Member opportunities

• Allow producers to identify strengths and areas for improvement.
• Inform future decision making.
• Provide evidence to back up key NFU asks of government and supply chain to support the sector.

Barriers

• Existing GHG (greenhouse gas) footprinting tools are not tailored to the poultry sector and struggle to account for multiple enterprises.
• GHG footprinting is primarily supply chain rather than producer led.
• GHG footprinting is expensive and no guaranteed return for producer.
• The Climate Change Agreement scheme (which offers a discount on the Climate Change Levy on energy bills) penalises producers who move to more extensive production systems.

NFU asks

• Consistent methodology between GHG calculators.
• Investment from government and/or supply chain to make GHG calculators more relevant for different types of poultry and mixed enterprises.
• Better advice and guidance to support uptake of GHG calculations and on-farm recording.
• Funding for poultry businesses to carry out GHG footprinting/audits.
• Reform of the Climate Change Agreement scheme to take account of diversity in production systems and market demands.

Measures

• Percentage of producers who have used a GHG calculator.
• Read more on GHG calculators.

Read more on carbon calculators

Reducing soya usage associated with land-use change

Member opportunities

• Feed represents the majority of poultry's total GHG footprint.
• Improved consumer perception of poultry meat and eggs.
• Lower reliance on imported feed ingredients.

Barriers

• Legislation – novel protein sources need authorising as feed ingredients.
• R&D on novel protein sources to demonstrate value.
• Commercial viability of home-grown alternative protein crops.
• Low protein level and/or digestibility of alternative proteins, which reduces bird performance and feed efficiency.
• Lower protein level and digestibility of North American soya compared to South American.
• Segregated supply chains are not currently able to deliver the volume of verified. conversion/deforestation-free soya needed.

NFU asks

• Authorisation of alternative/novel proteins for use in poultry feed.
• Retailer support for alternative/novel proteins.
• R&D on home grown proteins (for example, precision breeding of crops).
• R&D on novel proteins.
• Additional cost of production associated with low- or zero-soya diets must be shared fairly throughout the supply chain.
• Education for the public and supply chain on sustainably sourced soya, including a suitable transition period to deforestation-free soya.
• Additional cost of segregated soya supply must be shared fairly throughout the supply chain.

Measures

• Soya imports to UK from unknown origin.
• Average soya inclusion in ration.
• GHG footprint of poultry farms.
• GHG per unit of protein.
• Land use change for soya used by UK.

Member opportunities

• Reduce overall feed usage.
• Improve resource use efficiency.
• Improve producer profitability.

Barriers

• Non consumer-led pressure to move to slower growing breeds/more extensive production.
• Genetic potential of slower growing breeds for more extensive systems.
• Cost of feed/production inputs.
• Planning permission cost and availability, particularly with move to 30kg/m2 broiler production and cage free egg production by retailers which will require more shed space to maintain current production levels.
• Poultry meat and eggs produced to lower welfare and environmental standards can be imported from elsewhere, undermining British producers.

NFU asks

• Changes to production systems and breeds should be evidence and/or consumer led with fair returns for investment, (for example, BCC (Better Chicken Commitment)/cage-free egg production).
• Encourage support for all types of sustainable production, to give producers the confidence to invest in alternative genetics, inputs and production systems (for example, white shell eggs).
• Planning reform – clear and consistent national guidance for local authorities and a streamlined process for changes that don’t increase bird numbers.
• Government to implement core production standards to ensure a level playing field between agri-food imports and food produced in the UK.

Measures

• Feed conversion ratio.
• Eggs per hen housed.
• UK self-sufficiency.

Energy efficiency improvements

Member opportunities

• Reduce energy usage/waste.
• Potential to reduce associated costs.
• Improve resource use efficiency.
• Extend life of poultry sheds via non-market-altering upgrades.

Barriers

• Cost – often has low/no commercial benefit.
• Confidence – often very long time period for returns on investment amid market uncertainty and volatility.
• Accessing grant funding can be complex and is new to many poultry farmers.

NFU asks

• Government investment for non-market-altering shed improvements or refurbishments – eg, insulation/LEDs.
• Widen eligibility for grants to other poultry species and production systems, including ducks and turkeys.
• Government investment for resource saving technology, eg, rainwater harvesting.
• Guidance and advice for farmers to help them access available grant funding.
• Better data on ageing infrastructure.

Measures

• Energy use on farm.
• Energy use per bird/kg/unit of protein.
• Water use per site/bird/kg meat produced.
• Grant funding awarded to poultry businesses by Defra.

Member opportunities

• Protecting and enhancing the reputation of the poultry sector.
• Gaining best value from poultry manure/litter.
• Reduce manure/litter disposal costs.
• Contribute to circular farming economy.
• Could help reduce use of synthetic fertilisers for arable sector.

Barriers

• Misinformation around poultry’s contribution to water quality.
• Processing of manure/litter is expensive.
• Better understanding needed of ‘best’ way to valorise waste (both from an environmental and financial perspective).
• Poultry producers often export manure/litter off-farm so collaboration with end user is needed.
• Insufficient data and knowledge to compare environmental footprint of different fertilisers.

NFU asks

• Education of stakeholders using robust science and evidence to counteract misinformation and promote evidence-based policy making.
• Financial investment from government/supply chain stakeholders for manure and washwater treatment, processing and storage (for example, storage infrastructure, litter burners, dryers, AD, pelleting).
• Research into other potential uses for manure/litter such as substrate for insect production.
  National collaboration is needed between poultry and arable producers – ie, encouraging moving nutrients from excess areas to areas where it is needed.
• Data and knowledge transfer to compare environmental footprint of manure/litter with synthetic fertilisers to promote informed decision making and maximise value.

Measures

• Percentage of manure/litter by use/disposal type.
• Associated emissions figures for different litter/manure treatment.

Member opportunities

• Good news story to improve consumer perception – easy to communicate to public.
• Linked benefits such as biodiversity and air quality improvements.
• Boundary trees/hedges can improve security/privacy.
• Many free-range producers already have areas of the range planted with trees.

Barriers

• Devalues land.
• Accessing grant funding can be complex and is new to many poultry farmers.
• Lack of knowledge of what and where to plant for best results and ongoing management of trees.
• Non-free-range producers may have limited space to plant.
• Biosecurity – encouraging wild birds onto range areas could increase risk of disease incursion (for example, avian influenza).
• Tenants are often limited in what changes can be made to rented land.

NFU asks

• Financial incentive/protection from land devaluation for planting activity.
• Recognition for trees already planted on range areas.
• Advice and guidance for farmers on planting plans and ongoing tree maintenance plus accessing available grant funding.
• Joined up policy making by government and supply chain stakeholders to avoid unintended consequences, for example balancing biodiversity incentives with minimising biosecurity risks.
• Consideration is given to land restrictions and alternative options for tenants where needed, such as non-permanent shrubs and cover crops.

Measures

• Percentage of range cover with trees/acres of trees on ranges.
• Percentage of poultry farms with hedgerow boundaries.
• Kilometres of hedgerows.
• Carbon captured.