So, bearing in mind we have used detailed information on animal weights actually taken from our stock, alongside reasonable estimates of their dietary make up, as well as exact figures for the weight of feed and materials used, we have as good an estimate as we think we can get at this stage. Overall it shows that the farm generates a net carbon emission of 1.8 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) per year - so 1800kg. That's the whole farm, all 65 acres of it, and all the animals that live here along with the food they eat and the methane they burp. In other words under 5kg per day.

What does that compare to? Well, if you drive for 30 minutes, use your mobile phone for 2 hours, take a 10 minute hot shower, enjoy one latte and one glass of wine, then according to the figures on Clever Carbon, you'll emit close to 5kg. Those are things that many of us do every day and that only make up a tiny fraction of our own total emissions, yet just these few things have a similar carbon profile to our entire farm.

This is primarily because whilst fuel, feed and belching ruminants create emissions, our grassland and woodland reabsorb them at pretty much the same rate. This is why it is so important to see the whole picture and remember that the context of each farm is vital if we are trying to understand the impact.

But what about some of the detail underneath these headlines?

The graph above really highlights that there are four major determinants of our greenhouse profile: materials, livestock, grassland, and woodland.

Materials

Within materials, 97% of the emissions, equivalent to over 10 tonnes of CO2, came from stone and concrete. As mentioned earlier, these were installed to benefit the soil by reducing poaching and erosion, and thus contribute to improved water quality. They are also one-off infrastructure developments. Whilst there are still some projects like this we have on the wish list, it may be reasonable to exclude 10t of emissions from a longer-term picture of the farm's profile because once they are done, there aren't more emissions.

Livestock

The biggest single contributor to emissions, but within this less than 10% comes from concentrate feeds. These feeds only add 2.66tCO2e, albeit nearly half of that comes from chicken feed for the laying hens. We continue to try and absolutely minimise our use of bought-in feed, but the reality is that for our sheep and cattle, it is only contributing a few hundred kg of CO2e each year.

Grassland and woodland

Our low input, extensive approach has minimised the emissions associated with collecting, storing, and spreading manures. Previous soil analysis has suggested very high levels of organic matter in our soils. Organic matter is stored carbon and just tiny increases in the percentage translate to huge carbon sequestration levels. In future we might be able to use more detailed soil analysis to track the accumulation of organic matter and give even better estimates of the carbon this has removed. It is likely to be higher than the model predicts. 

What is also clear is the benefit of having extensive woodland that we leave to do its carbon absorbing job! We have plans to plant significant extra amounts of hedgerow in the near future which should add even more benefit, potentially sucking out another 5tCO2e per year once well established.

Future net picture

So the future could look even better still. 10t fewer emissions and 5t greater sequestration would move us from a position of net emissions, albeit pretty low, to actually positively storing 10-15 tonnes of carbon per year. That's more than enough to offset our entire household emissions and leave plenty left over to balance out all the emissions of big infrastructure and machinery acquired before now, in time. Carbon neutrality in farming is, at least from our perspective, achievable.

This poses another interesting question - how to work it out?

In 2025 the livestock we slaughtered generated approximately 350kg of meat. The simplest thing to do would be to divide the net CO2 emissions by the weight of meat. This would give us a figure of 5.14kgCO2e per kg of meat produced across the farm. But, and this is important, this doesn't account for all the farm's production.

We must also add the chickens we have raised - probably another 15kg of meat - and the eggs they have produced - around 2700 in the last year, which assuming an average weight of 50g (smaller than standard eggs) would add another 134kg of produce.

On top of this we must recognise that not all the livestock we have raised have been turned into meat. Many have been sold as breeding stock. To account for the 6 goat kids (90kg), 3 calves (estimated 858kg) and 19 sheep (532kg) we have taken the total of the last liveweights recorded before they left the farm and multiplied by 42% to estimate the likely meat yield from them. Calf weights were estimated in the same way as the weights added to calculate their emissions. In total this adds another 622kg.

Therefore it would be reasonable to say we have generated a total of 1121kg of produce within the emissions calculated. Repeating the original sum suggests that each kg of meat is responsible for just 1606gCO2e.

Once again, this sum uses the GWP100 methodology embedded in the toolkit, so is perhaps a "worst case scenario". More appropriate accounting of methane would probably suggest we are already carbon negative.

Source 1: Clever Carbon | Source 2: My Emissions | Source 3: BBC

Clearly there are going to be some differences in methodology and we may not be quite comparing apples with apples (or our lamb with tofu!) on a perfectly level playing field. Despite that, though, the fundamental picture is that meat derived from extensive, low-input, largely grass-fed systems in the UK can compare very favourably with other common food items and is certainly far from being the great planet destroying evil it is sometimes made out to be. 

If you choose to eat meat (and we're quite ok with some people choosing not to), then please think about the carbon emissions it will have created. These are predominantly linked to the farming system that has been used to produce it and how far it has travelled to reach you. Locally sourced, grass-fed meat from farms that use low-input, regenerative approaches and retain plenty of woodland alongside their pastures would seem to be the best option you can get. In perhaps the better of these cases, that meat is probably no worse for the climate than tofu or tomatoes!