Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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