42 minute read
GROUNDSWELL
IS REGENERATIVE
AGRICULTURE THE ANSWER TO IMPROVING OUR SOILS?
The Cherry family, who founded Groundswell on their Hertfordshire mixed farm in 2016, certainly thinks so, as Nigel Akehurst discovered on a visit to this year’s event.
Over the past 35 years, brothers John and Paul have been on a regenerative journey, moving from a plough-based to a min till system. In 2010 they dropped cultivations altogether and went no till. Weston Park Farms includes 2,000 acres of zero tilled arable and 500 acres of pasture for their 150 head of commercial beef shorthorn cattle.
Since going zero till, they have noticed a steady increase in soil organic matter – which has roughly doubled. Their worm count has also gone up, as has their biodiversity, with more bees and birdlife around. Interestingly it’s not just about improving their soils, but “is also more profi table”, explained John.
“It’s much cheaper; we use fewer chemicals, less fertiliser, fewer tractors. Costs are so much less and our business is more resilient.”
The brothers launched Groundswell out of a sense of frustration that no-one was putting on a summer show that they might want to attend. Five years on and it has become the largest show and conference of its type. Its growth refl ects the snowballing interest from both farmers and policy makers interested in the public benefi ts of systems such as carbon sequestration and fl ood/drought prevention.
This year’s event took place on 23 and 24 June and attracted over 3,500 attendees, up from 2,200 in 2019. To meet the latest government guidelines on Covid-19 security, the site was moved to a new larger location spanning several fi elds. Conferences and seminars were held in seven large, opensided tents, with more than 100 sessions across the two days. Visitors could see demonstrations of some impressive farm kit in the two exhibitor and demonstration fi elds, including working direct drills, compost turners and robots.
There were large areas dedicated to soil analysis and testing, cover crops, herbal leys, tree management, heritage wheat trials and mob grazing. The dung beetle safari led by Sally-Ann Spence, Claire Whittle and Max Anderson was a particular hit, attracting a huge audience interested in learning more about the vital role they play in improving the quality and structure of our soils.
Exhibitors at the event included DEFRA, which on day one led a session on the incoming Sustainable Farming Incentive. In a session chaired by Sue Prichard we learned how the department is planning to make the delivery of public goods attractive by getting the rates profi table to motivate farmers to make better decisions.
In the longer term, DEFRA would like to move to a system of paying farmers
for results rather than actions. They have also committed to making the administrative burden more ‘bearable’ and said it was wrong that farmers should need to pay someone to fi ll in a form.
During the same session we also heard from a large-scale arable farmer who for the fi rst time had sold his carbon credits on the private market, a move that he claimed more than off set his loss in Basic Payment Scheme (BPS). His hope was that this new market could end up replacing the need for taxpayer support, enabling farmers like him to “stand on our own two feet”.
Other farmers I spoke to urged caution on signing up without fi rst fully exploring the longer-term implications and potential ‘issues’ such as double accounting. Most agreed, though, that carbon and biodiversity agreements will play an important role in the future of farming. So watch this space.
On day two the Rt Hon George Eustice, Secretary of State for DEFRA, was interviewed by Baroness Rosie Boycott on the future of the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMS), after which the fl oor was opened for questions from the audience.
He acknowledged the environmental benefi ts that regenerative farmers are already delivering and provided insight into some of the mechanisms designed to accelerate sustainability in farming and move towards “paying farmers properly for nature”. Topics covered included encouraging new entrants, local food systems, the planting of trees, increasing carbon sequestration and achieving net zero by 2050.
In response to a question about the Australian free trade deal, Mr Eustice sought to allay fears, saying the Government was looking at a carbon border tax to prevent unfair competition from products with larger emissions.
Other sessions I attended on day one included The Role of Finance in the Regen Transition and Carbon Payments are Here. Both were fascinating. In the former, one member of the panel remarked on the large disparity between sectors, with investors ready to invest tens of millions of pounds in areas like vertical farming while livestock farmers struggled to raise £25,000. >>
A leading
agronomy company
Providing the highest standards of independent agronomic advice to British growers, with the efficient supply of a complete range of agronomic inputs.
Hutchinsons remains a family business, with traditional values, working with growers for over 80 years. Offering specialist agronomy advice including soil health, practical precision farming and the unique Helix Farm technology research programme. It’s our people that make the difference.
Hutchinsons can provide you with all your crop-growing requirements including:
• Crop-protection inputs • Precision agronomy advice • Seed • A comprehensive range of • Fertiliser packaging for the fresh • Crop nutrition guidance food industry. Our professionalism is matched by our total commitment to customer service.
Speak to us and see the difference for yourself
H L Hutchinson Ltd • Weasenham Lane Wisbech • Cambridgeshire • PE13 2RN t: 01945 461177 e: information@hlhltd.co.uk @Hutchinsons_Ag
HLHutchinsons
www.hlhltd.co.uk
Another panelist and investor said progress was being made, with more ‘patient’ capital available to regenerative farms with a longer-term payback.
In the session on carbon payments, Andrew Voysey of Soil Capital provided more details on the workings of Europe’s first certified, multi-national carbon payment programme for farmers.
He explained that initially the scheme will only be open to arable farmers with a minimum of 200 to 300 hectares of land. It involves an annual baseline assessment, costing just under £1,000, to determine whether your farm is a net emitter or net sequesterer of carbon. Based on the findings, Soil Capital then advises on the best way to reduce emissions and start sequestering carbon into your soils.
Payments received by the farmer are based on 70% of the final price of the certificate, with a floor price of £23. As an example, he said a farmer that moved from ploughing to min till could expect an annual payment of between £3,000 and £4,000. More details are available via their website.
One of my favourite sessions was on How to transition to Pasture-Fed Dairy, chaired by Jimmy Woodrow of the Pasture For Life Association. The diverse panel of farmers, which included Dan Burdett, discussed the issues holding back the sector.
Moving to once a day milking, spring calving and focusing on the power of grass were highlighted as practical solutions to making the transition to a ‘more stress-free farming system’. Offering advice to the audience, Angus Dalton quipped: “The best investments come on a roll,” referring to electric fencing or water pipe.
Lastly, I was thrilled to catch up with the Land Gardeners and the wider Climate Compost team, which was running workshop sessions and demonstrations on how to make their microbially
<< rich compost using a mixture of straw, manure, fresh greens, old compost and clay. As with all conferences, there were many sessions I didn’t get to see such as A Regenerative Journey, sharing the story of an Oxfordshire farm transitioning to a fully regenerative approach in two years. I also wanted to see the Fibreshed UK session. Thankfully the Groundswell team recorded the sessions and are planning to make them available on their YouTube channel soon. To finish I wanted to highlight the awardwinning podcast Farmerama Radio, which has just released a new four-part series called Landed which explores land ownership and colonial legacy, told by a Scottish farmer’s son (Col Gordon) as he returns home to his family farm. Having so far listened to the first episode, I think the series will resonate with anyone interested in the future of family farms and regenerative farming.
‘DIDDLY SQUAT’ FLEXIBILITY IN SOME SUPPORT SCHEMES
I’ve been enjoying watching Clarkson’s Farm. In fact, I haven’t spoken to anyone – even those not involved in agriculture – who hasn’t.
Yes, he sometimes acts the fool, but the show convincingly conveys how tough agriculture is and highlights the challenges farmers face – whether that’s technical, mechanical, meteorological or bureaucratic. One scene that particularly struck a chord was the BPS form-fi lling nightmare he faced because of the variety of crops on Diddly Squat Farm. The former Top Gear-presenting petrolhead decided, understandably, to grow a range of produce to stock his farm shop’s shelves, but soon discovered the diffi culties and frustrations in terms of paperwork this brings. It’s sadly an all-too-common occurrence in agriculture – bureaucratically cumbersome support schemes ending up driving decision-making in ways precisely contrary to their aim. We are in an era of change so, whether it’s the Farming in Protected Landscapes (FiPL) scheme, the Sustainable Farming Initiative (SFI) or the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMS), it’s vital they’re fl exible enough not to discourage farmers from doing the things they aim to incentivise. Take Countryside Stewardship. It brings many opportunities, but it’s a source of huge frustration that some of the options, though in theory fi tting well into regenerative agriculture systems, are simply impractical once you delve into the detail and the eligibility requirements. As our understanding of regenerative agriculture grows, as the science and technology supporting it evolves, so farmers need the fl exibility to alter and fi ne-tune their approaches. But it’s impossible to be agile and responsive to new ideas and knowledge if you’ve got one hand tied behind your back. The watchword is fl exibility. Those embarking on regenerative agriculture don’t want to – or can’t – commit to, for example, fi ve years of delivering a set area of an exactly prescribed mix of herbal leys. DEFRA and all policymakers need to listen more to – and involve – those on the ground. Schemes shouldn’t be driven by distant, unrealistic, impractical ideology or the needs of IT systems. They need farmer input. To be fair, the new FiPL scheme – which will bring opportunities in AONBs such as the High Weald or National Parks like the South Downs – does appear to be trying to address this. A panel, consisting mainly of farmers, will decide which projects (based partly on DEFRA guidance) are funded. It’s also why the recent Groundswell event in Hertfordshire was so encouraging to be involved in. It felt like a real grassroots movement; farmers taking the lead and running their own event, focused on knowledge exchange and peer-to-peer learning. Too many events these days are clouded by vested interests and industry politics. Groundswell was simply a place to learn and to share learning. And that’s how, when it comes to running more profi table businesses and looking after the environment, we’ll get better. The event reminded me that regenerative agriculture is not an ‘all or nothing’ concept. Those practising it are using diff erent methods, to diff erent degrees, with diff erent enterprises on diff erent farms, all under the same banner. Hence why the schemes supporting it must have fl exibility at their heart. As well as having more grassroots input into scheme design and management, we need more scope for local experts to be involved in decisionmaking. Let’s get away from the ‘computer says no’ response that has all-too-often blighted decisionmaking in the past. A good example is the legume and herb-rich sward option (GS4) under CS. It’s appealing for many reasons, but isn’t allowed on land with ‘historic’ or ‘archaeological’ features. Well, Bronze Age fi eld systems feature across much of the South Downs, so it’s automatically precluded in many spots where it might well have no damaging eff ect whatsoever as part of a regenerative system. This means all those opportunities for improving soil organic matter or water retention from having a grass and herb mix in an arable rotation are missed out on. Wouldn’t it be sensible to be able to just ask an experienced archaeologist with local knowledge for their opinion on whether direct drilling a particular fi eld with a herbal ley should be allowed? And while we’re on the subject of rules, here’s one that I reckon should be immediately implemented. DEFRA policymakers should be made to watch Clarkson’s Farm. That might bring home to them some of the bureaucratic burdens farmers face and the way cumbersome schemes have the potential to push farmers away from desirable – or even, at times, logical – choices when it comes to their businesses and the environmental outcomes we most want to see. I’ve certainly thoroughly enjoyed watching the series with my sons, even if the potty-mouthed presenter sometimes uses language that’s a bit unsuitable for younger viewers. There again, sometimes the paperwork in farming is enough to make even the most saintly among us resort to swearing!
ANTHONY WESTON
T: 01892 770339 @anthonycweston
www.c-l-m.co.uk
THE REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE SHOW AND CONFERENCE THE GROUNDSWELL 5 PRINCIPLES AND SOIL SENSE
This article is based on two presentations given at Groundswell 2021, What lies beneath: perspectives on the underworld, and The belowground powerplant: how the biological engine of the earth underpins soil health.
Regenerative agriculture wisely puts soil health at the heart of its concepts and practices. These are nicely summarised by the Groundswell 5 Principles of Regenerative Agriculture illustration. Here are some mechanistic reasons why these tenets make sense, and particularly in relation to the biology of the soil system.
SOIL SYSTEMS – A VERY BRIEF PRIMER
For field-based growers, soils represent a primary business asset. But the importance of healthy soil goes far beyond the farm gate. Human societies have always been highly dependent upon healthy soils. This is because the earth beneath our feet underpins the environment we live in at local, national and ultimately global scales.
Soils provide a platform to live on and are fundamental to the provision of the majority of our food. They support all terrestrial habitats, store and filter water, cycle carbon and nutrients, are intimately involved in climate regulation and even tell us about our past via the archaeology they hold. As such, soils need appropriate and sympathetic management to ensure they function in an effective and persistent manner to meet as many of these demands as possible. Soils are also remarkable systems. They are extremely complex both in terms of the variety of their constituents and the way these are arranged in space, from scales of millionths of a metre to kilometres.
Soils are dynamic and reactive entities teeming with a huge variety of life, supporting levels of biodiversity that almost defy imagination. The amount of living material below ground always matches or exceeds that above ground, and there are typically tens of thousands of microbial species and many hundreds of other tiny organisms in a handful of soil from almost anywhere. These communities can be thought of as the ‘biological engine of the earth’, working to drive and regulate the majority of the key processes and functions which soils deliver. But there’s more to work than life; soils function by virtue of the way they are put together and the interactions that occur between the myriad of physical, chemical and biological components within. These all occur in the astonishingly complex labyrinths of pore networks present to a greater or lesser extent in all soils. Soil structure is profoundly important since it provides the support matrix for plant roots, is the habitat of all soil biota, regulates how water and air are held in the fabric of the soil and governs how gases, liquids, solutes, particles and organisms move through the below ground matrix.
More diverse systems have inherently greater capacity to carry out a broad range of functions, and for soils this range is enormous, as mentioned above. Diversity in systems also imparts resilience, since there is more opportunity for adaptation to changing circumstances (e.g. abnormal weather or pest/pathogen loads).
Cropping strategies based on broad rotations, rotational leys and companion cropping will generally engender below ground biodiversity, since more variety in the form of plant material entering the system material sustains more variation in the below ground communities which consume it. These strategies, combined with those that minimise soil disturbance (see below), also tend to increase the diversity of soil pore networks in terms of the range of pore sizes and their inherent shape and connectedness. This in turn increases biodiversity by providing more complex habitats and also improves water retention and transmission to plants.
PROTECT SOIL SURFACE
The soil surface is where the underground meets the overground, and is a crucial zone in terms of regulating how water enters the fabric of the soil and how gases exchange between the soil pore networks and the atmosphere.
Structural degeneration of the soil surface impairs these processes and can also make it prone to erosion and inhospitable seedbeds. Maintaining plant or residue cover on the surface provides physical protection from rainfall and trampling, but also feeds the soil biota which in turn improves soil structure by several mechanisms. These include restructuring by passage through animal guts, adhesion of soil particles by microbial glues, binding by fungal hyphae and coating with water-resistant compounds.
These actions lead to a more diverse pore system, including more pores which connect the surface to the fabric and hence allow effective infiltration and gas exchange. Over-winter cover crops (and judicious maincrop/cover-crop management) are then a sound strategy to achieve an inherently healthy soil surface.
MAINTAIN LIVING ROOTS
Plants have an absolutely key role in soil functioning, since they provide the energy that fuels the biological engine. This energy is derived from sunlight, transformed by plants into chemicallybound energy that can then be utilised by other organisms. As long as a soil has plants actively growing in it, carbon and associated energy will be delivered below ground, with all the associated benefits.
In the absence of plants, the soil biota continues to metabolise soil organic matter and releases carbon (as carbon dioxide, CO2) via respiration, which passes to the atmosphere. From the perspective of the soil biota, ‘carbon capture’ is then really all about ‘energy capture’.
Mycorrhizae are particular types of fungi which connect to plant roots and effectively extend the volume of soil which is explored by the plant/ fungus system. Since fungal hyphae are ordersof-magnitude smaller than roots, they can cover much greater spatial extents than their host roots and are able to grow into smaller soil pores that are otherwise inaccessible to the plant. This enables mycorrhizae to acquire nutrients – especially phosphorus – and pass them to the plant at rates far more rapidly than can occur via diffusion through the soil.
Mycorrhizae can also connect the root systems of different plants together and enable signalling between the plants to occur. This can allow rapid transmission of stress messages from a plant that is being attacked by pests, signalling other plants to start synthesising protective compounds. Mycorrhizal hyphal networks play a part in maintaining soil structure via binding and coating mechanisms. Maintain mycorrhiza by ensuring the presence of host plants in the soil (maintain living roots), and minimising disruption of their delicate hyphal networks via tillage.
MINIMISE SOIL DISTURBANCE
Soils function by virtue of their spatial organisation and especially the integrity of
this arrangement. The detailed reasons for this are complicated, but essentially it’s about the connectivity of the system. This is readily appreciated in the context of improving water infiltration, for which pores at the soil surface need to be connected to the soil fabric (see above).
Going beyond this, it includes the connectivity of entire soil pore networks, which underpin the appropriate movement of gases, water and nutrients between both organisms and plant roots, but balanced by a constraint of such processes. Pore connectivity also regulates the movement of organisms themselves and the interactions between them.
Fungal networks need to be coherent and connected to function well. There are also factors associated with physical protection of organic matter. Disturbed soils tend to become disconnected in physical and biological terms and hence function less efficiently. No-till agriculture is then a principal means to achieve minimal soil disturbance and maintain soil integrity.
LIVESTOCK INTEGRATION
In one sense, it could be argued that managing the soil biota is a form of ‘micro-livestock’ integration! However, mega-scale animals represent both an opportunity and challenge for soil management. Grazing animals modify carbon and nutrient cycling substantially via a myriad of interactions with the soil biological engine.
Manures can provide an effective combined fertiliser and soil conditioner by virtue of the nutrients and organic matter within them. Animals tend to disturb soil systems, so allowing long recovery periods melds with the tenet of minimising soil disturbance.
The effects of mob grazing on soil biological systems are poorly understood, but since they involve relatively short-term disturbance and in principle soil surfaces are protected by a dense sward, recovery from perturbation may be rapid. The concept of mimicking nature directly connects to the principle of harnessing mechanisms manifest in biological systems which have evolved over aeons in the context of terrestrial ecosystems and absence of industrial intervention. These systems are inherently diverse, connected and ultimately governed by solar-derived energy flows. Hence the sense of the 5 Groundswell Principles.
KARL RITZ
To get to the answer, we need first to understand what we are talking about, so here is a quick Bee 101.
There are approximately 253 species of bee in the UK. I say approximately as we have gained at least one, Bombus hypnorum, the tree bumble bee. This arrived in the UK probably 20 years ago and has since charged north, with new distributions reported every year. We also have more than likely lost a couple of species to extinction.
We have some summer visitors, and the violet winged carpenter bee is a regular, but we don’t think that they have established nesting here yet; with climate change it is just a matter of time.
If we broaden our view to Europe, they have approximately 2,000 species. This is due obviously to a greater range of climatic and landscape diversity. When the cluster of islands that make up the UK were joined to the European mainline by land bridge, relatively few species moved across.
Taking a global perspective, there are approximately 18,000 species in an amazing range of sizes. The smallest is Perdita minimus, a tiny bee with a body length of just 2mm (or 1/32” in old money). The largest is Megachilie pluto, with a body length of 38mm (1 ½”) with a wingspan of 65mm (2 ½”).
Bees belong to the super family Hymenoptera, which encompasses bees, wasps and ants and has an incredible 150,000 species approximately. Bees are found across the globe, except for the two ice caps. And as a matter of interest, bumble bees are only found in the northern hemisphere (except where they have been introduced e.g., New Zealand). To be precise, if you drew a line through the Atlas Mountains right round the world, you would find bumble bees north of this.
So let’s turn to fine-tuning our appreciation of bees. Bees can be (broadly) divided into two groups – solitary bees and social bees. Solitary bees are not stay at home, depressed, no-mates bees. They may
WHAT HAVE BEES
EVER DONE FOR US?
live in aggregations but each one is only working for herself. Social bees, on the other hand, work cooperatively for the good of the colony.
These two broad groups can further be split into generalists and specialists. On the whole, generalists, bees that will visit any plant yielding pollen and nectar, are doing a lot better than the specialists. Specialist bees are species that visit only one family or even only one species of plant.
With changes in agriculture, these single species have become fewer with less opportunity for the pollinator. An example of this is Bombus ruderatus, at one stage plentiful in the British countryside, but unfortunately a specialist on red clover; as this crop fell out of favour in agriculture, the food source declined dramatically and entomologists considered that this bee might be extinct. As clovers were introduced into pollen and nectar mixes for ELS and HLS schemes, though, this species made a remarkable return.
So, what have bees ever done for us? The obvious answer is honey, but only 12 species of the approximately 18,000 make honey as we know it. Bumble bees and stingless bees make a form of honey, but it is insipid compared with honeybee honey, although stingless bee honey has great value in traditional native medicine.
Honey is the most counterfeited food product in the world, with suppliers using dirty tricks to bulk up honey with corn syrup or specialist honeys with bland plain honey. Humans have a long-standing relationship with honey. Cave paintings in Spain show honey gathering 8,000 years ago, and I can imagine that the hunter who came home with a slab of honeycomb got the best piece of mammoth that evening. Even though humans have had an interest in keeping bees for a long time, the last great leap forward in the honey business was in the 1880’s, with the invention of the moveable frame, allowing honey collection without the need to kill the bees first.
Now we come to the nub of the question – crop pollination! Honeybees are the go-to pollinator simply because a grower can phone a bee keeper and have several million bees delivered in fairly short order.
Solitary bees are way better at pollination; some academics believe they may be as high as 400% more efficient on a bee for bee event basis. This is due to the different way that solitary bees tend to collect pollen. They generally collect it dry on either the abdomen or legs, whereas honeybees collect it, masticate it and then glue it into their pollen baskets. So it is only the stray grains of pollen on the honeybee’s body that transfer to the ripe stigma.
It is also important to recognise that not all bees are suitable for all crops. Tomatoes, for instance, can only be pollinated by bumble bees as they require buzz pollination, a process whereby the bee grips the flower (tomato flowers hang facing down, remember), decouples its wings and vibrates the flight muscles. This vibrates the flower and causes it to release pollen.
THE COST OF POLLINATION, OR RATHER THE COST OF NOT HAVING POLLINATION.
In some countries, crop insurance providers are refusing payouts if the grower cannot provide proof of adequate pollinator provision. I guess the view is that if you didn’t have good pollination, you may not have a particularly good crop.
The entire business of pollination is, basically, a sales job. The plant requires a service, moving pollen from one flower to another, and is prepared to pay for the service with nectar. Obviously, nectar production has a cost, and the plant wants best value for money (don’t we all).
A particular risk if you have flowers is selfpollination, and plants have evolved a number of strategies to mitigate this risk. Plants that have male/female flowers have anthers that ripen and produce pollen at a different time to the stigma becoming receptive. Plants with male and female flowers switch nectar production on at different
times of the day in order to keep bees guessing and visiting more flowers. Do not forget, bees are really smart, and masters of the ‘minimal work for maximum return’ philosophy.
Managed pollination is a big business. And probably none bigger than in the almond orchards of California. This is a $15 billion crop, almost solely dependent on honeybees imported into the orchards for the three weeks of bloom. In the 1990s a beekeeper was lucky to get paid $15 for hive rental; in the early 2000s it had jumped to $190 – per hive. Cue bee apocalypse because of colony collapse disorder (CCD) and varroa, a parasitic mite devastating bee colonies in North America and the rest of the western world. Bee colony rental prices soared to $285/$300 per colony.
To put that into context, the almond industry requires 1.2m beehives to be brought in for their crop. One beekeeping operation will supply 85,000 hives into almonds; that’s $24 million for three weeks’ work.
That is the cost of managed pollination, but the returns can be amazing too. Research has shown that apples that are well pollinated store longer in cold storage, are better shaped and have more even colour.
Pollination is not simply good for fruit crops. Oil seed rape shows astonishing results with high pollinator numbers: 4% more oil, truncated ripening window, bushier plants (so less lodging) and with the increased area of green stem the plants continue photosynthesis long after the leaves have fallen, creating bigger seed, and of course fewer red seeds. I know 4% does not seem like much, but an increase of 4% is another 18 million litres of oil in the UK production.
So, the next big question is: which species is the best pollinator? Well, that depends on the crop.
Honeybees are no good on tomatoes, but bumble bees are ace. Generally, solitary bees cannot be obtained in high enough numbers to be the exclusive pollinator in fruit crops, but used in conjunction with honeybees can produce spectacular results. There is an interesting dynamic between honeybees and solitary bees, in that the solitary bees force the honeybees to become more promiscuous.
The secret to getting large populations of solitary bees is land management. Solitary bees have specific nesting requirements, generally relatively easy to achieve within an agricultural context, but it requires knowledge and commitment. Building solitary bee populations is not a short-term goal, but the benefits will be long term for your business.
We have looked at honey and pollination, but there are other uses for bees as well. Honey has been used as medical treatments for as long as there have been shaman, medicine men and traditional healers looking after the health of humans.
The stingless bee honey is used across Africa and Central America/the Caribbean for the treatment of eye infections, and normal honey is becoming more commonplace in mainstream pharmaceuticals.
But it doesn’t stop there. Bees have been used to carry bio-fungicides onto plants and this is an exciting area of development as the possibilities
Photo: Malcolm Triggs
are virtually endless as we become more adept at finding crop protection methods that don’t hurt the planet.
A final thought: No bees, no honey, no work, no money!
ROBIN DEAN
In September 2022, ARU Peterborough, a brand new university being built in the heart of the city, will welcome its fi rst intake of students. The course portfolio has been co-created with businesses to ensure it provides the skills needed by regional employers.
Our BSc degrees in agri-food technology and environmental management are designed to support individual aspirations while providing the talent and expertise needed to realise the long-term goals of the East of England’s agri-environmental industry, helping to drive regional prosperity.
All those involved in food supply will be aware of the opportunities, as well as challenges, arising from the transition from the Area Arable Payments Scheme to the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMS). Not surprisingly, sustainability and the natural environment were the focus of many
A NEW UNIVERSITY FOR THE EAST OF ENGLAND
presentations, debates, and discussions at this year’s Groundswell conference.
Education and research need to respond to these changes to make sure the next generation of farmers, agronomists and technologists, as well as society as a whole, can benefi t. That is why the combination of farming and the natural environment is a key part of both our new degree delivery and our research activities.
ARU Peterborough’s degree courses start in 2022, and we are already carrying out research, running workshops and providing continuous professional development training in agri-environmental areas. Our focus is on data science, crop modelling, food supply chains, soil health and soil carbon, food security and technology integration. We are working with stakeholders throughout the supply chain as well as those associated with it, such as water companies and the health sector.
If our future food supply is going to be sustainable, this must apply to all aspects, not just production in the fi eld.
To get involved, or fi nd out more about our teaching or research, visit: www.aru.ac.uk/peterborough
GET AHEAD OF THE GAME
Groundswell is arguably among the most important events on the farming calendar.
Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you cannot have missed the increasing references to ‘regenerative’ in the farming press. And about time, too. We’d go so far as to say that the collection of practices described as ‘regenerative’ has huge potential to put the brakes on – and even reverse – many of the negative impacts of intensive agriculture.
Groundswell is the epicentre of all things regenerative. It’s THE event where you can discover what the buzz is all about in a relaxed, welcoming environment.
As an organisation, it was our fi rst time exhibiting at Groundswell. Although we’re a relatively new farm certifi er in the UK and Europe (only launching here in 2016), A Greener World operates across four continents, certifying and empowering over 6,000 farms – including more than 4,000 in the UK and Ireland alone – and covering over 1,000,000 acres of farmland globally.
Groundswell presented the perfect opportunity to promote our family of farm certifi cations, including Certifi ed Animal Welfare Approved by AGW, Certifi ed Grassfed by AGW, Certifi ed Non-GMO by AGW, and our newest addition – Certifi ed Regenerative by AGW, a whole-farm programme measuring real change to benefi t soil, water, air, biodiversity, infrastructure, animal welfare and social responsibility.
In a post-Brexit world, trusted certifi cations like A Greener World’s will become increasingly important, particularly as more consumers seek out British meat, dairy and eggs and make better, higher welfare food choices. Our no-nonsense farm certifi cations give farmers the tools to talk with pride to customers and the confi dence that they are backed up by an independent, credible and trusted farm certifi er that guarantees the highest farming standards in environment and animal welfare.
If you’d like to fi nd out more, get in touch. Or pop by our stand at Groundswell 2022!
JASON GALE
jason.g@agreenerworld.org www.agreenerworld.org
CARBON CAPTURE
OFFERS NEW MARKETS
Regenerative farming, carbon storage and biodiversity net gain may still be comparatively new concepts for farmers, but Charlotte Pearson-Wood, associate partner with Batcheller Monkhouse, believes it won’t be long before they are mainstream.
While she recognises that landowners are understandably cautious about regenerative agriculture, she has also seen what a positive eff ect if can have, not just on the environment but on the balance sheet.
“This is a time of transition,” she explained. “Within a couple of years this focus on reducing our carbon footprint and working more closely with nature will be the new ‘business as usual’. The important thing farmers and landowners need to do now is prepare for change and make sure they don’t get left behind.”
For Charlotte, whose role at Batcheller Monkhouse focuses on rural and environmental issues, getting ready for change includes encouraging landowners to take reliable professional advice before making any major business decisions.
“When it comes to new income streams such as selling carbon credits in what is a new and currently unregulated market, farmers and landowners will need to make sure the deal on off er is sound and is the best one available. As with all new opportunities, there will be plenty of sharks in the water,” she said.
It’s diffi cult, if not impossible, to sell something if you don’t know how much you have to sell, and that’s as true for carbon as it is for carrots. With that in mind, the fi rst thing landowners need to do if they want to sell any kind of carbon storage opportunity is to know what their baseline is.
The fi rst step is to measure your own carbon footprint accurately. As Charlotte explained: “Without knowing your starting position it is diffi cult to show any improvement and without knowing how much carbon you could store on your land it is diffi cult to sell that capacity to buyers looking to off set their own footprint.”
While the concept of ‘selling’ carbon storage may not be the easiest to grasp, it is essentially “just another commercial deal,” and as Charlotte explained, Batcheller Monkhouse has considerable experience in negotiating such deals – from solar parks to housing developments. “Selling carbon is no diff erent,” she stressed.
One new area of potential income for landowners is in working with developers who need to follow the planning rules on biodiversity net gain. While the regulations encourage developers to improve biodiversity on site, they can choose to fund improvements elsewhere if their own site is too challenging.
There are, though, many questions that landowners need to ask before committing to such a scheme. They include who will be liable for ongoing maintenance and how long the agreement will last, along with how much the developer is off ering to pay and how it will aff ect the owner’s tax position.
It is clearly also important to decide whether the terms should be set out in a lease or management agreement and – potentially the trickiest question –to agree who will be liable if the scheme fails to meet the agreed environmental targets.
“It’s set to be a growth area but there are plenty of pitfalls,” said Charlotte. “While landowners should be aware of the potential benefi ts of helping a developer meet biodiversity net gain requirements, they need to take advice around the detail.”
One of the Governments objectives to assist the UK’s carbon balance sheet is large scale tree planting, however as Batcheller Monkhouse Partner Alex Wilks explains: “Diff erent trees absorb varying amounts of CO2 at diff erent stages in their life cycle, and the practicalities of planting such a massive area of woodland will raise many questions, not least from landowners, who have a much better idea of the issues than the politicians making the promises or the civil servants trying to deliver them. “If the Government is to achieve anything like its goals, we will need to see a massive shift in policy. Landowners will need to be persuaded to turn huge areas of land, most of it presumably farmland, over to trees – hopefully without damaging the ecology of parts of the UK by planting the wrong trees in the wrong places.
“Whatever details emerge in due course, I am certain that there will be great incentives over the next few years for landowners to plant trees, but as with all such schemes, taking good advice from experts will be vital.”
To discuss regenerative agriculture please contact: CHARLOTTE PEARSON-WOOD
MRICS FAAV – Partner
T: 01892 509280
www.batchellermonkhouse.com To discuss regenerative agriculture please contact: ALEXANDER WILKS
MRICS FAAV – Partner
T: 01798 877555
www.batchellermonkhouse.com
DO FUNGICIDES HAVE A PLACE IN REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE?
Currently, there is a lack of consensus around any definition of regenerative agriculture.
Some scientists and growers define regenerative agriculture as a system of crop production designed to reduce reliance on pesticides and fertiliser inputs, while others believe that regenerative agriculture is a system of crop production which improves soil carbon reserves, enhances biodiversity, reduces nutrient leaching and gaseous emissions and enhances ecosystem services.
Many research papers concerning regenerative agriculture highlight the importance of soil biodiversity and the macro-organisms and microorganisms which are responsible for the biological cycling of nutrients. Those growers who promote regenerative agriculture believe that the decline of soil biodiversity is due to the widespread use of monocultures, along with strong dependence on fertiliser, fungicide, herbicide and insecticide use.
Fungicides are routinely used to protect crops against a range of seed, soil and air-borne diseases. However, some fungicides can have negative effects on soil micro-organisms. It is worth mentioning that the treatment of crop seeds with fungicide is widely used as a risk management strategy and to reduce reliance on prophylactic foliar sprays.
However, most of the chemicals used for seed dressing are systemic, which means that they are distributed across the plant and can also be released into the soil, which can have negative effects on soil micro-organisms. The effect of different types of fungicide seed dressings on soil biology can vary from stimulating Collembola surface activity to reducing Collembolan reproduction, increasing numbers of protozoa and reducing plant decomposition rate, to increasing earthworm mortality or not influencing earthworm activity.
Some farmers have been able to grow crops successfully without any seed dressings, which tends to suggest that it is quite possible to reduce reliance on seed dressings if clean and healthy seed is used. A prophylactic seed dressing should be avoided and as agronomists we should follow regulatory standards and advisory thresholds for seed treatment to manage any key seedborne diseases. This will help reduce the negative effects of those fungicides on soil micro-organism.
The application of foliar fungicides can have an impact on non-target micro-organisms in the soil rhizosphere. However, if we use appropriate nozzles, water volume, pressure, and forward speed and avoid spraying in windy conditions then the negative effects of fungicides on soil micro-organisms can be avoided.
Our prime objective should be reducing reliance on pesticides by using integrated pest management tools and other non-chemical options. There has been an increasing interest in the use of bio-stimulants and foliar trace-elements to improve crop health and thereby reduce reliance on fungicide inputs.
More and more farmers are exploring other options to reduce pesticide use. Bio-stimulants are being promoted and recommended by a few agronomy advisors with the claims that they can improve crop tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses.
There are certain claims that some of the bio-stimulants improve soil biology and reduce the need for fertiliser and other inputs, but there is very little independent data to confirm the benefits of these products. A review of the replicated trials conducted by NIAB has shown little or no benefit of most of the bio-stimulants in disease control and yield enhancement.
A few bio-stimulants have shown some benefits when applied with low fungicide inputs, but not when a standard fungicide programme was used in a trial. This tends to suggest that by choosing an appropriate bio-stimulant, we may be able to reduce our reliance on fungicide use and hence improve soil health and biology.
Fungicides still have an important role to play in regenerative agriculture. The newly introduced fungicides are, relatively, safer and less harmful to soil health and soil biology compared to older chemistry. By choosing a disease resistant variety, appropriate drilling date, chemicals and integrated pest management tools we can produce more yield per unit of land from fewer inputs, and hence reduce carbon footprint, improve soil health and soil biology and maximise farm profits.
If we can produce more food from less land then we can reduce the need to bring more land into production. In simple terms, there are two ways to meet this future food demand. The first is to increase production from the existing area of agricultural land. The second is to increase the area of land under cultivation.
But converting land use to agriculture has a direct effect on habitat loss and several indirect effects through altering biogeochemical and hydrological cycles. In many countries an expansion of agricultural land to increase food production will mean that inherently less productive soils are brought under cultivation, requiring disproportionate land use conversion which will cause more damage to the planet than damage caused by fungicide use.
DR SYED SHAH
Can farming learn anything from the recent success of the England football team? If the manager gives up wearing waistcoats, will success automatically follow? Probably not. But if you leave the hang-ups of the previous generation behind you and focus on what you can achieve as a united team with a plan, will success folllow? I think so.
Now, more than ever, I believe farming needs to look forwards, forget the past and come up with a plan and a direction for what the future of our industry is going to look like and not let others tell us what to do from the sidelines.
Like most of you I was disappointed with the Australian trade deal. Why the government had to go for no tariffs and no quotas I don’t understand. The Australians asked for it but I’m sure they were as surprised as us that the UK government acquiesced. Some level of tariff and quota would have kept everyone happy and left us some wiggle room on future deals. Now the Kiwis want to go one better than the Australians; they always do. But what more can we give away?
The past few weeks have clarified the future for English farmers considerably. We are going to be exposed to unlimited free trade, almost all future support will be environment based – with most of the money going to certain areas and large schemes – and animal welfare and production standards will be gold plated to some of the highest in the world.
A successful economic model for English farming? A question I put to George Eustice when he came to NFU Council recently and unsurprisingly he didn’t really give an answer. He knows the answer, but isn’t winning the argument around the Cabinet table. My take home lesson is don’t expect anything very helpful from this Government anytime soon. ELMS will be a glorified stewardship scheme, the trade deals will keep on coming and standards will keep going up. It won’t be all bad, but…
What can we do about it? Yes, we must speak truth to power and lobby our MPs about the consequences of their actions, but we cannot go on television moaning about every new trade deal that comes along. People will stop listening in the end and buy an Aussie burger next time they eat out anyway.
I am certain we must come up with our own blueprint for success that will resonate with our customers across all price points, pay us a small premium over imported food and allow us to be willing partners in government schemes rather than dependant on them.
Henry Dimbleby has his own blueprint in his food strategy and there are some good things in there. Over-processed foods, whether they are vegan or not, are damaging to people and the environment.
Of course the global food industry loves processed food. The American model of branded
FARMING NEEDS TO LOOK FORWARD
David Exwood, arable, beef and sheep farmer and farm shop proprietor, Horsham, is positive about the future.
meals of no discernible origin made from ingredients sourced from the cheapest producer in the world is how they make money. But look at the cost. We are already the fattest country in Europe. So Henry is right, but does he really have the best interests of farming at heart, or is his answer just an elitist food model that leaves the masses eating McGreggs supplied from abroad?
I believe there is so much that we can do that will leave us with a great future. I see so many innovative and forward thinking farmers around the South East from whom we can all learn. For my part, at Westons we have gone insecticide free across the whole farm for two years now. I’m not being paid a subsidy or a premium for it, but I believe it is the right thing to do and will have considerable benefits over time that customers will buy in to.
Is it successful? Time will tell, but I have 250 acres of wall-to-wall oilseed rape that I can’t wait to cut. The key to success? Good management. And farming must come up with its own blueprint for future success that will probably have good management at its core. Don’t believe it can be done? Let Gareth be your inspiration.
