost/benefits CE results (2022, CFP, P)
Manure management
• Potential air quality (ammonia) impacts
Covering lagoons 0<CE<100
• Water quality improvement
• Potential air quality (ammonia) impacts
Covering slurry tanks 0<CE<100
• Water quality improvement
• Potential air quality (ammonia) impacts Dairy, Pigs : CE>100
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage – tanks
• Water quality improvement Beef : 0<CE<100
• Potential air quality (ammonia) impacts D, B: 0<CE<100
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage – lagoons
• Water quality improvement P: CE>100
• Water quality improvement
• CAD: Increased road transport externalities
(congestion, noise, accidents, infrastructure, fuel use)
Anaerobic digestion • CAD: Higher emissions from N production/transport to CE variable (-6 <CE<113)
replace digestate nutrients
• CAD: Externalities associated with digestate disposal
if not utilised for N

147
 Annex C Interaction of MACC measures and GHG Inventory
In the
Code: Subsector: Measure: inventory? Direct Indirect
AA Crops-Soils Using biological fixation to provide N inputs (clover) Y X
AB Crops-Soils Reduce N fertiliser Y X
AC Crops-Soils Land drainage Y X
AD Crops-Soils Avoiding N excess Y X
AE Crops-Soils Full allowance of manure N supply Y X
AF Crops-Soils Species introduction (including legumes) Y X
AG Crops-Soils Improved timing of mineral feritiser N application Y X
AH Crops-Soils Controlled release fertilisers N
AI Crops-Soils Nitrification inhibitors N
Improved timing of slurry and poultry manure
AJ Crops-Soils application N
AK Crops-Soils Adopting systems less reliant on inputs Y X
AL Crops-Soils Plant varieties with improved N-use efficiency N
Separate slurry applications from fertiliser
AM Crops-Soils applications by several days N
AN Crops-Soils Reduced tillage / No-till N
Use composts, straw-based manures in preference
AO Crops-Soils to slurry Y X
BA DairyAn Increased high starch concentrate in diet in part X X
BB DairyAn Increased maize silage in diet in part X X
BC DairyAn Propionate precursors in part X X
BD DairyAn Probiotics in part X X
BE DairyAn Ionophores in part X X
Improved genetic potential for dairy cows –
BF DairyAn productivity Y X
BG DairyAn Bovine somatotropin in part X X
BH DairyAn Transgenic manipulation of ruminants in part X X
BI DairyAn Improved genetic potential for dairy cows - fertility in part X X
CA BeefAn Increased high starch concentrate in diet N X
CC BeefAn Propionate precursors N X
CD BeefAn Probiotics N X
CE BeefAn Ionophores N X
CG BeefAn Improved genetic potential for beef cattle N X
DA Forestry Afforestation Y X
DB Forestry Rotation length Y X
EB OFAD Dairy cattle - medium farms Y X
FA DairyManure Covering lagoons Y X
FB DairyManure Covering slurry tanks Y X
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage - slurry
FC DairyManure tanks Y X
FD DairyManure Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage - lagoons Y X
GA BeefManure Covering lagoons Y X
GB BeefManure Covering slurry tanks Y X
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage - slurry
GC BeefManure tanks Y X
GD BeefManure Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage - lagoons Y X
HA CAD Dairy-1MW N X
IA PigsManure Covering lagoons Y X
IB PigsManure Covering slurry tanks Y X
Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage - slurry
IC PigsManure tanks Y X
ID PigsManure Switch from anaerobic to aerobic storage - lagoons Y X

148
The above table (Annex C) highlights if the abatement potential as calculated in this
study would be included in the UK national inventory of GHGs. In general, only a
proportion of the options would be considered and measured in the current UK
inventory. However, for some of the measures a proportion of the abatement
potential would be reflected in the inventory as currently practiced. For example, in
the crops and soils option, when a mitigation measure indirectly affects the inventory
value, about 20% of the emission abatement would be recognised in the inventory.
Thus for example if a farmer were to split the timing of fertiliser applications or to use
improved crop varieties, it would make more N available for for growth and should
therefore allow a slight lowering of overall N application. This would in turn be
translated into a lower N 2 O emission being reported in the inventory given that
reported emissions are proportional to overall N applications. The magnitude of
these effects is uncertain, but some estimates of reflected abatement potential are
listed in Table AC1. Some measures such as improved drainage are unlikely to have
any net effect on reported emissions since overall fertiliser applications may not
change despite a reduction in N 2 O emission.

Table AC1 Percentage of the abatement potential in 2022 that would be reflected in
the UK GHG inventory as currently estimated for crops
2022 2017 2012
Improved Mineral N Timing 20 20 20
Improved Organic N Timing 20 20 20
Full accounting for Manure 20 20 20
Reduced Tillage 0 0 0
Improved N-Use by Plants 10 10 10
Avoiding N Excess 100 100 100
Using Composts 20 20 20
Slurry Mineral N Delayed 0 0 0
Improved drainage 0 0 0
New Species Introduction 0 0 0
NIs 0 0 0

Only a proportion of the livestock abatement options would be reflected in the UK

inventory as it is currently estimated. The category of “DairyAn” examined the
abatement potential of various animal management interventions in dairy systems.
These included nutritional and genetic improvement interventions to reduce GHG
emissions. The assumptions in estimating the abatement potential from dairy
systems assumed that milk quotas would still be operational into the future and
therefore if an abatement measure improved production then the number of animals
required to meet the national quota would reduce. These measures would be
reflected, in part in the national GHG inventory. However, many of the “DairyAn”
options have an additional GHG reducing effect, in that they reduce overall CH 4
output and this effect would not be accounted for the UK inventory.

149
Table AC2 Percentage of the abatement potential in 2022 that would be reflected in
the UK GHG inventory as currently estimated.for animals
Code: Subsector: Measure: %age reflected in Inventory
BA DairyAn Increased high starch concentrate in diet 65
BB DairyAn Increased maize silage in diet 140
BC DairyAn Propionate precursors 41
BD DairyAn Probiotics 59
BE DairyAn Ionophores 50
BF DairyAn Improved genetic potential for dairy cows - productivity 100
BG DairyAn Bovine somatotropin 208
BH DairyAn Transgenic manipulation of ruminants 33
BI DairyAn Improved genetic potential for dairy cows - fertility 60

Table AC2 describes the proportion of the “DairyAn” abatement options that would be
accounted for in the UK GHG inventory based on a reduction of animal numbers
only. It can be seen for two of the options (maize silage and bSt) that the abatement
as measured by the inventory would be higher that the abatement potential estimated
by this study. For these two abatement options there is an unfavourable effect on
CH 4 production, in that output per animal increases. However, this increase is
outweighed by the production increase and the knock-on effect of reducing animal
numbers. All “BeefAn”, manure and anaerobic digester options do not reduce animal
numbers and therefore will not be affected the same way as options the “DairyAn”
abatement options.

150
Annex D 2050 potentials

Looking out to 2050, a range of technological and regulatory barriers need to be

overcome. The latter are conditioned by public acceptance of the application of
some potential scientific solutions for low emissions production. This annex details a
few of the suggested options. It is not a comprehensive audit of technologies.

The most obvious technological progression will probably involve the increasing
penetration of genetic modification in plant and animal production. More ambitious
technologies include nano biotechnologies the increased use of artificial intelligence
in computational systems biology to develop low emissions solutions - e.g. to waste
management.

Ambitious technologies for farm, food and waste management include:

• Use of mobile mapping, sensing and analysis to identify and solve problems
in situ.
• Use of sentinel plants that have a reporter gene to indicate if stressed e.g.
water or disease or are in need of nutrients.
• Robotics for crop monitoring and precision spraying: intelligent machines to
walk fields and spot treat problems or call up other machines (i.e. multi-
robotics) to spray large or small areas, to remove weeds, to scare off pests,
including insects, to select and harvest individual plants or parts of field when
ready.
• Digitisation of all land, fields, crops in conjunction with data platforms to
collate records of inputs, records of outputs, product distribution and markets.
• Exponential growth in speed and miniaturisation of computing
power/processing to provide real-time data on status of every field, crop and
plant.

More conservative suggestions include:

• More diversity in crop species and cropping systems to offset pest and
disease problems i.e. pesticides have an energy and environmental cost.
• Use of more diversified plant breeding populations e.g. cereals for improving
local adaptation to soil type and nutrient availability.
• More mixed farming or more diverse production systems e.g. livestock &
arable or agroforestry to help closing the nutrient cycle i.e. less inorganic
fertiliser costs, less transport costs.
• Increasing synchrony between nutrient supply and demand as a means by
which nitrogen use efficiency could be improved
• developmental modifications: e.g. chilling and vernalisation requirement
modifications, flowering time modifications
• new or changed pest and pathogen challenges: breeding and crop protection
cost implications
• water use efficiency: water acquisition and efficiency of use – changes in crop
agronomy-cultivar cost effectiveness, investment in infrastructure such as
irrigation etc
• nutrient use efficiency: breeding for acquisition and subsequent efficiency of
use improvement

151
 • interaction with agronomy changes
• cropping changes: new crops and their implications for the economy
• biomass crops: prospects for current and next generation
• carbon sequestration: agronomy-crop interactions, tillage and rotation
implications

Livestock

• Developing breeding goals that help mitigate UK emissions. This should take
account of the system of production. Work is required to develop
techniques/tools to measure emissions on a per animal and per field/farm
basis. Then incentives will need to be put in place to ensure uptake (maybe
farmers will take part under a labelling type scheme "Green Milk").

• Matching plant genetics and animal genetics: Plant and animal breeders
developing schemes that work together. For example, plant breeding develop
sward and animal breeding ensures that animals can utilise and thrive on the
sward (and vice versa)

• Genetic modification of plant and/or animals. As with breeding options these

should be developed in tandem and ensuring that they work in practice in real
farming systems. EU and consumer issues with respect to GM will need to be
overcome

• Development of low emissions animals by traditional breeding and/or GM

• Development of integrated farming systems and precision farming systems

• Plant and tree breeding to aid in C sequestration

• Manure management. Improve efficiency of bio digestion and integrate with

other waste management options (e.g., household waste).

• Developing improved technologies to maximise nutrient availability to

plant/soil when using manure as an organic fertiliser (e.g., next stage direct
injection methods)
• Develop routine manure quality testing and consider when using for
spreading
Manure additives

• Developing consumer "friendly" animal feed additives (complementary crops

etc)

152