Download Appendix 1 Review of major arable integrated farming research

Appendix 1 Review of major arable integrated farming research projects
Contents
1 Pesticides, Cereal Farming and the Environment. The Boxworth Project ....................... 2
1.1
Summary ............................................................................................................... 2
1.2
Relevance to policy ............................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Energy ............................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Climate change .................................................................................................. 3
1.2.3 Waste ................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.4 Water ................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.5 Food and farming............................................................................................... 4
1.2.6 Resource protection ........................................................................................... 5
2 The Talisman and Scarab Projects ................................................................................ 6
2.1
Summary ............................................................................................................... 6
2.2
Relevance to policy ............................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Energy ............................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Climate change .................................................................................................. 7
2.2.3 Waste ................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.4 Water ................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.5 Food and farming............................................................................................... 8
2.2.6 Resource protection ......................................................................................... 10
3 LINK Integrated Farming Systems ............................................................................... 11
3.1
Summary ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2
Relevance to policy ............................................................................................. 11
3.2.1 Energy ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2.2 Climate change ................................................................................................ 12
3.2.3 Waste .............................................................................................................. 12
3.2.4 Water ............................................................................................................... 12
3.2.5 Food and farming............................................................................................. 12
3.2.6 Resource protection ......................................................................................... 13
4 Sustainable Arable Farming for an Improved Environment (SAFFIE) ........................... 14
4.1
Summary ............................................................................................................. 14
4.2
Relevance to policy ............................................................................................. 20
4.2.1 Energy ............................................................................................................. 20
4.2.2 Climate change ................................................................................................ 20
4.2.3 Waste .............................................................................................................. 20
4.2.4 Water ............................................................................................................... 20
4.2.5 Food and farming............................................................................................. 20
4.2.6 Resource protection ......................................................................................... 21
5 LIFE ............................................................................................................................. 21
5.1
Summary ............................................................................................................. 22
5.2
Relevance to policy ............................................................................................. 22
5.2.1 Energy ............................................................................................................. 22
5.2.2 Climate change ................................................................................................ 22
5.2.3 Waste .............................................................................................................. 22
5.2.4 Water ............................................................................................................... 22
5.2.5 Food and farming............................................................................................. 23
5.2.6 Resource protection ......................................................................................... 23
6 Focus on farming practice (FOFP) ............................................................................... 23
6.1
Summary ............................................................................................................. 24
6.2
Relevance to policy ............................................................................................. 24
6.2.1 Energy ............................................................................................................. 24
6.2.2 Climate change ................................................................................................ 24
6.2.3 Waste .............................................................................................................. 24
6.2.4 Water ............................................................................................................... 24
1 of 28
6.2.5 Food and farming............................................................................................. 24
6.2.6 Resource protection ......................................................................................... 25
7 Rhône-Poulenc 3-D farming ......................................................................................... 25
7.1
Summary ............................................................................................................. 25
7.2
Relevance to policy ............................................................................................. 27
7.2.1 Energy ............................................................................................................. 27
7.2.2 Climate change ................................................................................................ 27
7.2.3 Waste .............................................................................................................. 27
7.2.4 Water ............................................................................................................... 27
7.2.5 Food and farming............................................................................................. 27
7.2.6 Resource protection ......................................................................................... 28
1
PESTICIDES, CEREAL FARMING AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THE BOXWORTH
PROJECT
Greig-Smith, P, Frampton, G.K, and Hardy, A.R. London, HMSO. 1992.
1.1
Summary
The Boxworth Project (1981–1991) was commissioned and funded by MAFF to investigate
the effects of pesticide use in cereals on a range of wildlife, including plants, birds, small
mammals, and arthropods (e.g. insects, mites and spiders). Therefore, the project was not
conceived or designed with an Integrated Farm Management (IFM) remit. However, the
Project broke new ground as it was the first large-scale, multi-disciplinary study in the UK to
provide a long-term comparison of different farming systems and included many elements
which are today embodied in IFM practices. The Boxworth Project was thus, primarily, an
ecological study with economic inputs and outputs monitored incidentally. The following
three main aims were central to the Project:

to examine and compare the environmental and ecological side-effects of contrasting
pesticide regimes;

to monitor the economics of crop production under contrasting pesticide regimes and
to establish the commercial viability of reduced-input farming;

to identify any difficulties that might arise in the practical management of
reduced-input farming systems, with particular reference to pesticide use.
ADAS Boxworth (formerly Boxworth Experimental Husbandry Farm) provided a whole-farm
study area in which the various effects of the contrasting pesticide regimes could be
investigated. The farm was divided into three areas, each a block of contiguous fields. After
two years (1981–1983) of baseline monitoring of flora and fauna, the following three
pesticide regimes were applied to contiguous groups of fields on the farm for a period of five
consecutive cropping years (1983–1988).
1. A ‘Full Insurance’ regime which involved high inputs and prophylactic treatments,
imitating an intensive cereal production system of the late 1970s.
2. A ‘Supervised’ regime whereby pesticides were applied only if weeds, diseases or
pests exceeded economic thresholds.
3. An ‘Integrated’ regime using economic thresholds and husbandry practices which
further reduce the need for pesticides.
In practice, in terms of pesticide inputs, there was little difference between the ‘supervised’
and ‘integrated’ treatment regimes.
The main conclusions stemming from the project were as follows:

Populations of birds and mammals were apparently resilient to the effects of the
high-input approach.
2 of 28
Although wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) were killed by broadcast molluscicide pellets,
immigration of juvenile mice from untreated areas allowed a rapid recovery in numbers, and
there was no evidence of any long-term effects of pesticide use on wood mice populations.
This finding highlights the need to avoid use of any detrimental farming activity across wide
areas and many holdings, such that it restricts the potential of local migration to build up
numbers irrespective of the cause of decline, be it man made or natural.
 Some beneficial arthropods were vulnerable to pesticides.
This was due to differences between species in their physical exposure, their inherent
susceptibility and the capacity of populations to recover after adverse pesticide events.
 Lower input systems of crop protection are not necessarily less economically viable.
As expected, crop yields were higher in the Full Insurance regime, but despite lower yields,
the profitability of the Supervised approach was greater than the Full Insurance regime. The
Integrated regime gave the lowest yields and economic returns because attempts to reduce
pesticide use below that of the Supervised approach led to problems with grass weeds.
However, the performance of the Integrated regime within the Boxworth Project was
recognised to be unsatisfactory in many ways and not fully representative of how a
low-input, fully integrated system would be designed.
Therefore, important conclusions of the Boxworth Project, which remain highly relevant
today, were that very high inputs of pesticides are unlikely to be required in a well-managed
crop, are likely to result in adverse environmental side-effects, and are unlikely to result in
additional economic benefits.
1.2
1.2.1
Relevance to policy
Energy
There are no records of energy use made within the project.
1.2.2
Climate change
There is little data directly applicable for use in climate change research within the project.
1.2.3
Waste
Pesticides were applied to the ‘full insurance’ programme based on weed, pest and disease
problems expected to occur regardless of whether the problem occurred or not. In the
insurance and supervised treatments reduced rates were used, the reductions were arbitrary
and not based on weed, pest and disease levels present.
1.2.4
Water
Field drains were sampled and analysed for selected pesticides in the Full Insurance and
Integrated areas towards the end of the project. Sampling started when drains began to run
and was conducted from autumn to spring 1987-8, at approximately two-week intervals and
again in autumn 1988 until late December 1988. The monitoring strategy did not allow any
comparison between the two areas, with few pesticides monitored in the Integrated area.
Most monitoring was conducted in winter wheat, except for the herbicide simazine, which
was monitored in winter beans. The only pesticide analysed that was common to both areas
was the molluscicide methiocarb, which was not detected in any samples. Three
insecticides were monitored in the Full Insurance area: cypermethrin, triazophos and
chlorpyriphos.
Only chlorpyriphos was detected and only on one occasion, at a
concentration of 0.06 g/l, 12 days after application in December 1987.
Several herbicides were detected in drainage from the Full Insurance area, with highest
concentrations in the first samples after application and lower concentrations subsequently,
as shown below:
3 of 28
Herbicide
Application date
Concentration (g/l)
tri-allate
metoxuron
methabenzthiazuron
isoproturon
Oct
Nov
Nov
Mar
0.05 – 0.25
0.06 – 3.30
0.07 – 0.40
0.32 – 2.16
Simazine, applied to winter beans in the Integrated area, was also monitored, following
application in October 1988. A concentration of 35 g/l was detected in the first sample
taken, one month after application, but this dropped to 0.39 g/l in subsequent samples
(exact time-scale not specified).
There was no data on nitrogen , phosphate or sediment.
The results yield little information about the benefits of integrated management, on pesticide
pollution. Some of the pesticides, in particular herbicides, applied in the Full Insurance area
were completely omitted from the Integrated area, so there was no comparative monitoring
to be conducted in these cases. The detection of autumn-applied herbicides in drainage
water has been widely reported, both residual (soil-active) and non-residual herbicides. The
concentrations found in the Boxworth Project are not at all unusual1. (See, for example,
Harris, 1995.)
Two conclusions can be drawn, which offer some guidance to pesticide management in
integrated systems. The concentrations detected were highest soon after application and
declined sharply over the following weeks or months. The same observation made in the
Brimstone experiment2 (Jones et al, 2000) led to guidance in the isoproturon stewardship
scheme that leaching risk is minimised by herbicide application as much in advance of field
drainage commencing in Autumn as possible. Secondly, the sharp decline in concentrations
detected with time after application is some indication that long-term persistence of residues
may not be a problem.
1.2.5
Food and farming
Economics
Highest yields were from full pesticide systems, but similar gross margins were obtained
from IFM. This type of financial outcome was to be common in many of the IFM studies that
followed. The importance of variety selection and controlling weeds and diseases was
highlighted, i.e. need to use some inputs on a precautionary basis.
Food
At the time of the project long runs of cereals were typical in the locality. Wheat was selected
as the standard crop with a break of oilseed rape every 5 years. Crop choice was
standardised between the rotations.
Pesticide use
The full suite of planned applications in the Full Insurance approach were not always
realised, chiefly because of problems of access to fields in inclement weather. The Full
Insurance approach averaged 14.4 pesticide applications per annum, compared with 6.8 and
6.1 applications per annum in the Supervised and Integrated approaches, respectively.
Harris, G.L. 1995. Pesticide loss to water – a review of posible agricultural management
opportunities to minimise pesticide movement. In: Pesticide movement to water, A. Walker et al
(Eds.), BCPC Monograph No. 62 , 371-380.
1
2
Jones Russell L. et al, 2000. Processes affecting movement of pesticides to drainage in cracking
clay soils. Pesticide Outlook October 2000, 174-178.
4 of 28
Therefore, the Supervised and Integrated approaches both allowed pesticide use to be
reduced to about the same extent, which was on average less than half of the applications
made to the Full Insurance fields. This was particularly marked for insecticide use, which
was only one-sixth of that in the Full Insurance approach. However, the Full Insurance level
of pesticide input was recognised to be artificially high for Boxworth, where pest problems
are not usually serious, but it was, nevertheless, representative of pesticide use by the most
intensive cereal growers when the Project started.
Both of the reduced-input programmes (Supervised and Integrated) gave a level of pesticide
use that was comparable to the husbandry of the fields before the start of the project, which
was reflected in the inputs in the two baseline years. This indicated that the Full Insurance
area experienced a sudden rise from moderate to high inputs, whereas the Supervised and
Integrated programmes did not differ greatly from previous conditions, and would not be
expected to produce any major ecological changes.
Schemes
The project did not relate to any current agri-environmental schemes.
1.2.6
Resource protection
Land
Compared to modern times the pesticide regimes and cultivation methods seem very
intensive but were typical of their time. The project recognised the need to move towards
lower inputs and was the first of it’s kind to cover this area of research.
Soil
The effects on soil were not incorporated into the project.
Biodiversity
This large-scale, multi-disciplinary study included the consideration of the effects of
pesticides in field situations on mammals, birds and invertebrates, and only woodmice were
found to be directly adversely affected by pesticide use; a broadcast molluscide. There was
no evidence of mammalian population changes that could be attributed to the Full Insurance
programme of pesticide use.
The study also found that the field populations of wood mice were reduced after husbandry
activities such as harvesting and ploughing. This is not discussed in relation to IFM, but it
indicates that the provision of refuge areas such as hedges and margins would be important.
Also, IFM, with its reduced applications and cultivations could be expected to have less of an
effect on field small mammals than standard production systems.
The number of crop invertebrates varied with pesticide use – some species increased and
some decreased. This is explained by authors as being related to factors such as degree of
exposure, capacity for recolonisation and effects on prey, competitors and natural enemies.
The value of field margins for invertebrates is highlighted.
Overall, the density of herbivorous invertebrates in the Full Insurance programme declined
by 50% compared with the other treatments. Declines in carnivores were similar, but
detritivores were little affected. The workers also demonstrated a rapid build up of aphid
numbers when predators were excluded from the reduced-input area.
It was concluded that bird numbers were not adversely affected by the Full Insurance
Programme. It was, however, noted that immigration of birds into the site was not effectively
monitored. Potentially debilitating effects on house sparrows, starlings and skylarks were
noted after the spraying of summer aphicides. Bird populations are Defra indicators of
sustainable agriculture, (MAFF 20003, Defra 20024).
3
MAFF 2000. Towards Sustainable Agriculture. A Pilot Set of Indicators. MAFF
5 of 28
This was the first large scale study of this kind. A wide range of animals was monitored and
the importance of biodiversity is emphasised for future work. The consideration of the
effects of chemicals may be useful when trying to isolate the other effects of IFM operations
in multi-functional studies.
Landscape
There is no reference to landscape within the project but the supervised and integrated
systems allow maintenance of the landscape with reduced environmental effects.
2
THE TALISMAN AND SCARAB PROJECTS
Eds Young, J., Griffin,M.J., Alford, D.V., and Ogilvy,S.E., DEFRA 2001.
2.1
Summary
The TALISMAN and SCARAB research projects (1990–1998) were commissioned and
funded by MAFF and specifically designed as follow-on studies to address, in more detail,
many of the issues raised by the Boxworth Project (see review entry 0). TALISMAN
(Towards A Lower Input System Minimising Agrochemicals and Nitrogen) and SCARAB
(Seeking Confirmation About Results At Boxworth) complemented each other in their aims
and objectives; TALISMAN focused primarily on the economic issues of reducing pesticide
and fertiliser use, whilst SCARAB was driven by the need to examine in detail many of the
questions surrounding the ecological side-effects of pesticides. Neither TALISMAN nor
SCARAB was conceived or designed with an Integrated Farm Management (IFM) remit.
The Projects lacked many of the cultural elements of weed, pest and disease control which
are required in an IFM system. Nevertheless, TALISMAN and SCARAB share many
common features with IFM, particularly in relation to achieving economically sustainable
reductions in pesticide use.
The six-year TALISMAN project aimed to measure the economic and agronomic implications
of reducing inputs of pesticides and nitrogen fertilisers to arable crops at three locations in
England by comparing low- and high-input pesticide regimes in two contrasting arable crop
rotations. The ‘Standard Rotation’ was based entirely on autumn-sown cereals and break
crops such as winter beans and winter oilseed rape. In contrast, the ‘Alternative Rotation’
contained a high proportion of spring-sown cereals and break crops. The main pesticide
regimes applied to these rotations were either: Current Commercial Practice (CCP), with
nitrogen fertiliser and pesticides applied according to manufacturers’ recommended rates,
or, a Low Input Approach (LIA) in which nitrogen rates were applied at 50 per cent below
CCP and pesticide applications omitted or applied at no more than 50 per cent of the rates
used in CCP.
In contrast to TALISMAN, SCARAB was driven primarily by the need to make in-depth
observations on the ecological effects of pesticides. The impacts of the two levels of
pesticide use were assessed over a six-year period at three sites in England. Current Farm
Practice (CFP) mirrored the practices of a typical, technically competent and financially
aware farmer, with pesticides applied at manufacturers’ recommended rates. In comparison,
no insecticides, molluscicides or nematicides were used in the Reduced Input Approach
(RIA). Fungicides and herbicides, at reduced or full rates, were applied only where required
to avoid a significant reduction in crop yield or value. Key findings of the SCARAB Project
were as follows:
4
Defra 2002. Farming and Foods Contribution to Sustainable Development: Economic and
Statistical Analysis. Section 3. Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy: a framework for evaluation
and monitoring. Defra.
6 of 28

Short-lived effects of insecticides occurred among different groups of non-target
arthropods in all fields and all years. However, recovery usually followed within the
same season.

Long-term negative effects of the conventional pesticide regime on arthropods were
detected only in one out of eight sites, which was under a grass and wheat rotation,
and related to certain species soil-dwelling springtails (Collembola).

Pesticide effects on soil bacteria and fungi showed no clear-cut pattern and were
highly dependent on soil type and soil condition at the time of application. At one
site, there was a suggestion that the potential for microbial recycling of organic
matter was greater where reduced pesticide inputs were used.

There were no apparent long-term trends in earthworm populations, or individual
species, which could be related to pesticide use.

The complete absence of insecticides and nematicides in the SCARAB reduced-input
treatment gave a commercial disadvantage and led to reduced profits in some cases,
most noticeably in the high-value crops of potatoes and sugar beet. In practice,
however, a more flexible approach to reducing pesticide use would be adopted to
prevent reductions in profitability.
2.2
Relevance to policy
2.2.1
Energy
2.2.2
Climate change
No direct measurements of pollution were made. The reductions in nitrogen and pesticide
use investigated may have led to lower emissions of these substances to water and the
atmosphere, but this was not tested.
TALISMAN reported negative Apparent Nitrogen Balances under reduced nitrogen fertiliser
treatments, at some sites. Although this might be considered beneficial, in that excess N is
being removed from the environment, the authors consider that this is not necessarily so.
Long-term reductions in N use may result in lower soil organic matter levels and this could
lead to a deterioration in soil structure and an increased risk of soil erosion. Reductions in
soil organic matter are likely also to result in a net release of greenhouse gases, (not
discussed in report).
SCARAB found some evidence for reduced soil microbial biomass under the conventional
pesticide regime, compared to the low-input regime. There was also an indication of greater
microbial recycling of organic matter, where reduced pesticide inputs were used. The
authors suggest that reduced soil organic matter turnover in a conventional regime could
lead to an increased need for fertiliser inputs, to make up the shortfall in microbiallyprocessed nutrients. Again, there may also be implications for soil structural stability and
erosion risk, if reduced biomass and organic matter cycling lead to a less stable soil
structure. Further, an increased microbial biomass may enhance the ability of the soil to
degrade contaminants such as pesticides. These latter aspects were not discussed further
in the report.
2.2.3
Waste
Within TALISMAN and SCARAB rotations were selected to reflect current commercial
practice against a rotation containing a higher proportion of spring sown cereals and break
crops. The alternative rotation had an inherently lower demand for nitrogen and pesticides.
Pesticide use was arbitrarily cut by 50% or more or omitted altogether. Current commercial
farming follows the standard rotation with pesticide levels similar to the low input approach.
In Talisman nitrogen was applied to crops using ADAS Fertiplan and rates were by cut by
7 of 28
50% in the low input approach, soil nitrogen levels were measured and soil nitrogen balance
assessed.
2.2.4
Water
Within the project water related matters were not considered.
2.2.5
Food and farming
Economics
Economic information from the TALISMAN project was extensive, less so in SCARAB and
limited in RISC.
TALISMAN

The arbitrary 50% reduction in nitrogen fertiliser use was unprofitable, yields were
lowered on average by 11% and gross margins were down by 9% (£64/ha).

As expected, the Standard Rotation (winter crops) was more profitable (+15%,
average).

Crop yields were generally reduced by the low-input regime (e.g. by -6% in winter
wheat). However, owing to savings in variable costs, gross margins were slightly
higher in the low-input than the conventional regime (e.g. +1% in winter wheat.

Across all crops, the average gross margin of the low-input regime was 2% (£12/ha)
greater than the conventional regime.

TALISMAN concluded that whilst reducing inputs alone may not be the complete
answer to ensuring a sustainable farming system, the results demonstrated that
low-input pesticide use can be profitable.
Reduction of pesticides (the all low treatment) produced a better performance than all high,
but this masked differences between sites. Winter and spring wheat suffered from
reductions in the all low regime, whereas for other cereals, the differences varied, as did
those for other crops. Differences were relatively small, such that there would be little
incentive for a farmer to follow an all low regime, due to the increased risk of losses with
reduced pesticides.
Alternative rotations involving spring break crops and spring cereals as a departure from all
winter cropping had variable results. Whilst reductions in fertiliser were successful,
reductions in pesticides had generally negative results.
Reductions in different categories of pesticides indicated that fungicides showed the most
consistent gains in margins came from reducing fungicides.
It was emphasised that with low crop prices, the benefits of reduced inputs was relatively
greater than the higher prices of the early 1990’s. Similarly, increases in variable costs
reduced margins, but the effect was less than changes in the price of the crop.
TALISMAN underlines that yield and price are the main drivers of profit and that significant
reductions in inputs were a benefit to gross margin. Much of the practice in TALISMAN is
now common farming practice.
SCARAB
On a yield basis, RIA did well with 7% equal to CFP, 9% higher and 21% lower. On gross
margins, the result was better with 7% equal, and 46% each higher and lower than CFP,
although the average below CFP was -£70/ha and above was £43/ha. This expresses the
theme of many IFM analyses that IFM may produce similar margins to conventional systems
and it may produce a modest amount more than conventional, but it also may produce
substantially less margin.
8 of 28
The damaging effects of pesticides seem also to have been demonstrated in that yields of
untreated plots were above those of the treated in some cases and this can have a double
effect on margins, from both additional yield and lower costs.
RISC
The results from RISC bear out similar messages to those of SCARAB, TALISMAN and IFS.
Little economic information is presented, although yields and gross margins are similar or
slightly better than conventional in cereals and slightly lower in oilseed rape and potatoes.
The greatest cost benefit is claimed from reduced rates of insecticides, but because of the
limited number of occasions when used, care is needed in interpreting the results.
Food
The projects were not specifically geared towards food production.
Pesticide use
The following key points emerged in relation to TALISMAN pesticide inputs:

In terms of the number and timing of pesticide applications, the TALISMAN
conventional regime was fully representative of commercial practice. In comparison
with MAFF Pesticide Usage Survey Report (PUSR) data, the overall use of
pesticides in the commercial regime was slightly more conservative than general
commercial farm as usage indicated by the PUSR

It is recognised that over the term of the project it became increasingly common for
commercial practice for herbicides and fungicides to be applied at less than their
label rates (less so with insecticides).

It was necessary to use label rates in TALISMAN as they were deemed to be the
only ‘benchmark’ against which to assess the impact of reducing pesticide use by
50%.

Across all crops grown in TALISMAN, pesticide use was reduced by 58% (as defined
by pesticide units) in the low-input compared with the conventional regime.

An average of 6.1 pesticide units/crop were applied in the conventional regime,
compared with 2.5 in the low-input regime.

Reductions in pesticide use were obtained primarily through rate reductions, rather
than through omitting applications altogether. This was particularly true for
herbicides and fungicides, but less so for insecticides and molluscicides, where a
greater proportion of applications were omitted from the low–input regime.

Larger reductions in low input pesticide use were possible in the break crops (65%
reduction) compared with the cereal crops (57% reduction).

Within pesticide groups, herbicides comprised the largest use followed by fungicides
and insecticides/molluscicides.

The Alternative Rotation (mainly spring-sown crops), as expected, had a lower
overall demand on pesticide use than the Standard Rotation (mainly winter-sown
crops). Total pesticide units applied were 18% lower in the Alternative Rotation than
in the Standard Rotation.
The arbitrary 50% reduction in nitrogen use in the TALISMAN low-input regime, compared
with the conventional regime, were too imprecise and harmed crop yields and profitability. A
more accurate approach was called for in predicting optimum nitrogen fertiliser requirements
at individual field level.
In SCARAB, pesticides were the only inputs that varied between treatments. The pesticide
treatment regimes were broadly similar to those adopted in TALISMAN, with the crucial
exception that in the reduced input regime of SCARAB, no insecticides, molluscicides or
9 of 28
nematicides could be used because there was a need to create a difference between the
treatments in order to monitor the ecological impact of commercial pesticide use.
The conventional pesticide regimes in SCARAB and TALISMAN were also broadly
comparable, although insecticide use tended to be greater in SCARAB in order to create
contrasting treatments (primarily for the sake of the non-target arthropod studies in
SCARAB). Across all SCARAB crops, herbicide use was reduced by 44% and fungicide use
by 52% in the reduced-input regime, compared with the conventional regime. Potatoes and
sugar beet received the greatest number of active ingredient units in the conventional regime
(14.9 and 11.7 units respectively), followed by winter wheat at 8.3 units per crop.
Results from SCARAB showed that low-input pesticide use is not without economic risk.
The enforced omission of insecticides and nematicides in the reduced input regime, to fulfil
the ecological objectives of the study, gave an immediate commercial disadvantage, most
noticeably in the high–value crops of potatoes and sugar beet. Uncontrolled pest problems,
together with a build-up in weed populations, were the main factors associated with loss in
revenue in SCARAB. However, as in TALISMAN, carefully managed reductions in fungicide
use appeared to offer financial benefits without compromising yield or income. In practice, a
more flexible and integrated approach than that used in SCARAB would be adopted to
achieve reductions in pesticide use, without compromising farm profitability.
Schemes
Much of the information from these projects formed the database from which modern
support schemes were based.
2.2.6
Resource protection
Land
The information from these
management of land
projects form a major part of the database on sustainable
Soil
Cultivations were not assessed within the project. There is some data on soil nitrogen
balances in the TALISMAN project.
Biodiversity
Talisman monitored non-target arthropods, soil nematodes and weed seedbanks, although
the main themes of this project are economic and agronomic. Small plots were used. RISC
was a study parallel to Talisman and carried out in Northern Ireland.
Scarab has a larger scale design and the report explains that this is more suited to
ecological evaluation. The project considers non-target arthropods, soil microbiology and
earthworms.
Talisman included a large proportion of spring crops, as these have lower input
requirements. The report notes that this could have a positive effect on bird numbers.
Talisman revealed very few effects of pesticides on non-target arthropods but it is made
clear that the experimental design is not ideal for such evaluations. Where numbers were
reduced these recovered within 3 months, although there was a suggestion that one
chemical (methiocarb) could have more persistent effects.
Scarab found that, overall, the effects of rotations and annual variation on non-target
arthropods was greater than effects from pesticides. There were some short term effects.
The work confirmed findings from Boxworth that repeated use of organophosphorus
insecticides in successive seasons can cause long term declines in certain arthropods –
although it is noted that such consecutive use is uncommon in the UK.
10 of 28
Springtails were the only soil invertebrates to show long term adverse effects. Although the
species of springtails affected by pesticide use represented a small proportion of total
species monitored, these species are usually very abundant. The importance of these
effects is difficult to assess but they are classed as ‘potentially serious’. It is stated that the
particular rotation and pattern of chemical use that caused most declines is unlikely to occur
widely in the UK.
This work highlighted the effects of pesticides on a range of invertebrates. The wider
implications are mentioned and it suggests that other aspects of IFM, such as crop rotations,
may have important implications for invertebrate numbers.
Landscape
No specific references.
3
LINK INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS
Final Project Report, January 2000, Ed. Ogilvy, S.
3.1
Summary
The LINK Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) project was established in 1992 on six farms
situated in the main arable farming areas in the UK: covering Hampshire (Manydown),
Cambridgeshire (Boxworth and Sacrewell), Herefordshire (Lower Hope), Yorkshire (High
Mowthorpe) and Midlothian (Pathhead). The five-year study was completed in after harvest
in 1997. The aim of the project was to develop an arable integrated system of production
that maintained profitability with a different balance of inputs and reduced environmental
impact than current conventional systems. There were no specific targets for nitrogen or
pesticide use. The integrated system was designed to grow crops in ways that minimised
the need for pesticide and fertiliser inputs.
At each site, approximately 50 ha of land was divided into five main blocks. Each block was
sub-divided into two field plots so that the integrated system of production could be
compared with a conventional reference. A five-year crop rotation relevant to each location
was adopted at each site. Practices adopted in the integrated system included: targeted and
selective pesticide use at appropriate rates based on crop monitoring; nutrient inputs
balanced with crop requirements, soil reserves and uptakes; a range of cultural control
measures including the use of resistant varieties and cultivation techniques to minimise
weeds. At some sites, field margins were also managed to encourage biodiversity,
especially in relation to beneficial predators and parasites of crop pests.
It was concluded that there is no fixed ‘blueprint’ for integrated systems, methods must
instead be adopted to fit local, site-specific, circumstances. To make best use of the IFS
results it was suggested that farmers would need to identify trial sites most appropriate to
their own farming situation in order to identify which integrated techniques they could
successfully adopt.
3.2
3.2.1
Relevance to policy
Energy
Savings of 8.5% in total energy use, (direct and indirect), were made by implementing an
integrated management approach. This was reported as equivalent to 34 litres/ha diesel. or
91 kg/ha emitted CO2. Savings in energy use were achieved by adopting less intensive
cultivations, reductions in fertiliser use and the inclusion of N-fixing legumes into the
integrated rotation. There were no significant differences between conventional and IFS on
energy input per kilogram of crop yield basis.
11 of 28
3.2.2
Climate change
No calculations of GHG or CO2 emissions were included in the final report but figures can
be extrapolated from included data. The integrated management rotations used an average
of 28 kg/ha/y or 20% less nitrogen fertiliser than the conventional. This is equal to 187.3 kg
of carbon equivalent. Over all sites, the integrated system had 3 kg/ha or 4% less soil
mineral N remaining in the autumn than the conventional system. The maximum reduction
recorded was 27% at one site. Where spring crops in the integrated system replaced winter
crops in the conventional system, the spring crops generally left behind significantly less soil
mineral nitrogen than the winter crops.
The overall phosphate input to the integrated system was 86% of the conventional system,
(50 compared to 58 kg P2O5/ha) equal to 0.56 kg carbon equivalent. Soil analysis showed a
downward trend in soil phosphorus status for both systems over the five years of the study,
significant in the case of the integrated system.
3.2.3
Waste
No direct measurements of nutrient or pesticide losses were made but the need for inputs
were carefully assessed. The requirement for crop protection inputs were determined by
regular crop walking and use of thresholds and crop monitoring systems, where appropriate.
When a need was established, the most selective chemical was applied at an appropriate
rate to optimise the effectiveness and efficiency of the treatment, whilst minimising potential
environmental impact. Nitrogen fertiliser recommendations for the conventional system were
based on good farm practice using a fertiliser planning programme (ADAS Fertiplan). The
recommendations obtained were modified for the integrated system on the basis of field
measurements of soil mineral nitrogen reserves
3.2.4
Water
Assessments of water quality were not included in the project.
3.2.5
Food and farming
Economics
IACS payments and local crop prices were the basis of returns for each site. Production
margins were calculated from gross output less variable costs and operational costs, the
latter derived from Nix5 and ADAS data. Gross margin as a percentage of gross output was
79.9% for IFS and 78.8% for conventional. This is a very high score, where a good farm will
approach 80%. The economics of such IFS studies should be viewed over the whole
rotation, and ideally several cycles of the rotation
Food
The crops selected for the conventional and integrated rotations were commonly grown
suited to the soil type and climatic conditions. Wheat was the predominant crop with a
higher number of leguminous and spring sown crops in the integrated rotation.
Pesticide use
The greatest reductions in integrated pesticide use were achieved with fungicides and
insecticides, in contrast with a relatively higher use of herbicides. Inputs of pesticides were
measured in a number of ways: cost in £/ha; pesticide units applied (where 1 unit = 1 full
label-rate application); and weight of active ingredient applied per hectare. The reductions in
pesticide use achieved in the integrated regime, corresponded to 31% less cost, 32% fewer
units and 18% less active ingredient, compared with the conventional inputs of £103/ha, 6.8
units/ha and 5.93 kg/ha. The number of times the sprayer had to go into the field was also
5
Nix, J (year as dated). Farm Management Pocket Book. Imperial College at Wye.
12 of 28
reduced by 26% (1.2 fewer passes per hectare) in the integrated regime. There were no
measurable increases in pest, disease or weed problems where inputs were reduced.
However, weed control strategies did evolve to avoid the build-up of weeds associated with
minimum tillage or delayed spring weed control. Care was needed in managing the
integrated inputs to avoid this problem.
The integrated rotations subsequently used 20% less nitrogen (28 kg/ha/year) than the
conventional. Integrated spring crops reduced nitrogen leaching risk by leaving less nitrogen
in the soil than their winter-sown equivalents in the conventional rotation. Other basal
elements (P and K) were usually applied on a rotational basis to maintain soil fertility at an
acceptable level.
Additional operational input costs arose in the integrated system as a result of mechanical
weeding, mechanical pre-harvest treatments (e.g. flailing of potato haulm), and
establishment/maintenance of cover crops and set-aside cover, particularly where the latter
was put in place for wildlife or environmental benefits (e.g. green cover to minimise nitrate
leaching or to provide bird-friendly habitat). However, the overall total operational costs
were lower in the integrated system on four of the sites and little different on the remaining
two sites. The greatest difference in cultivation input costs between the conventional and
integrated systems was observed at Boxworth, where the adoption of a ‘one-pass’
non-inversion cultivation technique to establish wheat reduced costs by an average of
£21/ha/year. For all sites, total costs of input application (agrochemicals and fertiliser) were
always lower in the integrated system.
Finally, inputs in time and costs of managing an integrated system were not specifically
monitored during the Project. As part of a subsidiary study, it was estimated, that up to 50%
more time was likely to be spent in crop walking and decision making in an integrated
system. However, it was considered that this time would probably reduce as practitioners
gained experience and confidence in managing integrated systems.
Schemes
Set-aside was included in both the conventional and integrated rotations. The use of spring
cropping is relevant to the current environmental schemes and data from lower fertiliser use
is relevant to nitrate sensitive areas.
3.2.6
Resource protection
Sustainable management of land
The project aim was to develop an integrated system that maintained profitability with a
different balance of inputs and reduced environmental impact than current conventional
systems.
Soil
Within the project the use of inorganic nitrogen was optimised by efficient management of
inputs and specific husbandry procedures were used to minimise nitrogen. Rotations and
cover crops were used to build up and retain soil nitrogen. Crop residues were incorporated
to minimise nutrient offtake at some sites. Soil mineral nitrogen levels were used to modify
applied nitrogen levels.
Within the integrated rotation less intensive cultivations were used to maintain soil structure
and reduce erosion.
Biodiversity
The abstract lists the practices used on the IFS sites, and does not include consideration of
landscape, habitat or biodiversity. These elements are included in the definitions of IFS
quoted in the report and their exclusion is explained in the discussion as being due to the
experimental design limiting opportunities for the manipulation of habitats. Table 2.3 in
13 of 28
Appendix E lists the practices undertaken to encourage biodiversity on individual
experimental sites.
Biodiversity is considered mainly indirectly in terms of populations of beneficial invertebrates
(beetles, spiders and earthworms). Good explanations are given as to why these animals
should be good bio-indicators and it is explained that they complete their life-cycles within
the field or field boundaries.
The LINK IFS study found variations in numbers and diversity of these invertebrates
(spiders, beetles and earthworms) across the sites, but these were related to many factors,
and the least of these was the farming system involved. Appendix M suggests that a more
effective method of measuring environmental impact is required.
Spring crops were found to be less favourable to beetles and spiders. From the wider
biodiversity point of view, spring crops are considered to supply useful nesting sites for some
farmland birds (e.g. skylarks) and most of these birds will need access to insects for chick
food. It may, however, be that the reduction in invertebrate numbers is related to the type
studied.
Non-inversion tillage did not result in a demonstrable gain in invertebrate numbers but the
author again suggests that this may be due to the type of animal monitored.
This wide ranging report states that its investigations of the effects on biodiversity of the
treatments used are necessarily limited by experimental design. It does, nevertheless,
include some discussion on wildlife conservation issues. Many of the operations undertaken
may have biodiversity effects not directly discussed in the report. Where these are positive
effects (such as reduced applications of chemicals in spring crops) the report could influence
the industry by promoting the agricultural benefits, with the conservation benefits also being
achieved.
Landscape
There is limited reference to landscape within the project but the integrated system allows
maintenance of the landscape with reduced environmental effects.
4
SUSTAINABLE ARABLE FARMING FOR AN IMPROVED ENVIRONMENT (SAFFIE)
Clarke, J.H., Cook, S.K., Harris, D., Wiltshire, J.J.J., Henderson, I.G., Jones, N.E.,
Boatman, N.D., Potts, S.G., Westbury, D.B., Woodcock, B.A., Ramsay, A.J.,
Pywell, R.F., Goldsworthy, P.E., Holland, J.M., Smith, B.M., Tipples, J., Morris, A.J.,
Chapman, P. and Edwards, P. (2007). The SAFFIE Project Report. ADAS,
Boxworth, UK.
4.1
Summary
The Sustainable Arable Farming For an Improved Environment (SAFFIE) project (20022006) was sponsored by Defra, SEERAD and Natural England through the Sustainable
Arable LINK programme, with 50% of the funding coming from industrial partners. The
project was developed during a period of competing economic and environmental pressures,
arable farmers were moving towards optimising inputs and improving efficiency, but the UK
had a commitment to increase biodiversity, especially farmland bird populations. The
SAFFIE project aimed to reconcile these pressures by quantifying costs and environmental
benefits of new techniques for farmers and policy-makers. The following objectives were
central to the project:

to manipulate agronomy of wheat to increase biodiversity;

to manage margin vegetation to maximise biodiversity;

to assess the integrated effects of ‘best’ crop and margin management practices;

to conduct a cost:benefit analysis of the best practices;
14 of 28

to interact with the farming community to focus the work and promote findings;
The project evaluated practical techniques to improve biodiversity in the cropping
environment by quantifying the impact of the techniques on key species of birds, grasses
and flowering plants, bees, butterflies, beetles, bugs, flies, grasshoppers, subsoil
invertebrates and spiders and the economics of the techniques.
The project was divided into 4 experiments:
Experiment 1.1
investigated the impacts of novel habitat management on the in-crop biodiversity of wintersown wheat crops at 10 sites during 2002 and 2003.
On each site, wheat crops were established with three treatments:

CONV: The experimental control, conventional husbandry with normal row spacing
and management.

UP: Undrilled Patches established at a density of two undrilled patches per ha; with
the dimensions of each individual undrilled patch (PA) being approximately 4 m x 4
m.

WSR: Wide-spaced drill rows sown at double the normal width.
The key findings from this experiment were as follows:

the experimental treatments mostly failed to deliver consistent increases in bird-food
abundance or biomass, although a few invertebrate species or families were more
abundant in the UP treatment.

at the field-scale, treatments had few effects on vegetation. However, at a local level
within the UP treatments, differences in vegetation cover, structure and seed
production were often marked, although there was variation between sites and years.
Compared to the surrounding crop, the vegetation in PAs was shorter, sparser and
patchier, with higher weed cover including species important in the diet of birds. The
vegetative structure of PAs was likely to have substantially increased access to the
chick-food resources that were present. Probably as a result of this, in the UP
treatment, skylark territory densities were higher (particularly in the crucial lateseason breeding period) and the number of skylark chicks reared was nearly 50%
greater than in the CONV treatment.

the WSR treatment provided some wildlife benefits (particularly for skylarks) but
effects were not as consistent or as pronounced as for the UP treatment and a yield
decrease was noted on some sites.
The success of the UP treatment for skylarks suggested that, if widely adopted alongside
other ‘skylark-friendly’ options (e.g. overwintered stubbles to provide the other resources
needed for skylarks to complete their life-cycle), it could benefit skylark populations. In
England (which has most of the UK arable land with wintersown rotations), this measure is
now available as the ‘Skylark Plots’ option in the Environmental Stewardship Scheme,
providing funding for farmers wishing to introduce Skylark Plots to their winter cereal fields.
However, take-up so far has been low (<3% agreements at the end of 2006), as it does not
accrue a high point total or have the familiarity of management associated with some
Stewardship options. The successful development and experimental testing of the UP
treatment, and subsequent, rapid integration into national agricultural policy, represents a
rare example of a targeted and practicable conservation initiative which could protect the
population of a widespread, but declining, species throughout much of its range. The
development and deployment of such ‘smart’ research-based schemes, along with continued
financial support of agri-environment schemes, represents the only practical way that the UK
Government can reach its 2020 target to reverse farmland bird declines.
15 of 28
Experiment 1.2
looked at the combination of herbicide treatments, row spacing and mechanical hoeing at
three sites between 2002 and 2004. The aim was to maximise the diversity of plant species
and associated insects within wheat crops without compromising yield.
The study combined a range of herbicide treatments with three row spacing and cultivation
treatments. Herbicide treatments varied between sites depending on the expected weed
spectrum. Some overall sprays were made to the sites where the predominant weed would
have swamped the experiment eg black-grass at Boxworth. The range of herbicide
treatments applied included 'untreated', 'full weed control' and a range of pre-emergence,
post-emergence and spring herbicides which were applied in combination or individually.
Assessments were made of vegetation cover, arthropod abundance and yield
The key findings were as follows:

the use of wide-spaced rows significantly reduced yield by 4% compared to
conventional spacing. Using a spring cultivation with the wide-spaced rows
significantly reduced yield by 4% over wide-spaced rows alone. Yields were
significantly lower in untreated plots compared to those that received herbicides in
five of the nine site and year combinations. However, differences between herbicide
treatments were only recorded at one site in one year.

there were few effects of the spacing/cultivation treatments on either vegetation or
arthropods; where differences were recorded, the effects were not consistent across
sites or years.

Herbicide treatment had a significant effect on all individual weed species and
groupings analysed. Generally, single product applications left more plant cover than
sequences; generally different sequences controlled weeds equally effectively, In
most cases, of treatments receiving herbicide, a spring application of amidosulfuron
allowed the most weeds to survive. Where desirable species remained, undesirable
species were sometimes poorly controlled, but in cases where Galium aparine
(cleavers) was the most important undesirable species, a spring application of
amidosulfuron effectively controlled this species, but left appreciable cover of
desirable species. Effects of herbicide on seed production were similar to those on
weed cover.

There was variation in the degree to which arthropod groups were affected by
differences in vegetation cover under differing herbicide regimes, but untreated plots
usually supported greatest arthropod populations, and herbicide sequences the
lowest. Of the single herbicide applications, arthropod abundance was generally
highest where there was a spring application of amidosulfuron, benefiting a range of
groups including nectar feeders, omnivores, Diptera, Heteroptera and species
comprising skylark food items

Weed cover and arthropod abundance were only related where weed cover was
relatively high (>25% on untreated plots), as were the species assemblages. The
species composition of the weed assemblage was affected by herbicide application;
most applications reduced the complexity of the weed spectrum. In contrast with the
weed community, the species assemblage of the arthropods responded to row
spacing and cultivation. At Gleadthorpe in 2003, wide-spaced, cultivated rows
supported a greater proportion of beetles, bugs and spiders, which are all
components of chick food.

it is possible to increase weed cover by the use of selective herbicides and this can
result in positive benefits for wider biodiversity. However, management must be site
specific and reactive and this approach is not appropriate where pernicious weeds
are common or where herbicide resistance is present.
16 of 28
Experiment 2
looked at the margin management needed to optimise biodiversity.
Three grass seed mixtures, a simple countryside stewardship mixture (CS), a mixture of
tussock grasses and flowers (TG) and a mixture of fine-leafed grasses and flowers (FG)
were sown as 6 m wide margins, at three sites between October 2001 and March 2002.
Three different spring management treatments (cutting, scarification and a low rate of a
selective graminicide) were applied annually in March between 2003 and 2006.
Invertebrates, plants and birds were monitored both in the margins and in the crop adjacent
to the margins.
The key findings were as follows:

Weeds and pests did not move from the margin into the adjacent crop.

Plant species diversity in margins decreased over the five years, regardless of seed
mix and treatment.

Plots sown with a seed mix of fine grasses and wild flowers generally had the
greatest abundance of reproductive resources (buds, flowers, seed/fruit) and plots
sown with a grass seed mix generally had the lowest values.

Compared with other margin management treatments, margins scarified in
March/April had:

- the greatest percentages of bare ground (21%, compared to 3% with cutting
and 4% with graminicide),
- enhanced plant species diversity at some sites,
- plant diversities converging between margins sown with different seed mixes,
- lower values of architectural complexity (especially of the dead litter, fine grass
and legume components),
- reduced values of reproductive resources.
In margins that had an application of a graminicide, plant communities included more
sown wildflower species than margins that were scarified or cut.
Invertebrates

The grass seed mix provided a good resource for those invertebrate species that are
dependent on sward architectural complexity; however, it is a poor resource for
phytophagous species, particularly where their host plants are wildflowers.

A seed mix of tussocky grasses and wild flowers provided an architecturally complex
sward and host plants vital for many invertebrate species.

For a variety of invertebrate taxa there was evidence that abundance and species
richness will reach a maximum 2–3 years after margin establishment.

Sowing a diverse seed mixture of perennial wildflowers was the most effective means
of creating foraging habitat for bees and butterflies on arable field margins. Inclusion
of forbs in the seed mixture resulted in increases in abundance and diversity of pollen
and nectar resources, bumblebees and butterflies.

Invertebrate species that required either an architecturally complex sward or dense
grass responded poorly to scarification, e.g. planthoppers, spiders and Symphyta/
Lepidoptera larvae. In contrast, improved establishment of some wildflower species
in response to scarification benefited some phytophagous invertebrates, e.g. weevils
and leaf beetles.

In scarified margins there were fewer species and lower abundances of isopods than
in other margins. Species assemblages in the scarified plots consisted of species
commonly associated with cropped or exposed habitats.
17 of 28

Graminicide application is a practical option for enhancing the value of the large area
of species-poor grass margins for pollinators.
Birds

For birds, margin sward content in terms of the grass/flower mix, was best managed
to encourage beetles (especially Carabidae) and spiders (Arachnidae).
Experiment 3
looked at the best combination of crop and margin management.
The best treatments from Experiments 1.1 and Experiment 2 were evaluated in winter wheat
crops on 26 commercial farms in England and Scotland, beginning in 2004. Undrilled
patches were established on all sites as the best within-crop option from Experiment 1.1.
Two margin types, tussock grasses + flowers (TG) and fine grasses + flowers (FG) were
used on each site in equal lengths. The best margin management treatment from
Experiment 2, scarification, was tested in the spring, in 2005 and 2006.
On each of 26 farms, located on typical arable farms in England and Scotland, the four
treatments comprising of: (1) conventional wheat and no margins; (2) wheat with undrilled
patches and margins; (3) conventional wheat and margins; (4) wheat with undrilled patches
and no margins. Experiment 3 covered a total area of 856 ha, located on predominantly claybased soil types, with between 25 and 45 ha on each individual farm. Crop rotations were
predominantly winter cropped (70%) with first and second wheat the most common crops. A
range of break crops was grown including, winter oilseed rape, barley, peas, onions and
potatoes, and set-aside was included in some rotations. All crops were managed by the host
farmer, using typical management for the location and season.
In spring 2003, 28 km of margin were sown on the sites between 18 March and 26 May.
Drilling was delayed in Scotland due to wet weather. Margins were 6 m wide and accounted
for 4% of the field area in which they were drilled. After an establishment year, margins were
scarified in spring 2004 by cultivation with a power harrow to a depth of 2.5 cm to achieve a
target of 60% disturbance of the soil surface area.
The key findings were as follows:

There was no evidence of adverse effects on crop weed, pest or disease levels from
incorporating margins and undrilled patches into a winter dominated arable rotation.

For all species and species groups, bird densities and territories were consistently
higher (1.3 - 2.8 times) in fields with margins (4% of field area) and two undrilled
patches per hectare than in fields with a conventional crop. This response was also
consistent for Farmland Bird Index species and Biodiversity Action Plan species, for
which farmland recovery is particularly desirable. Factors that affected these
increases in density and population size included: (a) in margins, the combined
elements of higher beetle and spider abundances, and more complex swards, and
(b) in wheat crops, the presence of undrilled patches (large-scale open ground) and
bare ground at a fine-scale and at foraging locations. In crops, there were only weak
links to invertebrate abundance.

Creating bare ground and foraging access in dense crops and field margins was the
single most important management treatment to give the 1.3 –2.8 times increase in
bird densities and breeding territories for both field and boundary nesting species.
Open ground can be achieved at relatively low cost by scarification in margins, and
by creating undrilled patches in wheat crops. For birds, margin sward content in
terms of the grass/flower mix, was best managed to encourage beetles (especially
carabidae) and spiders (Arachnidae).

Overall the sown margins and UPs had relatively few effects on the numbers of
invertebrates within the crop and, therefore, the abundance of food available to
18 of 28
farmland birds. There was some evidence that invertebrates were remaining within
the margins rather than dispersing into the adjacent crop. The low levels of weeds
within the crop may also have limited colonisation by phytophagous invertebrates
and their associated predators. Conversely, invertebrate predation may have been
higher where margins and patches were present, so that the effects of the margins
were obscured.

There were indications that where undrilled patches and margins were present in the
same field, skylarks experienced reduced breeding success and productivity than in
conventionally managed wheat. This was attributed to increased mammalian
predator activity. It is recommended that undrilled patches should not be situated
within 50 m of a margin.
Cost-benefit analysis
A key objective of SAFFIE was a financial costing of the novel measures evaluated during
the project. The cost:benefit analysis used in this process was unconventional, as although
management incurred financial costs, some of which may be remunerable through agrienvironment schemes (AES), measures of benefit (e.g. biodiversity, ascetics), were not
necessarily financially tangible. The costs and benefits varied between sites and years, so
some are shown as ranges rather than absolute values. We assessed the costs and benefits
of within-crop measures, undrilled patches (UP) and wide-spaced drill rows (WSR), using a
range of yields, crop prices and any additional costs. The key findings were:

UP receiving ELS payments were found to be profitable under all scenarios, were
generally regarded by farmers as easy to create and were beneficial to birds. Reports
of pernicious weed infestations, such as black-grass were rare but UP may be
unsuitable (for crops and biodiversity) in fields where herbicide-resistant weeds are a
known agronomic problem.

Despite the potential of UP to deliver a cheap but effective solution for skylarks, takeup in ELS has been poor. It is likely that they will need to be further incentivised in
future AES reviews to attain a level of take-up that may be beneficial at the
population level.

WSR generally incurred minimal husbandry penalties, although some farmers
reported that setting up of equipment to adjust drill row width was time consuming.
However, in commercial situations, crops would invariably be sown at the same row
width, negating the need for adjustments. WSR are not currently eligible for AES
payments. WSR had some biodiversity benefits compared to conventionally
managed wheat but were not as consistently beneficial as UP. 637

Weed control strategies using mechanical methods (row spacing and hoeing
between rows) did not encourage the germination of beneficial or rare plant species
or associated arthropods and are therefore not recommended.

Weed control strategies using a single application of amidosulfuron in the spring,
indicated that, in some fields with low populations of pernicious weeds, there might
be scope to reduce or alter herbicide use (and thus input costs) without either
significantly decreasing yields or increasing non-desirable weeds.

Field margins established with wildflowers in the seed mixes were ten times more
expensive than grass-only seed mixes commonly used in AES such as Countryside
Stewardship and ELS. Seeds of some wildflowers, sown at low seed rates due to
their expense, also suffered from poor establishment. However, biodiversity benefits
of including wildflowers in seed mixes, measured at the plant community level, are
great.

The costs of creating margins using the SAFFIE seed mixes are unlikely to be met by
current AES payments for grass buffer strips. Simplification of seed mixes, via the
19 of 28
removal of species that rarely established, could reduce the cost of establishing
wildflower margins while retaining the greater biodiversity benefits. However, such
calculations are still highly sensitive to the price of wheat. Additional AES payments
for floristic enhancement of margins are likely to be required if take-up is to be
substantially improved.

The three margin management techniques had similar costs that were insubstantial
compared to the costs of the seed mixes, although spraying with a selective
herbicide incurs time penalties due to the small areas involved. Costs varied with
field size and shape. The novel treatments (scarification and selective graminicide)
had considerably greater biodiversity benefits than mowing; the method currently
prescribed to manage margin swards in most AES.

There was no evidence that margins encouraged weeds or diseases to spread into
the crop. Additional management, e.g. spot-spraying, was occasionally required to
control undesirable weeds within the margins.
4.2
4.2.1
Relevance to policy
Energy
No measurements of energy use were made in the project
4.2.2
Climate change
No specific references to climate change were made.
4.2.3
Waste
There is no direct consideration of waste in this project.
4.2.4
Water
No measurements of water use or quality were made in the project.
4.2.5
Food and farming
Economics
Costings within the project have been specific to undrilled patches (UP) and margins. UP
occupy only 0.5% of the cropped area which accounts for only £2/ha crop loss, additional
costs of spraying oput the plots with herbicides and extra weed control can raise the cost to
£2-12/ha. Skylark plots are worth 10 points/ha (£10/ha/yr)in Defra’s Entry level Stewardship
scheme.
Establishing the flower rich margin mixtures used in the project cost £1,200-1,400/ha,
considerably more than the Countryside stewardship mixture (£224/ha). Many of the sown
species did not germinate. Spread over 5 years the cost of improved margins equated to
£524-840/ha. The 6m buffer strip option on cultivated land (EE3) is worth 400 points/ha/year.
The increased wheat prices has made losses to farmers greater and the current schemes
need to increase payments to encourage greater uptake.
Food
Information from the project relates to wheat production and is relevant to the majority of
crop production in the UK.
Pesticide use
Crops within the project were grown to standards outlined in Arable Cropping and the
Environment – a guide (HGCA, 2002).
20 of 28
Schemes
The SAFFIE project showed that farmers could adopt simple measures to enhance arable
biodiversity. Undrilled patches and margins are available in both the Entry level and higher
level schemes. Techniques for margin management such as scarification and graminicides
application were shown to be beneficial and can be used when permissions are sought from
Natural England
4.2.6
Resource protection
Land
This project is aimed primarily at increasing biodiversity in crop and non-cropped margins to
develop more sustainable arable farming.
Soil
Aspects of soil management, soil physical and chemical status were not covered in the
project.
Biodiversity
SAFFIE was a large scale mulit-disciplinary project. Its primary consideration was
maintenance of profitable commercial arable farming. The inclusion of undrilled patches and
field margins allowed commercial farming to continue undisturbed. Bird, insect and plant,
numbers were monitored both within the field and in the margins. Integrating skylark plots
with scarified grass margins, grown with a grass/wildflower mix resulted in a three to four fold
increase in numbers of BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) and FBI (Farmland Bird Index) bird
species compared to a wheat crop without margins. This increase was attributed to better
access into the crop and field rather than an increased food supply.
In the margins, bird numbers responded positively to margin scarification or graminicide
treatment, compared with cutting the tussock grass and wildflower mix because this
encouraged a higher prey density particularly of ground beetles.
Inclusion of wildflowers in the seed mixture resulted in the largest increases in abundance
and diversity of pollen and nectar resources, bumblebees and butterflies. Margin
management effects were secondary: soil disturbance by scarification increased diversity of
flowering plants; graminicide application reduced competition from grasses, and increased
flower abundance and species richness of bees. Sowing a diverse seed mixture of perennial
forbs is the most effective means of creating foraging habitat for bees and butterflies on
arable field margins. Graminicide application was a practical, low cost option for enhancing
the value of species-poor grass margins for pollinators
Whilst mammal numbers were not directly recorded, the presence of the skylark plots close
to margins saw an increase in predation by a range of mammals on skylark nests. The
predation of species nesting in hedges was not affected. The presence of margins has
increased access to the fields for all species not just those monitored.
Landscape
The SAFFIE project has shown that famers can adopt a number of simple measures to
enhance arable biodiversity; these measures maintain and improve the living landscape
5
LIFE
Defra (2002) Integrated and lower input crop management. CE0175 (-32) Project Report,
Defra, London.
Defra (2003) LIFE, Effect of ploughing after non-inversion tillage. AR0907 Final project
report, Defra, London
21 of 28
5.1
Summary
The less intensive Farming and Environment (LIFE) project began in 1989 for 12 years and
occupied approximately 23 ha at Long Ashton, near Bristol. The project compared integrated
arable cropping (IFS) with standard farm practice (SFP). Plot size was relatively large (1
hectare). The objectives were as follows:

to reduce agrochemical inputs and costs and increase the environmental safety
of growing arable crops; to decrease carry over of pests, diseases and weeds by
modifying cropping sequences and agronomic practices;
 to conserve nitrogen in the system, reduce demand for external nitrogen and
diminish the potential for nitrate leaching; to protect and conserve natural
enemies of key pests and diseases and reduce the potential need for pesticides;
 to encourage an active soil flora and fauna, including earthworms, by the use of
alternative soil management methods, e.g. non-inversion tillage;
 to specifically target weed control as one of the main limiting factors, by
integration of chemical and mechanical methods of control with crop rotation;
 to assess the impact of integrated production systems on the environment by
monitoring changes in functions and densities of a number of bio-indicators:
epigeal arthropods (carabid and staphylinid beetles, linyphiid spiders), earthworm
biomass and on soils (soil erosion, diffuse pollution/emissions of nutrients and
pesticides.
The project was initially divided into 2 phases, phase I (1990-1994), phase II (1995-2001).
After harvest 2001 12 of the 14 previously non-inversion tilled (NIT) plots were split and one
half ploughed whilst the other remained in non-inversion tillage.
The SFP plots were ploughed annually and received inputs according to Good Agricultural
Practice (GFP) aiming to imitate a conventional farming system. The IFS plots had crops
established annually with non-inversion tillage and received crop inputs according to crop
needs and disease/pest thresholds.
5.2
5.2.1
Relevance to policy
Energy
Total energy use of each system was measured (MJ/ha) and the energy to produce 1 tonne
of grain (MJ/t). Energy use in machinery operations was 13% less in the integrated system
during the second phase and 20% less energy was needed to produce 1 tonne of grain.
5.2.2
Climate change
Diesel use was 13% lower in the integrated system than the conventional system, whilst CO 2
emissions from the integrated systems were 14% lower for machinery used and 33% lower
for crop protection inputs (including fertiliser).
5.2.3
Waste
There was no direct consideration of waste in this project.
5.2.4
Water
Monitoring was done for 2 years on selected nutrients and herbicides in drain water from
both conventional and integrated fields. Isoproturon was only detected in the conventional
system. Total oxidised nitrogen levels and soluble phosphate were >82% and 52-88% lower
respectively than the conventional system. Nitrate leaching was also lower in the integrated
system.
22 of 28
5.2.5
Food and farming
Economics
An overall saving of £15/ha was gained by using an integrated non-inversion tillage
approach compared to a conventional plough based system, this equated to 38 minutes/ha
or 20 man days on a 250 ha farm for autumn crop establishment. Over a 7-year period
fertiliser inputs were reduced by 34%, herbicides by 38%, fungicides by 69% and pesticides
by 69%, a cost of £59/ha. Yields were 8% lower but gross margins increased by 6%
because of lower variable and operational costs in the integrated system.
Food
Information from the project relates to wheat production and is relevant to the majority of
crop production in the UK.
Pesticide use
Overall pesticide inputs were reduced due to interactions of cultivation method, sowing
depth, use of resistant varieties and changes in sowing date. Herbicide use was reduced by
38%, fungicides and insecticides by 69%, adjutants 22% and plant growth regulators 100%.
Schemes
Schemes were not considered within the project.
5.2.6
Resource protection
Land
This project was aimed primarily at developing a less-intensive integrated arable production
system.
Soil
The project resulted in a 27% reduction in applied nitrogen over the 7-year period in the
integrated rotation compared with the conventional. Compaction levels were lower in the
integrated system leading to only 10% of fields needing sub-soiling. Organic matter levels
were also higher in the integrated system. Soil erosion was reduced in the integrated system
when compared to the ploughed conventional field
Biodiversity.
Earthworm populations were higher in the integrated fields, equivalent to 38% increase in
earthworm biomass over the 12 year period when compared to conventionally farmed soil.
Greater populations of polyphagous predators were present in the integrated crops than in
the conventional system.
In the follow on experiment where cultivation regimes were reversed earthworm populations
decreased where the plough was used. Earthworm populations began to increase when
ploughing was ceased.
Landscape
Crop rotation and cropping sequences were selected to diversify the crop species present at
any one time. Field margins were included to encourage biodiversity. Hedgerows and trees
occupied 4.7% of the farm and this combined with grass/farm tracks and sown field margins
totalled 8.7% of the farmed area.
6
FOCUS ON FARMING PRACTICE (FOFP)
Anon (2002) Focus on farming practice – The case for integrated farm management.
23 of 28
6.1
Summary
Focus on Farming practice (FOFP) commenced in 1993 in response to the anticipated
decline in farm profitability and increasing awareness of environmental concerns about
agriculture. It was sponsored by Agrovista UK Ltd, Farmcare and Hydro Agro (UK) Ltd and
located on a 60ha site at the Stoughton Estate in Leicestershire. The project compared
integrated farming directly with conventional farming systems over a 9 year rotation that
included grass leys to reflect mixed farming as well as all arable systems. The rotation
comprised of a two-year grass ley, winter wheat, set-aside, winter wheat, winter beans and
winter wheat. Comparisons were also made with adjacent organic land.
The key findings were:
 Under the Integrated farming system cultivation costs were 16% lower with 1.3 less
passes than the conventional and produced comparable profits to the conventional
system.
 Fertiliser costs were similar between the two systems but efficiency of nitrogen use
was improved and nitrogen rates decreased under the integrated system.
 Crop protection costs were 30% lower in the integrated system, even under a
minimum cultivation regime.
 Management time inputs were higher in the integrated system.
 Pesticide inputs were nearly halved in the integrated system, nitrogen leaching
reduced. This was reflected in higher earthworm, beetle and bird numbers.
 Highlighted the importance of headge and field margin management as they
accounted for 80% of the biodiversity within the farmed environment.
In the early years of the project the integrated system benefitted from lower cultivation and
operational costs and targeted use of inputs. In more recent years the costs of the two
systems converged as the conventional system adopted many of the integrated techniques
to reduce costs.
6.2
6.2.1
Relevance to policy
Energy
Minimum tillage and direct drilling were maximised in the integrated system which lead to
cost savings. The two systems tended to merge over time with the purchase of a cultivator
drill which minimised cultivations in the conventional system. Cultivations were done more
quickly on the integrated system and used less power. Average cultivation costs for wheat
were £15/ha less in the integrated. Number of cultivations per field was 1.3 lower in the
integrated system. Measurements of kilowatt hours per tonne of crop were made for each
system, 67 hours were required for the integrated crop and 78 hours for the conventional.
6.2.2
Climate change
No reference to climate change was made within the project.
6.2.3
Waste
There was no direct consideration of waste in this project.
6.2.4
Water
The nitrate content of drainage water was measured and this was lower in the integrated
system and attributed to minimum tillage methods and carefully targeted nitrogen
applications.
6.2.5
Food and farming
Economics
24 of 28
In the early years of the project cultivations and operational costs were lower and inputs
more targeted in the integrated system, in the latter years the systems had converged as the
conventional system adopted the integrated techniques. Average whole farm margins were
similar for both systems, with an overall difference of £20/ha in favour of the conventional
system. Crop failures contributed to the poor performance of the integrated system but these
failures were learnt from.
Food
Information from the project relates to a range of crops commonly grown on the UK for food
production.
Pesticide use
Crops were grown using IFM techniques such as stale seedbeds, resistant varieties, pest
thresholds decided upon by the project manager. Total pesticide use was measured using
kilograms of active ingredient applied per hectare, overall pesticide use was 1.2 kg/ha less in
the integrated system than the conventional.
Schemes
Focus on farming practice did not include any particular reference to current schemes.
6.2.6
Resource protection
Land
This project primarily deals with crop production under integrate, conventional and organic
systems
Soil
Soil carbon sequestration was covered by the project, where soil was ploughed as in the
conventional system carbon was released by oxidation of organic matter to a greater extent
than in the integrated system. Soils in the integrated system sequestered approximately 158
μ/g more carbon than the integrated.
Biodiversity
FOFP was covered a 9 year rotation on 60ha of land and measurements of earthworm, birds
and insects were made. The responses of earthworm populations were complex,
populations responding to changes in cultivation, the inclusion of grass leys and direct
drilling leading to increased numbers. Overall populations were higher in the integrated
fields.
Bird sightings were increased by the increased retention of stubble through minimum tillage
and direct drilling; this was attributed to increased food availability and shelter
Landscape
FOFP showed that integrated farming techniques could be adopted to enhance arable
biodiversity and enhance the living landscape.
7
RHÔNE-POULENC 3-D FARMING
3D Farming - making biodiversity work for the farmer. (Increasing beneficial insect numbers
and diversity in field margins for aphid control.) - LK0915 Powell et al., 2004
7.1
Summary
The 3-D farming project was sponsored by Defra and SEERAD through the Sustainable
Arable LINK programme with 50% of the funding coming from industrial partners. The project
ran for 4 years (2000-2003)
25 of 28
The overall aim of the project was to use field margin management techniques to increase
the abundance and diversity of beneficial insects and spiders and manipulate their
distribution and dispersal on farmland for the control of aphid pests. The specific objectives
were as follows:

To provide farmers with advice on field margin management to optimise integrated
pest management whilst maintaining biodiversity benefits and profitability.

To test and further develop a novel aphid control strategy involving the manipulation
of parasitoids using aphid sex pheromones in field margins.

To develop and evaluate the use of specific native flowering plants in field margins to
enhance the abundance and diversity of aphid-eating hoverflies in adjacent crops.

To measure the effects of margin and crop management on aphid and beneficial
insect abundance, dispersal and spatial distribution in both the margin and adjacent
crops.

To measure the spatial and temporal distribution of cereal aphids and the extent to
which these are controlled by predatory and parasitic species.

To measure the impact of recently introduced field margin management options on
the biodiversity of aphids and their natural enemies.
Manipulation of parasitoid and hoverfly abundance, and the factors affecting aphid and
beneficial insect abundance, dispersal and spatial distribution were done on large scale field
sites further work on aphid predation using PCR techniques and hoverfly behaviour were
done in controlled conditions.
The main conclusions from the project were as follows:

Field margins containing wild flower/grass mixtures can help to reduce aphid
densities in adjacent cereal crops.

Early activity by parasitic wasps (parasitoids), coinciding with aphid colonisation in
spring, is a key component of natural biological control in cereals.

Field margins and other non-crop habitats provide valuable reservoirs of aphid
parasitoids.

Aphid pheromones stimulate early spread of parasitoids into the crop and increase
their impact on cereal aphid populations.

Umbellifer flowers, such as cow parsley and hogweed, as well as yarrow and white
campion, provide the best food resources for adult hoverflies, whose larvae feed on
aphids. These should be incorporated into field margin seed mixes or conserved in
other non-crop habitats such as hedge bottoms and track verges, as appropriate.

Hoverfly activity in fields with appropriate wild flower margins can result in substantial
reductions in aphid numbers in cereal crops.

Predatory hoverflies can significantly reduce aphid population development during
early to mid summer, when the effect of parasitoids is declining.

Both adult hoverflies and adult aphid parasitoids are highly mobile and can rapidly
spread across large fields.

The distribution of carabid beetles, which are valuable pest predators, varies through
both space and time and is influenced by crop type and by crop and margin
management.

Field margins support ground-dwelling predatory invertebrates that subsequently
distribute themselves through the crop. Large fields will be more slowly colonised
26 of 28
than small fields, and the diversity of these predators will be lower in the centre of
large fields.

Large numbers of predatory invertebrates overwinter within the soil and autumn
cultivations can reduce their numbers.

Some species of generalist invertebrate predators, such as carabid beetles, have
localised distribution patterns across and amongst fields and broad-scale insecticide
applications should be avoided wherever possible if the chances of reinvasion are to
be maximised.

Predatory invertebrates are encouraged by weeds but 10-14% weed cover is optimal.

Set-aside strips sown with game cover can encourage predatory invertebrates within
the crop but sown mixtures need to be developed for this purpose.

Ground-active invertebrate predators can contribute to pea aphid control.

Money spiders are important predators of aphids, feeding on cereal and pea aphids
for at least 100m into the crop even when aphid densities are low.

Field margins provide valuable habitats for money spiders, which can rapidly spread
into crops by ballooning on silk threads.

Maintaining biodiversity on the farm aids natural aphid control, especially if a range of
invertebrate predators and parasitoids are encouraged.

Encouraging a diverse natural enemy community in agricultural ecosystems provides
stability for natural biocontrol systems.

A diverse range of field margins should be maintained on the farm as this adds to the
diversity of invertebrate predators. There is not a single margin design that will suit all
purposes.

A dual margin consisting of a narrow strip of grassy uncut vegetation against the field
boundary (around 1m), with a broader (at least 2m) flower-rich strip, cut in late
summer, would probably benefit the greatest range of beneficial invertebrates.
7.2
7.2.1
Relevance to policy
Energy
Energy use was not referred to in the project
7.2.2
Climate change
No aspects of climate change were covered.
7.2.3
Waste
Adoption of field margins to encourage aphid predators reduced the need for insecticide
applications.
7.2.4
Water
Water supply or quality was not covered.
7.2.5
Food and farming
Economics
Economics were not covered.
Food
27 of 28
The results from the project could be used in the production of safe, good quality food.
Pesticide use
Strategies for the manipulation of aphid parasitoids using aphid parasitoids and of hoverflies
using wild-flower margins were developed and tested. Parasitoid activity was important for
summer aphid control and the use of the pheromone encourage parasitoid spread into the
crop with a significant reduction in aphid number. The presence of flower-rich margins
provided food for hoverflies the larvae of which then predated the aphid colonies. These
margins supported populations of ground-dwelling beetles that then distributed into the crop.
Adoption of flower-rich field margins increases predator numbers and could go someway to
reducing insecticide use in cereal crops but cannot be relied on to provide consistent
summer aphid control. The work was extended into high value non-cereal crops (vining
peas, broccoli and lettuce) control levels were variable using the aphid pheromone as this
needs to be further developed to mimic that of the species particular to the crop. Flower rich
margins did increase the predator numbers in broccoli crops. The work in these crops was
limited and needs further development.
Schemes
Flower-rich margins are already part of the entry and higher level schemes
7.2.6
Resource protection
Land
This project contributes to the sustainable management of land.
Soil
No reference was made to soil management.
Biodiversity
The projects main theme is managing biodiversity with particular reference to insects. There
as a wealth of information on aphids, hoverflies, parasitoids and predatory ground beetles.
The large scale dynamics and movement of insects was investigated mainly in cereal crops
with reference to margins, set-aside strips and weed abundance.
Landscape
Addition of field margins contributes to the improvement of the living landscape.
28 of 28