Reducing emissions from agriculture – the role of new farm technologies

Executive summary

Scotland and Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture

The Scottish Government has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2045. The Scottish Government's Climate Change Plan update^[1] requires the equivalent of a 31% reduction in agricultural emissions by 2032 from 2018 levels. Between 1990-2019 Scottish agriculture’s emissions decreased by only 13%. The uptake of new technologies and practices provides a means to meet reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) whilst balancing the need for food production.

A number of studies have identified a range of practices and technologies which would support progress to this goal, and their cost-effectiveness and impact have been assessed through the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve. The purpose of this project is to identify and explore technologies which have not currently been considered and evaluated for Scotland but which may provide additional carbon savings. It is important to note that the scope of this report does not include nature-based practices but is focused on new technological development that may be applicable to farms in Scotland. Moreover, we take a time frame of 20 years as the horizon by which new technologies could be feasibly developed and adopted to impact Scotland's Net Zero goal.

Identifying New technologies for Scottish Agriculture

Using expert knowledge, state of the art literature reviews and scrutiny of patents databases we identify a 'long list' of 86 new technologies and technology areas which may be applicable to Scottish agriculture if they were developed further and trialled within the Scottish context.

These new technologies cover a range of areas, including feed additives directed at enteric methane, remote sensing technology and associated monitoring and data analysis to support control and management of input resources. In addition, this also includes the replacement of traditional materials with more sustainable components, e.g. single cell proteins grown from algae. Moreover, technologies which have evolved from non-agricultural sectors, e.g., distributed ledgers, 3D printing were also identified as offering potential. To produce a short list all technologies were scored against a range of criteria. This produced a list of 13 technologies or technology areas which are worth exploring further (Shown in Table E1).

Measuring the potential of candidate technologies

This short-list was explored in greater detail to understand the GHG potential of these technologies, their current stage of development, their potential on-farm cost and further barriers to implementation. For most technologies, the estimates of GHG savings range quite considerably and are typified by only limited evidence of application from mostly non-Scottish contexts, for instance asparagosis (a feed additive based on seaweed) has been found to reduce methane emissions by 56% in beef cattle, but this relates to a single trial in another country. Accordingly, any estimates of GHG saving and their cost of implementation are difficult to generalise and come with large uncertainties.

These technologies are shown in Table E1, identifying their potential for GHG saving, the uncertainties around these estimates, the expected time to market, main barriers and suggested implementation pathways. It is also notable that the highest ranked technologies focus on solutions for the livestock sector. This is mostly because of this sector offers the most potential in saving GHGs.

Table E1. Summary of technologies and findings towards their applicability to Scottish farming

Measures Applicable to tillage and grassland

Name

Rock dust

Description

Application of crushed, reactive silicate rocks (such as basalt)

Potential for GHG Saving^[2]

Abatement potential by agricultural soils in the UK has been estimated between 0.2 and 0.8 CO₂ per tonne of basic rock (though not currently tested on temperate soils)

Uncertainties

Sequestration potential will vary depending on the chemical composition of the rock material.

Expected Time to market

3 years

Main Barriers

Cost of product; Regulatory Compliance

Implementation Pathway

More testing/trialling for on-site conditions to prove efficacy

Name

Biochar

Description

Carbon rich, pyrolysis of organic waste

Potential for GHG Saving^[2]

UK studies estimate an abatement potential of 0.7-1.4 t CO₂eq/ oven dry tonne

Uncertainties

Total GHG abatement will vary depending on organic feedstock, production technology, and predicted effects on crop yields.

Expected Time to market

1-5 years

Main Barriers

Availability of feedstock; Regulatory compliance; Lack of efficacy; High capital costs

Implementation Pathway

Support high capital costs for development of marketable product and spreading equipment

Name

Underground Sensors

Description

Soil sensor system distributed under turf

Potential for GHG Saving

Unknown

Uncertainties

No study on underground sensors and GHG savings exist

Expected Time to market

1-3 years

Main Barriers

High capital cost plus subscription-based services for data analysis

Implementation Pathway

Grants for developing open source platforms to make metrics more useful.

Name

Cloud-based bioinformatics

Description

Cloud platforms to link genomic discoveries to plant breeding decisions

Potential for GHG Saving

Unknown

Uncertainties

Only supports GHG reduction indirectly

Expected Time to market

1-5 years

Main Barriers

Lack of infrastructure

Implementation Pathway

Encouragement of skills and training in metrics through training/degrees.

Name

Biological nitrification inhibitors

Description

The natural ability of certain plant species to release nitrification inhibitors.

Potential for GHG Saving

Trial in New Zealand found reduced nitrous oxide emissions by 50% for the use of plantain within species rich swards.

Uncertainties

The mechanism of this effect is not entirely clear

Expected Time to market

5-10 years

Main Barriers

Regulatory compliance; Lack of evidence

Implementation Pathway

More public funded research to trial and measure impacts in field conditions.

Measures applicable to livestock production

Name

Feed Supplements (Seaweed)

Description

Asparagosis.

Potential for GHG Saving

An estimated reduction of 56% in methane emissions in the beef sector, a reduction of 22% in the dairy sector and 53% in the sheep sector.

Uncertainties

Only a small number of trials in the US and Australia

Expected Time to market

5-10 years

Main Barriers

Limited availability of non-native product; Lack of infrastructure; Regulatory compliance on iodine in foods

Implementation Pathway

Authorities could change the way seaweed as a methane mitigator is regulated in the EU.

Name

Other Feed Supplements

Description

Monesin, Vegopils, Coconut oils etc.

Potential for GHG Saving

Monesin has been found to reduce methane emissions by 2.9% (for a study in Canada)

Uncertainties

Only estimates for Monesin relate to single trial

Expected Time to market

1-15 years

Main Barriers

Lack of efficacy; lack of data on interactions; lack of infrastructure; regulatory compliance; lack of financial rewards for manufacturers

Implementation Pathway

Regulatory and financial incentives; Trialling and demonstration on the effect of combinations of feed additives.

Name

Microbial proteins

Description

Yeast; Microalgae-based feed; Bacteria-extracted feed; Fermentation-based feed

Potential for GHG Saving

Unknown

Uncertainties

Considered as a replacement for soya-based meal and would be carbon off-setting.

Expected Time to market

3-5years

Main Barriers

Technical barriers towards scaling up production

Implementation Pathway

Regulatory or tax interventions could be considered, e.g. for replacing soya-based meal, may encourage innovation and adoption.

Name

Genetic profiling/Genomic testing in breeding programme

Description

Marker assisted management (MAM); . Marker-Assisted Backcrossing

Potential for GHG Saving

Equivalent to an up to 8% reduction in methane emissions per year.

Uncertainties

Trials conducted in Scotland

Expected Time to market

5-10 years

Main Barriers

Lack of infrastructure; Costs of sampling and storage

Implementation Pathway

Establishing test stations - similar to Beef Efficiency Scheme - to prove efficacy.

Name

Fluoride and tannin additive to manure

Description

The additive consists of the two naturally occurring substances fluoride and tannins

Potential for GHG Saving

In pigs: 95% reduction in ammonia emissions, 99% reduction in methane emissions, and 50% reduction in odour.

Uncertainties

Studies at lower dosages have not identified any emission reductions.

Expected Time to market

10-15 years

Main Barriers

Cost of product: Regulatory compliance; Low evidence base

Implementation Pathway

Support development work on demonstrating efficacy; Providing a source for usable tannins for the supply chain

Name

Methane Vaccine

Description

Aims to introduce antibodies into a cow's saliva

Potential for GHG Saving

Efficacy ranged from 7.7% to 69% methane reduction

Uncertainties

Multiple studies were unsuccessful in vivo.

Expected Time to market

10 years

Main Barriers

Lack of efficacy; regulatory compliance

Implementation Pathway

Lack of testing in Scotland. Trials could be set up to prove/disprove efficacy

Name

Smart Cattle sheds

Description

Closed sheds with monitoring system

Potential for GHG Saving

Conservative estimate for a beef finisher is 14-25% reduction per year in tCO²e

Uncertainties

A specific trial was conducted in Scotland. This would limit uncertainties for application across Scotland

Expected Time to market

5-10 years

Main Barriers

Cost of product; Lack of infrastructure and rural broadband.

Implementation Pathway

Targeted support for capital restructuring on farm may encourage more adoption

Name

Connected animal mounted sensors

Description

Monitoring of feed intake, and automated weigh crates

Potential for GHG Saving

Beef: reduced both total farm emissions (2.4% - 7.4%) and emission intensities (1.5% - 11.9%); Dairy: showed reductions in whole farm emissions (0.4% - 0.9%) and all scenarios reduced emissions intensities (3.0% - 9.0%).

Uncertainties

Modelled on a Scottish farm. This would limit uncertainties for application across Scotland

Expected Time to market

On market

Main Barriers

Cost of product; Lack of infrastructure and rural broadband.

Implementation Pathway

Financial training and support around return on investment and payoffs

Name

Connected animal mounted sensors

Description

Monitoring of feed intake, and automated weigh crates

Potential for GHG Saving

Beef: reduced both total farm emissions (2.4% - 7.4%) and emission intensities (1.5% - 11.9%); Dairy: showed reductions in whole farm emissions (0.4% - 0.9%) and all scenarios reduced emissions intensities (3.0% - 9.0%).

Uncertainties

Modelled on a Scottish farm. This would limit uncertainties for application across Scotland

Expected Time to market

On market

Main Barriers

Cost of product; Lack of infrastructure and rural broadband.

Implementation Pathway

Financial training and support around return on investment and payoffs

Overall Conclusions

A range of new technologies are available.

There are multiple technologies and technology areas which have not currently been considered in detail within the context of Scotland’s requirement to meet net zero emissions by 2045. Whilst we explored 13 of these technologies in detail to understand their potential for GHG saving, their on-farm adoption and the barriers to development, this does not exclude the 'long-list' from further investigation.

A small number of technologies are strong candidates for accelerated development.

We find the most likely candidates for further intervention to be:

• Feed additives are both easily implemented on-farm and target enteric methane production, the most significant greenhouse gas from Scottish agriculture. Development, testing and trialling can be part of Government intervention. Notably, however, a key issue is the need for regulatory approval to ensure these additives are safe for human and animal consumption. In addition, exploring the relationship between combinations of feed additives would offer some value in understanding how these may improve or negate the methane reducing effect.
• Rock dust. This product seems to show potential for reducing nitrous oxide emissions across arable land and potentially has positive spinoff effects for dealing with construction industry waste. However, issues around application rates and toxic components of rock dust applied to agricultural land would need to be resolved and this could be through applied testing and analysis within the Scottish context.
• Microbial Proteins. The attraction of these proteins would be as an alternative to imported soya meal, which constitutes a large part of livestock diets. These are also rolled out to high value sectors, with little work on cattle and sheep systems. There are technical barriers to scaling up production, hence further investment into development of ways to produce these proteins could be a way to overcome these scaling issues and create cost-effective alternatives for the sheep and cattle sector.
• Animal mounted sensors. These target animal health, which is a significant intervention that could reduce GHG emissions from livestock. Whilst the production and supply of sensors is supported through commercial development, there are high costs to adoption, as well as the need for training and demonstration to operate these systems at their optimal levels. Hence, support for capital investment may be justified under new tranches of a replacement agricultural policy, both for supporting investment but also for establishing best practice in operating sensors.