Why farms must change to save the planet

FARMING is to blame for 25 per cent of Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions, a new report has revealed. The study into agriculture and its impact on the environment says radical changes are needed to centuries-old practices if Scotland is to meet its targets to tackle climate change.

It dispels the myth that it is only air travel, shipping and excessive car use that unleash huge quantities of damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Instead, it lays a big portion of the blame on farming.

Drastic solutions have been put forward in the study to tackle the problem. These include measures to cut the harmful methane emissions produced by cattle as they digest their food. This could involve replacing Scotland's traditional cattle species, such as the Aberdeen Angus, with faster-growing continental varieties that will produce less methane before they are slaughtered.

Another option would be to reduce the number of cattle, which produce 26 per cent of farming's total emissions through methane.

Alternatively, cattle could be fed cereal crops, which improve their digestion, but that would use up crucial barley and wheat at a time of global food shortages. Another possible solution would be to replace farmland with woodland, which soaks up carbon from the atmosphere.

Speaking at the launch of the report, Michael Russell, the environment minister, said farmers had to be "concerned" and must play their role in tackling the damaging emissions heating up the planet.

But Jonathan Hall, the head of rural policy at NFU Scotland, said drastic changes to farming could be "catastrophic", not just for farmers but for the economy.

And John Picken, a Fife cereal farmer, said the best use of the world's resources was to grow food locally rather than to cut back on farmland, which would force the agriculture industry abroad.

The report, "Climate Change and Scottish Agriculture", was put together by farming groups such as the NFU, environment bodies and members of the government to look at possible ways forward. It says the farming community can play a huge role in helping the government meet its target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2020.

But Mr Hall said it was wrong to get too concerned about the level of emissions produced by farming. "Climate change is a global issue and if Scotland was to play the role of wanting to reduce its emissions from agriculture then all it would do is force farmers out of business," he said.

He claimed it would also have a tiny impact on the world's emissions.

Cutting local supplies of food would increase dependence on imports, which he said could actually increase Scotland's overall emissions due to the need to rely on transporting products from abroad.

"The clear message I have got is that simply forcing Scotland's agriculture to reduce emissions would not solve the problem, as it's a global problem," he said. "The consequences for the rural economy would be catastrophic."

Farmland covers three-quarters of Scotland and some 67,000 people are employed in the agricultural sector. It contributes about £2 billion to the economy.

Mr Russell said he wanted the report, commissioned by the Scottish Government's Agriculture and Climate Change Stakeholder Group, to be a "platform for action", and added that he would be using next month's Royal Highland Show to work with the farming sector to find ways to mitigate the effects of climate change.

He said there were no threats to the farming industry. "We are not saying you should no longer exist. We are saying what are the adaptation routes?

"I don't think farmers should feel worried. I think they should feel concern. The concern should be that they have a role to play in climate change. They shouldn't be worried about it because there's no prospect of saying we should cut emissions by cutting this sector. That would be a ridiculous solution," he said.

He also said climate change brought opportunities for farmers – and Mr Hall agrees.

"I think farmers should continue as they are doing now, but I also think there's room for the industry to look at some win-win steps it should take," he said.

He said these could include using renewable energy, which would reduce farmers' dependence on costly fossil fuels and help cut emissions at the same time.

The report explains how climate change will bring challenges as well as opportunities for farmers.

As the climate warms, rainfall is expected to increase and most areas in Scotland are expected to experience a longer growing season. This should lead to improved crop growth. New crops not currently grown in Scotland – such as maize or grapes – could become common.

But as the temperature increases, it is also likely to bring new diseases, weeds and pests that farmers will need to learn to cope with.

The report concludes that as well as action by farmers, more research needs to be carried out and attention needs to be given to improving government policies on farming.

Douglas Bell, a policy consultant at the Scottish Agricultural College, said: "I think there are challenges in there, but, to be fair, there are also opportunities for the farming community. For example, if the climate warms over the next 50 years, there are opportunities for different crops to be grown and for arable crops to grow further north.

"So, from a commercial point of view, there are potentially some opportunities but also some obvious worries – the advance of disease being the most obvious."

Local solution to a global problem

John Picken, a cereal farmer in Fife, says growing locally is the best way to make use of the natural resources we share

IT CONCERNS me a lot when I hear farmers being blamed for climate change.

Our primary reason for being here is to provide food. Growing food locally is the best, most economic use of the world's resources.

There's no better carbon balance than growing locally. You are using far fewer resources than if you are importing it from elsewhere in the world.

We play the biggest part at the moment in preventing climate change. Every crop we grow, every acre where crops grow or vegetables grow takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and produces something useful. No other industry does as much as we do to tackle climate change.

The International Panel on Climate Change seems to ignore that fact. They fail to realise the benefits of farming.

It's extremely harsh to say farming produces 25 per cent of emissions in Scotland. They are trying to point the blame at the industry that's doing the most to safeguard the climate.

It's not 100 per cent efficient because we are dealing with nature and the planet is not 100 per cent efficient.

We are going to get run-off and carbon dioxide or methane produced into the atmosphere. It's a natural thing.

To blame farming is ridiculous. We have improved efficiencies beyond measure. We adhere to every single wildlife or environment rule.

If we are constrained, we can't do our job of producing food – it will have to be imported.

Climate change is foremost in our mind.

We are at greater risk of disease because of climate change.

But I do think climate change brings some opportunities as well.

Growing grapes in Fife would be a fantastic idea and oil seed rape is already moving further north.



How farmers can change their ways of working and help save the planet

RENEWABLES

USE renewable energies:

Liquid bioethanol or biodiesel can be used instead of petrol or diesel and they are relatively easy for farmers to grow.

Biomass boilers can also be installed on farms relatively easily.

They usually burn wood products, to generate heat and electricity.

Both techniques could save farmers money on expensive petrol and diesel.

There is also research into the possibility of collecting methane from housed livestock, which can then be used to generate heat and electricity on the farm.

Farming bodies say in order for these techniques to be used by the farming sector, there would have to be considerable grants available by the Scottish Government so that they are not too costly.

WOODLAND

REPLACE farmland with woodland: The Scottish Government in its Scottish Forestry Strategy has set a target of covering 25 per cent of the country with woodland by 2020. Currently the country stands at about 16 per cent forest coverage.

Forests sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and are a good way of tackling carbon emissions and it stays in place for decades.

But opponents say planting forests on farmland could have a disastrous impact on the agricultural industry and on Scotland's economy.

It could increase our dependence on imported food and meat, which in turn could boost emissions from transport.

Other options would be to remove land from production either temporarily or permanently, as set-aside.

LIVESTOCK

STOP farming cattle and sheep and produce poultry, pigs or crops instead.

Chickens and pigs do not produce the same quantities of harmful methane as cattle and crops are emission-free. However, moving away from these centuries-old types of farming could have a catastrophic impact on cattle farmers in Scotland. There is also the view that climate change will not stop people wanting to eat beef.

So if Scottish farmers stopped producing cattle, they would just be farmed elsewhere in the world, meaning there would be no benefit to global emissions.

In fact, some experts say it could increase global emissions, because Scotland would have to import more beef, which would mean increasing transport emissions.

Farmers say it is best to grow food locally, rather than import it.

WIND POWER

ONE way to cut back on damaging emissions would be for farmers to tap into the growing renewable-energy sector by investing in wind turbines.


These could be used to generate energy for the farm, with the surplus sold to the national grid to make a profit.

Potential downsides include opposition from local communities because of the adverse visual impact.

The initial cost to the farmer of investing in turbines could also be high.

Getting planning permission for a wind farm can be very time-consuming, and wind turbines are not suited to all sites. They need a strong supply of wind.

Farmers' groups say in order for farmers to invest in wind power they will need help from the government in the form of grants.

DIET

REDUCE roughage intake by sheep and cattle:

Cattle produce higher levels of greenhouse gas methane when they eat grass or hay than when they eat cereals, such as barley and wheat.

Therefore, by having more control of the animals' diet, by keeping them inside and feeding them cereals, farmers can cut the amount of methane produced.

Problems with this could include farmers having to change the way they manage their livestock, by keeping them inside rather than allowing them to graze outside.

There is also a view that cereals such as barley and wheat should be reserved for use by humans, in today's climate of global food shortages, rather than fed to animals. There has also been research into dietry supplements that can be fed to cattle, with the side effect that they cut the amount of methane produced.

CATTLE VARIETIES

Replace native cattle species with European varieties.

Traditional Scottish breeds such as Highland and Aberdeen Angus take a long time to mature compared to European varieties such as Simmental and Charolais. One way to reduce emissions would be to replace Scotland's traditional varieties with the European alternatives. Faster growing, they would slaughtered sooner, producing fewer methane emissions. Also, being larger, fewer cattle would be needed.

But opponents say continental cattle breeds are not suited to Scotland. The traditional varieties are perfectly suited to grazing hillsides and to the colder climate in this country. Traditional cattle varieties are also a tourist attraction. It would also put pressure on farmers who are used to the techniques needed for native cattle.