On Friday night, the Prof took me to see the new independent movie about regenerative agriculture, Six Inches of Soil, as soil health is her thing. It was a lovely film, following three young people involved at various levels of trying to farm in a way that doesn’t destroy the very soil that we depend on for live on earth.

I loved the movie, really digging into the stories of these young folks trying to do the right thing with mixed results. I felt particularly for the wannabe market gardener who relied on long hours serving coffee in a cafe to make ends meet while she pursued her dream.

Probably the most surprising sequence of the film comes when the beef farmer is presented with data apparently showing his farming methods were sequestering more carbon that the cows were emitting. Only problem, the data wasn’t what it said it was.

The writer and campaigner George Monbiot couldn’t believe that a beef farm could be carbon negative, so he challenged the consultancy concerned, Farm Carbon Toolkit, who told him the data was not measured from the farm, but a “modeled scenario” which was later edited to look as if it was a result rather than a possibility.

I know that every movie, photograph or book is a version of the truth rather than the truth itself . Even when I make my little cycling movies, I edit out anything that would bore or irritate the viewer (usually me grumbling about the weather or a rude motorist, or a long stretch of dull road). Makes for a better viewing experience but a selective view of my trip.

But data. Data is different. Saying a graph is one thing when it is something else. The film-makers should not have messed with it just to give a happy ending to the movie and Farm Carbon Toolkit should never have allowed themselves to be professionally compromised in this way.

This is a massive shame as it takes the shine of what is a lovely movie about people trying to do the right thing. I would still recommend people see it but be aware that this one sequence is not what it purports to be.