A voluntary code for sustainable sourcing of energy feedstocks?

That widespread impact on yields across Europe is the mark of an extreme climate event and has closed down escape routes for many farm businesses.

The challenge faced by livestock and dairy producers has been widely reported – significant numbers of herd and flock managers already feeding animals, robbing already depleted on farm fodder supplies. Cereals and alternative crops can be the basis of alternative feed strategies, at a cost, however a base level of roughage will still be vital for ruminant health.

In truth, many livestock managers will be forced to implement a range of interventions and management changes to pilot a path to next spring.

The mental and financial pressures on farm will be intense for those working through autumn and winter.

In the present extreme conditions, questions on the use of crops and by-products for renewable energy production through incineration or anaerobic digestion are understandable.

In reality, though, renewable energy – including the production of bioethanol – is here to stay, a cornerstone of government’s approach to countering climate change, and underpinned by contracted financial incentives. Renewable energy is in many ways positive for the rural economy.

In normal seasons, these alternative markets are important for many crop producers and help to counter the extreme volatility of commodity markets.

There are no quick fixes, or easy solutions to counter the significant feed shortages across the UK – however we need to explore ways of better managing extreme weather events and protecting the whole rural economy and animal welfare.

All the indications are that extremes of temperature and rainfall will be more common features of the world climate in the future.

Clearly, the sustainability of the wider rural economy should be taken into account before further renewable energy and AD facilities are commissioned. However, our significant existing renewable capacity may also have a role in managing supply issues.

During extreme weather events, perhaps a 'Voluntary Code' could play a part in sharing limited supplies of fodder and by-products across all users. The code would only click in during seasons where extreme weather disrupted normal production. A sustainable or ethical sourcing code could initiate the reduced sourcing of feedstocks for energy production in line with supply, ie a reduction in crop and grass production of 25% might trigger a voluntary reduction in the sourcing of fodder feedstocks of 25%.

Alternatively, a voluntary code could operate by creating an agreed cap on the price paid for key feedstocks. Limiting the price paid by energy producers for straw or hay off the field might allow hard pressed livestock producers to compete and crop producers still gain rewards in tight markets.

Recent reports of hay being sourced in Scotland for incineration at £135 per tonne have the potential to hollow out a vital supply chain for hill and island producers who have traditionally been dependent on hay grown in central Scotland. A cap on the hay price paid for incineration of £80-90 might avoid further disruption of a market focused on animal feed which is already under pressure.

A voluntary code is just that and can only be viable if developed with renewable energy producers and with their buy-in. An agreed scheme could bind renewable energy into the rural economy and be backed up by an ethical sourcing certification scheme to aid marketing and public perception. In crude terms, this is all about sharing pain.

Government has a role in safeguarding the future of rural communities and avoiding conditions where animal welfare may be compromised. Government policy and incentives are significant drivers in both agriculture and renewable energy, and those policies have a significant impact on the availability and cost of forage and alternative feeds.

Ministers have a role now in brokering a voluntary code which better balances supply issues.

N Miller

Stagehall Farm,

Stow,

Galashiels.