If you would like a printed copy of any of our back issues, then they can be purchased on Farm Marketplace. You can also download the PDFs or read online from links below.
-
How To Start Drilling For £8K
Clive Bailye’s seed drill of choice is his 6m John Deere 750A , which has been used exclusively for 3-4 seasons. Last year, with an increased acreage, the founder and publisher of this Direct Driller magazine thought a second seed drill was necessary. Having just the one machine was a risk and in a difficult season would mean drilling was delayed. He looked around and found a good condition Horsch CO6 tine drill advertised in Germany.
Words and pictures by Mike Donovan
After delivery he rebuilt the coulters to a narrow profile so as to reduce soil disturbance. He says the tine drill is very useful driling after straw crops such as osr and also through the straw on second crop cereals.
Buying the drill from a German farmer was not particularly complicated, and provided him with a higher spec machine than Horsh sell in the UK. The seed dart tyres are much wider, and the machine is fitted with blockage monitors as well as full width front packers and also a liquid fert application system.
A sheaf of photos were taken, and Clive then asked for some of specific parts to show wear. The deal was done at under £5,000 which Clive says is the market value of these machines which are too large for small farmers to buy. Original owners like to buy new and sell when the machine is still in good condition.
Narrow tines with wear tiles
@Clive knew he wanted to make changes, substituting the Horsch tines and coulters for something far narrower, and has ended up getting his own design of tine made, which has a wear tile made from Ferobide, far harder than tungsten. The drill is on the farm primarily for osr and 2nd crop cereals drilled into chopped straw and the 25cm spacing is okay for these crops.
Comments on Clive’s on-line forum, TFF, said the drill many not be so good with beans, as the slot is a mere 12mm wide. And in barley the spacing may well be too wide as it needs to be thick. Clive points out that the seed pipe can actually be a bit wider than 12mm as it is in the shadow of the point. It would be good to have the option of using it for beans.
Above left: The cheap CO6 is being calibrated ready for its first outing
Above right: The adapted Horsch is being filled by the home built drill logistics trailer with seed and liquid starter fert.
Getting around the German instructions
The Horsch came, of course, with a control box and instructions in German. More on-line discussion revealed that English instructions were available on the Horsch website, and another explained that Horsch was sourcing some of these parts from Agton in Canada anyway. Zealman from New Zealand explained that the button marked with callipers should be held down for around 5 seconds. The menu is where you adjust the tramline sequence, valve layout and row numbers.
Ball hitch is a continental standard and provides a positive connection between tractor and drill
The Stocks Wizard has a rotor modified for Avadex which otherwise leaks everywhere
A Stocks Wizard is on the back of the drill and used for Avadex. Here again the knowledge of actual farmers is helpful. Alistair Nelson warned that the rotor and the surrounding shroud need to be changed, and he got good advice “from Rick at Stocks”. Clive has the same setup on the 750A and says that the Avadex leaks everywhere unless the modification is made. The drill was acquired and modified in 2016 and the results have been excellent.
The machine went through the residue without many problems and having the second drill has meant more timely planting. Clive has shown that moving into No-Till is not the expensive exercise so many farmers think it might be. The total cost, after modifications which included replacing all tines and coulters, was under £8,000.
Author Mike Donovan writes: we have featured a number of home made direct drills in @Practical Farm Ideas, and are always interested in seeing more. Please contact mike editor@farmideas.co.uk or 07778877514.
-
Ag Tech Has a Problem
There is a common saying around the industry that “Farmers are slow to adopt technology.” It’s a long standing perception and it’s linked to my last article on step verses incremental change. Step change is difficult.
But I do think this is used by companies to explain away slow adoption of their products to their investors. Ag tech as a whole, needs to look intrinsically if it feels this is really what is holding your solution back or is your approach holding your solution back?
The Year Long Problem
The perception that farmers are slow to adopt technology, in my view, largely stems from the seasonal nature of agriculture. In an industrial or automotive setting, implementing a new solution provides almost immediate feedback on its impact. However, in farming, results take an entire harvest cycle to materialise. When it comes to digital agronomy tools, additional variables like weather conditions must also be considered. This means the evaluation process can take years before confidence in a technology is fully established—something that many outside the industry might not fully appreciate.
Now, let’s consider some ag tech solutions that have been widely adopted, such as GPS guidance systems and boom section control. These provide instant feedback—farmers see right away that they’re not steering the tractor manually or that they’re reducing seed and chemical use on irregularly shaped fields. On the other hand, digital agronomy tools, like those designed to optimise nitrogen application, require much more time to assess. Farmers must wait until harvest to analyse yield data, then determine whether the results were influenced by factors like weather or specific management practices. Did the technology perform well only because it was a wet year? Would it work just as effectively in drier conditions? Should nitrogen be applied differently to maximise the tool’s benefits? Answering these questions takes time—sometimes years and sometimes isn’t even possible.
Ultimately, this long evaluation process isn’t a sign of slow technology adoption in agriculture—it’s simply a reflection of how the industry operates. If your product does not offer an immediate response on a farm then it is going to take a lot more explaining to farmers and they will see it’s use as a lot more risky or complicated.
What is your approach as an Ag Tech Company?
Now for the tough part—the moment when ag tech companies need to take a serious look inward if they believe farmers are slow to adopt new technology. The first question to ask is: how much time are you actually spending with farmers? How many farmers really know about your products and how many of them really understand them? Have you taken farmers on a journey of development or have you simply presented a solution.
From what I’ve seen, many ag tech companies focus heavily on those at the forefront of innovation—the early adopters. But if you truly want to scale your solution and move beyond the frustration of “farmers are slow to adopt technology,” you need to step outside that bubble. You need to be taking a lot more farmers on a journey with you. If you really think a farmer will take 3 years to adopt your product then you needed to have started speaking with them 3 years ago. That doesn’t mean your product needed to be ready 3 years ago (they wouldn’t have bought it then anyway). But those farmers needed to be part of your journey then, to be adopters now.
There’s a wealth of insight to be gained from everyday farmers, the ones who aren’t always chasing the latest tech. Their feedback might not always be easy to hear, but it’s exactly what the industry needs. Its how you change over the period that means those initial farmers who weren’t ready to adopt, become your advocates of the future.
Engaging with them will reveal what it really takes to scale a product for the broader market. Are you solving a genuine problem farmers face, or are you pushing a solution in search of a problem? And even if your product does address a challenge, is the value it provides enough to justify the effort and potential headaches of implementation? Sometimes, the reality is that a farmer might find it easier to live with the problem than to adopt a complicated solution.
As with most things in life – communication is the key. It’s not easy – but every farmer I know like a chat. They are happy to hear from you as well.
-
Parsnip Pioneers: the world’s first autonomously grown parsnip crop
Huntapac’s parsnip crop, grown without human machinery operation, used Skippy Scout drone monitoring operated by Agrii’s technical experts in the world’s first instance of entirely autonomous vegetable agronomy and production.
Huntapac, in collaboration with Autonomous Agri Solutions, AutoSpray Systems and Agrii, funded by the Marks and Spencer Plan A Accelerator Fund, successfully grew a crop of parsnips autonomously. This achievement is believed to be a world first.
The field-scale trial is the most recent step in a series of trials investigating how to improve the sustainability of Huntapc’s carrot and parsnip production, says Stephen Shields, technical and sustainability director at Huntapac.
“We have done a lot of work looking at low-carbon fertilisers. We started doing 80 acres and have expanded that to 1,700 acres this year.”
This work has been combined with an autonomous field concept, which is when Agrii and the other partners became involved. It coincided with Marks and Spencer launching the Accelerator Fund to discover innovative technologies that will enable its rapid progress towards becoming a net zero business across its supply chain by 2040.
To prepare the field, an AgXeed electric drive autonomous tractor was used for primary and secondary cultivation, says Tom Beach of Autonomous Agri Solutions.
“That was able to do the subsoiling operations and ploughing, which was the first case of autonomous ploughing in the UK. Finally, it did the bed tilling.
“A Robotti was utilised for the following lighter operations. We use this because it has a standard three-point hitch to use conventional agricultural implements, but it is substantially lighter and more accurate than a tractor.”
The crop was drilled using a single-bed Stanhay X-Series drill, comparable to what is used in a conventional tractor pulled triple-bed drill. Tom believes that the longer work hours possible using autonomous technology means that smaller-width implements will deliver at least the same efficiency as larger human-operated ones.
The Robotti was responsible for the weed control, spraying the pre-emergence herbicide across the entire bed width. Subsequent applications were made post-emergence using a band sprayer on the rows and an inter-row hoe between them.
The project called on AutoSpray Systems’ expertise in drone spraying for variable rate and selective biopesticide and fertiliser applications. Robert Pearson, CEO of AutoSpray Systems, explains that the technology is well-equipped for the precise application of pesticides.
However, what drones can apply is limited by regulation because plant protection products approved for use in parsnips need specific approval for aerial application. Most biopesticides and fertilisers can be applied through the drone system, says Robert.
Autonomous vegetable agronomy
To monitor the crop and guide the precise application of plant protection products, Agrii used a drone equipped with Skippy Scout to do the agronomy.
Skippy Scout is a software system that will automatically fly a drone to selected points in a field and send high-resolution, leaf-level images to aid with decision-making. The system analyses the captured images and sends a field report, explains Jonathan Trotter, technology trials manager for Agrii.
He used a drone to collect data from the field every few weeks. Parsnips were not a crop that Skippy Scout was working with before the project. “That’s a really nice element of the project; we’re developing the AI in the background to use Skippy Scout in parsnips going forward.”
“We’ve reported back to the group every time we have surveyed the field. The idea is that we can then deploy the other technologies accordingly,” explains Jonathan.
“Skippy Scout helps identify the areas to be treated, which can be inputted into our app to treat those areas specifically,” says Robert. “We’ve been asked if our (spray) drones can do the same level of crop monitoring, and our response is absolutely not. That’s where Skippy Scout is a perfect solution.
“We believe this method will allow conventional chemistry to remain on the market for longer because you apply much less of it using our precise process. At the same time, it allows us to apply more novel products much more easily.”
Robert used the drone to apply bio-fungicides to the crop for disease prevention. This is a task a drone is especially well-suited to because the airflow from the propellers agitates the canopy, giving excellent leaf coverage for the bio-fungicide.
Scaling digital interoperability
The successful field-scale trial has demonstrated a 46% reduction in carbon emissions and significant labour and input savings. Naturally, thoughts move to how the system developed by the group can be rolled out on a larger scale.
Interoperability between the systems controlling the decision support tools and machinery is a crucial milestone. This is a challenge Agrii has already begun working on.
“We are integrating Skippy Scout with our digital platform, Contour,” says Jonathan. “This can then be linked to soil mapping through Rhiza, and further into the future, it could export treatment recommendations to the other technologies used within this very project.”
Tom Beach says the sprayer on the Robotti is already equipped and ready to do this. “It has the standard Topcon ISOBUS, giving us full variable rate capability. We can input field maps or shape files, whatever the source is.”
The data could originate from an agronomist or decision support system like Contour. As well as applying variable rates across the sprayer’s width, Robotti can be programmed only to treat specific areas and return ‘as-applied’ data through its Crop Eye camera.
More precise digital record-keeping will benefit Huntapac’s relationship with its suppliers, says Stephen Shields. “The request from our customers is to have full electronic traceability throughout the process. For some, that’s from 2025.”
Tom concludes by saying that regardless of the ag tech’s sophistication, external factors like the weather and soil conditions will still dictate how the crop is grown.
“As much as we can automate the sensing and recommendations, we are a long way from removing a human from the decision-making process.
“Robots will do whatever you tell them, but knowing what to tell them still requires a huge amount of skill.”
What is involved in growing a parsnip crop autonomously?
Autonomous tool Action AgXeed AgBot T2 Subsoiling Ploughing Bed tilling Agrointelli ROBOTTI Drilling and Nemguard (garlic extract) application Pre-emergence herbicide spraying Granular nitrogen placement Band spraying (herbicide, insecticide and trace elements) Inter-row hoeing Skippy Scout powered drone (Mavic 3 Multispectral) Crop monitoring, data analysis and decision support XAG P100 Pro Drone bio-fungicide application 
-
New genomic technologies flex their potential
Billions are being invested in gene editing globally, but what innovations will that investment deliver? Tech Farmer visited the World AgriTech Innovation Summit to gain a global perspective on what it might deliver for UK farmers.
Written by Mike Abram
There’s been no shortage of global investment in gene editing, even if venture capital funding in the area has plateaued in recent years.
Since the first research paper demonstrating genome editing of plant genomes using CRISPR/Cas9 was published in 2013, somewhere between $4bn and $6bn has been ploughed into start-ups applying the technology in agriculture, while similar, if not higher amounts have been invested by seed companies of all sizes, according to Syngenta head of seeds research Gusui Wu.
“Significant investment or funding has also happened in the public sector in plant gene-editing research,” he told delegates at the World AgriTech Innovation Summit in San Francisco.
Progress has been made in turning that investment into commercialised products. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), for example, has granted exemptions for (effectively approving) 53 gene-edited traits in 17 crops, as of January 2024.
“At the same time, we have not seen the kind of big impact, large scale commercialisation of gene-edited products in the market yet,” Gusui acknowledged.
That’s not totally surprising, he argued. It took over 10 years from the initial publication of research for the last disruptive technology in plant breeding, transgenic genetically modified traits, until the first blockbuster commercial trait in Roundup Ready soybeans.
And it wasn’t simply because of the regulatory process, although that played a part. It was as much that associated application technologies, such as methods to introducing traits into elite varieties, also needed to be developed alongside the plant transformation technique.
The same is true for gene editing, where enabling technologies are also required. “The good news is that in the past five years significant progress has been made,” Gusui said. “And we’re now approaching a turning point for gene-editing new breeding technology.”
Syngenta has developed a method of introgressing any trait into elite lines in just one generation, says Gusui Wu. Progress includes development of alternative CRISPR/Cas systems by companies like Inscripta, Pairwise and Syngenta to the CRISPR/Cas9 system originally used, which overcomes some of the Cas9 limitations, including its murky intellectual property path, Gusui suggested.
Syngenta has also developed a method of introgressing any trait into elite lines in just one generation, rather than six or seven generations it usually takes. “These types of technologies are very important for the success of gene editing in agriculture,” he said.
“Perhaps the largest opportunity is how we apply gene editing to complex traits,” he noted. “For those traits it is difficult to make simple edits. Instead, we will likely need multiple gene modifications and that is a step change that can be brought by CRISPR.”
Making multiple gene edits at the same time, including different types of edit such as turning genes on or off, or regulating gene expression up or down, will be crucial to making transformational changes, rather than just incremental improvements, according to Inari CEO Ponsi Trivisvavet.
“We are targeting 10-20% yield improvements in three key crops – corn, soybeans and wheat – without adding any resources,” Ponsi said. “In corn, we’re also targeting a 40% reduction in water use and 40% reduction in nitrogen by improving resource use efficiency.”
Inari is using two technology platforms to help achieve those goals. The first, artificial intelligence-powered predictive design help scientists understand what genes to target and express more effectively, she explained.
“For the second part, we use multiplex gene editing to not only turn genes on and off but also think about increasing or decreasing gene expression, like dimming a light switch or making it brighter.
Making multiple gene edits at the same time will be crucial to making transformational changes, says Ponsi Trivisvavet. “And we only use tools that work on natural genes, meaning when we edit wheat, for example, we only edit wheat genes.”
That approach has led to the development of a potentially higher yielding gene-edited wheat. “There is no simple answer for how to increase yield. Through predictive design we are working to build an understanding of the wheat genome’s complexity and create a blueprint for updating the plant’s architecture with our multiplex gene editing,” Ponsi said.
“In this project we’ve explored edits to address grain size, quantity and weight, as well as the number of tillers.”
The first trials of the gene-edited wheat will be in Australia, after Inari signed a collaboration with Australian breeding company InterGrain. “We delivered our gene-edited seeds into Australia, where they are currently in a quarantine greenhouse. Once released they will be further evaluated in local field conditions in field testing.”
Inari’s technology is transferable to other geographies and crops, she added.
Another example of a gene-edited wheat in development was given by Prof Eduardo Blumwald, professor of cell biology at University of California, Davis. His research is looking to address the challenge of reducing synthetic fertiliser use in crops, such as wheat, while maintaining production.
The starting point for his research was examining plant exudates from roots. “The plant communicates with the environment through chemicals,” he explained. “They extrude chemicals all the time through their roots, and with that they can talk with the environment.”
The reason why that is important is that in the soil are nitrogen-fixing bacteria – 80% of our air is nitrogen and only those bacteria can fix that nitrogen into ammonia which plants can use.
“The problem is only 10-15% of the bacteria in the soil can do that. But they don’t because in agriculture soils need oxygen, and oxygen inhibits the nitrogenase enzyme that can fix nitrogen.
“So we started analysing the plant exudates to see which one of those chemicals can induce the production of biofilms in soil. Why a biofilm? Because the biofilm is practically impermeable to oxygen.
“So although there is oxygen in the soil, bacteria surrounded by the biofilm start behaving like hippies by forming colonies and sharing resources,” he said.
Eduardo Blumwald’s research has examined how plants communicate with the environment through chemicals exudates from roots. While surrounded in the colony by biofilm the bacteria fix nitrogen and produce ammonium.
“They’re happy, the plants are happy, and the farmers are happy as they can reduce the amount of nitrogen applied.”
Finding exudates that induced biofilm production was not easy, Eduardo stressed. “We screened almost 3000 chemicals and only found a few candidates.”
The next step was to understand the complex metabolic pathway that produced the chemical in the plant. Instead of over expressing the pathway for the plant to produce more, Eduardo silenced the enzyme that uses the chemical in the plant, so it accumulates, and more is ultimately extruded.
“It sounds easy, but it’s not,” Eduardo said. “But we did it in rice and in wheat.”
The result are crops that need 50% less fertiliser to grow, albeit ones that currently come with a 25% loss in yield in wheat. That could be improved, Eduardo hopes, with further development in the hands of a major plant breeder.
“We think there could be some issues with the way the plants are assimilating the nitrogen, so we are working with the breeder to find better varieties. We believe that in very old cultivars there might be some great candidates.”
Biotechnology firm Switch Bioworks is also investigating the use of microbes to fix nitrogen to replace synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. Its initial research focused on corn, Elizabeth Ordeman, senior research associate at the firm, told Tech Farmer.
“We are isolating the best colonisers and nitrogen fixers that already live around corn roots, and then engineering them to share nitrogen with the plant.”
Typically, wild-type bacteria won’t share nitrogen because of the high energy intensity required for nitrogen fixation. “The resource is very precious for bacteria. What we do is add a genetic switch to microbes already great at fixing nitrogen that allows them to release ammonia that can be used by the plant.”
While the concept of engineering a microbial biofertiliser product isn’t unique to Switch Bioworks, the key differentiator for the company is the separation of the process of building the microbial population and producing fertiliser.
“If you engineer a microbe that always produces fertiliser, since it’s an energy intensive process, the microbe can never grow or compete well in the soil, and you don’t end up with that many bacteria producing fertiliser in the field,” Elizabeth explained.
Switch Bioworks is investigating the use of microbes to fix nitrogen to replace synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, says Elizabeth Ordeman. Switch Bioworks engineered bacteria incorporates a sensor that leads to the activation of ammonium release later in the season, once the population has built. “You get this period where the microbes grow and colonise the root, and then when they are at a high number and the plant needs nitrogen the most, you turn on the ammonium production.”
How exactly that happens is the firm’s intellectual property, but Elizabeth said there were a number of different options available that could serve as the trigger, such as changes in the soil, changes in the bacteria or something related to plant exudates to name just three.
But building the microbial population first was critical, she stressed.
“Every time the population doubles, it doubles the amount of fertiliser the bacteria can produce. It’s how we think one ounce of dried microbes will be able to inoculate an entire acre and replace up to a 100 lbs/acre (112 kg/ha) of nitrogen.”
US start-up Napigen is specialising in gene editing of mitochondrial DNA, using it to develop male sterile wheat plants that can be used in hybrid breeding of wheat.
Development of hybrid wheat has been held back commercially because of the difficulty in producing a viable hybrid seed production system in the crop, with one key challenge the development of male sterile parents, Dr Hajime Sakai told Tech Farmer.
“Currently there is no efficient, stable method of producing male sterile plants, but we hope our technology will enable that.”
Male sterility in rice, vegetables and wheat occurs naturally through genetic differences in the mitochondria, so Napigen is mimicking that through its gene-editing process.
The result, according to Hajime, will be a reliable male sterility trait in elite wheat lines in a much cleaner genetic background than anything currently available.
Once proven, he expects to partner with seed companies to develop hybrid wheat that could increase wheat yields by anything from 15% to even doubling current yields.
Napigen is also using its technology to develop other products, such as herbicide-resistant crops that will not cross-pollinate with weedy plants.
Gene-edited nematode resistant potatoes being developed
Israeli biotech start-up GeneNeer is developing gene-edited potato traits using its proprietary “Superlines” platform, including nematode and disease resistance.
Gene editing in potatoes has proven challenging, even with the newly developed gene-editing tools, CEO and co-founder Dr Kinneret Shefer says, partly because of the inability to completely remove the gene-editing machinery.
As long as foreign DNA is no longer present in the final gene-edited product, most regulatory bodies across the world do not regard the edited crop to fall under genetically modified regulations.
However, removing the DNA is difficult in potatoes due to vegetative clonal propagation from tubers rather than from true seeds. The complexity of the potato genome, particularly its tetraploidy – four copies of each gene – is another complicating factor, which makes generating new traits challenging.
GeneNeer is overcoming these challenges through its Superlines platform, which simplifies the gene-editing process by creating tissue cultures of leading varieties that serve as innovation platforms for researchers to modify genes and create improved traits.
This eliminates the need for crossing or single cell assays to remove the gene-editing machinery as well as reducing the time to produce improved traits.
One of the first traits arising from GeneNeer’s platform is a gene-edited potato with nematode resistance.
“We can use our technology to silence genes in a tissue-specific manner,” Kinneret explains. “Our manipulation occurs in the root tissues, where we silence some specific genes which prevent the nematode from proliferating. Even if a nematode attacks the potato, it cannot complete its lifecycle, cannot lay eggs and use the potato as a host.”
Initial work is being done in three varieties – Russet, Atlantic and Desirée – against both potato cyst and root knot nematodes.
The second development is aiming to solve what Kinneret suggests is a growing problem in potato production in North America – verticillium wilt.
“The reason why it is a growing problem is the push in Canada for faster maturation of the potato crop is genetically linked to greater susceptibility to the fungus causing wilt, Verticillium dahliae.
“It is very hard to target with chemicals, and because of the genetic link, it is difficult to solve with traditional breeding. However, with gene editing we can break that link,” she says.
What is gene editing?
Gene editing, also known as genome editing, at its most basic changes a DNA sequence in a living cell. It’s only been practically possible since 2012, when Nobel laureates Jennifer Doudma and Emmanelle Charpentier discovered the CRISPR-Cas9 method for precisely editing genomes.
Using such a tool allows breeders and plant scientists to “cut” a specific DNA sequence and rely of cells’ natural DNA repair mechanisms to introduce changes at that site. Think of it like a word processor used to edit documents – adding, deleting and replacing letters in the cell’s natural genetic code.
Editing just a single gene can have important effects. Most gene editing to date in food and agriculture are the result of simple edits like turning off, of “knocking out” genes. Examples include improved soybean oil with reduced saturated fatty acids, GABA-enriched tomatoes with higher levels of amino acids to lower blood pressure and browning-resistant mushrooms to prolong shelf life.
But simple edits may not be sufficient to tackle some challenges. The size and complicated nature of many plant genomes increases complexity, while some functions, such as water use efficiency or increased yield, can be driven by multiple genes working together rather than a single native gene.
Enhancements might also require different types of edit, where one gene might need to be knocked out, while other genes’ expressions need to be amplified or suppressed.
That’s where multiplex gene editing can help. It involves making a variety of edits and edit types to multiple genes at the same time. Coupled with the latest advances in genomics and artificial intelligence it provides the opportunity to address biological complexity resulting in accelerated crop improvements.
-
New technology connecting the lab to the field
Drone technology is unlocking the potential of traditional crop trials and helping to bridge the gap between detailed laboratory studies and field trials.
Drones were used to assess an oilseed rape trial this spring at a site in Yorkshire, gathering data that hasn’t been possible before.
The trial is a collaboration between Envirofield, Agrii and Yara. Envirofield is a crop research organisation that conducts independent trials. In 2022 it was acquired by Origin Enterprises, Agrii’s parent company.
Will Baldwin, director of Envirofield, says the business has maintained its independent status in the Origin group, but also benefits from being part of a bigger organisation. Most recently, this has included access to higher level technology via Agrii’s research and development drone technology to enhance trial assessments.
Will says: “Envirofield acquired a drone five years ago, but we didn’t have the capability to conduct assessments. It just gave us a nice visual perspective of a trial, with only the obvious differences showing.”
Jonathan Trotter, technology trials manager for Agrii has been operating the drone to assess the trial. He uses photogrammetry, a method in which the drone maps the trial with hundreds or thousands of high-resolution images stitched together for analysis.
He explains: “The brief from Envirofield was that Yara was interested in counting oilseed rape flowers and understanding how flowering is impacted by the products being tested. The exact details of the trial don’t concern me, my role is to help facilitate their work with the drone.
“I timed how long it took me to conduct an assessment using the drone. From opening my car door, doing the flight, packing the equipment away and finally closing the car door, it took 17 minutes!
“The drone flies across the plots at about 12 metres high. There are 40 plots, about 0.2ha, and the drone captures almost 400 images across the trial.
“Once the images are processed, every pixel equals 0.31cm of resolution,” explains Jonathan.
Agrii uses Solvi to analyse its drone images. Jonathan uploads the data to the platform, which takes about one hour to process.
Using a new tool that Solvi introduced, alongside Agrii’s experience with reflectance, Jonathan used the triangular greenness index (TGI) measurement. He explains that TGI filters out different wavelengths to remove specific colours, such as green and brown, leaving just yellow.
“TGI is perfect for only measuring flowering, which you can record as a percentage cover per plot, giving individual treatment results to monitor throughout the flowering period.
“This couldn’t have been done without a drone,” says Jonathan.
Chris Harrold, YaraVita product manager for Yara UK, says the company is investigating a range of pipeline products based on a mix of nutrients and biostimulants. Their global R&D team has found benefits in using them on flowering crops to improve flowering and pod set.
“We have been working on how we can develop these products in the UK on oilseed rape, peas and beans,” explains Chris.
“When our R&D team placed the trials with Envirofield, they requested a detailed flowering score assessment. Will Baldwin couldn’t imagine how they could accurately deliver this before drone technology was suggested.
“I saw the appeal of that, as did the R&D team. There’s a cost involved, but it’s only a fraction of the cost if we had tried to do it manually.”
The cold spring weather extended the trial’s flowering period longer than expected. Fortunately, since the drone assessments are relatively quick to conduct, Jonathan has been able to add additional assessments to cover all of the flowering.
Meanwhile the R&D team have been speaking to colleagues in Canada who expressed an interest in the work. They want to know if the methodology can be replicated in their country and if it works on other crops.
Chris continues: “Yara has been on board with the work from the outset. The results at the end of the year will reveal the benefits of the products we are testing. Regardless, I believe in the approach and can see its value in different crops and scenarios.”
He hopes to repeat the work next year to gather further data on Yara’s new products and expects the drone assessments to be an important part of the research.
Drone data enhances confidence in trials
Collecting data using drones allows Envirofield to have an archive of evidence showing how it produces its datasets from trials. Will Baldwin believes it gives companies placing trials with them confidence in their work.
He says: “We report what we find in the field at the time of assessment. The digital images taken by the drone can be revisited anytime to see exactly how the dataset was made. With traditional visual assessments, we rely on the eye of the assessor. If another party wants to look at the images, they can if they have permission.”
Will sees potential for drones to fill gaps in our understanding of new products as they go from being tested in glasshouses to small plot and tramline trials.
“What is possible in a glasshouse is not achievable in a field. If there are only one or two plants growing in a pot in a glasshouse, you can measure any physiological or pathological aspect you want in detail,” says Will.
Jonathan Trotter, technology trials manager for Agrii “Once you scale that up to in-field measurement, assessment becomes more subjective due to the large area you must cover to include variability across each plot. We could use two trial agronomists to conduct an assessment depending on what is required. This helps to alleviate any unconscious bias in the data, but that doesn’t always eliminate it.”
In the short term, Will says drones will enable trial contractors to conduct assessments in the field that could previously only be done in a controlled environment. Looking further ahead, he believes they will make it possible to capture even minor differences and account for spatial variation across much larger-scale (tramline) trials and more frequent assessments possible.
He concludes: “Our job in R&D is to give growers the confidence that the data we are collecting is done in conditions that reflect growers’ actual practices.”
Drone in a box to allow autonomous operation
Although the drone assessments only took 17 minutes, Jonathan Trotter had a three-hour round trip to get to the site. Authorisation by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the ‘drone in a box’ (DiaB) concept for trial use could eliminate the travel time and allow Agrii to assess the trials remotely and more frequently.
Jonathan explains: “Fully autonomous flight would allow us to capture the data daily to see exactly when the plots started flowering, and monitor that through the whole period to count how long each plot is flowering for and how extensive it was.”
In May, Agrii installed one of the first DiaB systems to be used for trial plot data collection and analysis in the UK at one of their sites in Yorkshire. The team is collaborating with DroneAg via Skippy Scout on this project.
“For now, we must use it with a person monitoring the drone as it flies autonomously. We have to be there with a visual line of sight and be able to take control if necessary,” says Jonathan.
“This is part of the process for us to prove autonomous drone flights are safe and possible to receive authorisation for fully autonomous flights.”
He expects Agrii to receive approval in 2025. The process is complex, with authorisations granted on a company-by-company basis. The CAA assesses each case on its merits, creating a high bar for the investment required.
-
Farmer and scientist collaboration helps to unearth soil secrets
Farmers and scientists working on the TRUTH Project have revealed some intriguing findings from their first year of working together.
TRUTH (Thriving Roots Underpinning Total soil Health) is a three-year £1m project with twin aims of boosting productivity while improving soil health. The project is led by the British On-Farm Innovation Network (BOFIN) with four partners UK Agri-Tech Centre, the John Innes Centre, University of Nottingham and PES Technologies.
Ten ‘Root Ranger’ farmers were paid to carry out on-farm trials in year one (2024), with an additional 10 recruited recently for year two (2025). The Root Rangers’ farms represent varied soil types, across conventional, regenerative and organic systems. They are based across the UK from East Lothian in Scotland to Downpatrick in Northern Ireland and as far south as the Isle of Wight. The farmers each chose a treatment they wanted to assess and have been trained in soil sampling methods.
Microorganism discovery
Dr Tom Thirkell of Crop Science Centre in Cambridge is an expert in mycorrhizal fungi which he has been studying in wheat root samples taken by the Root Rangers. As well as healthy populations of mycorrhiza, Tom’s analysis of the Root Rangers’ samples has also uncovered some “unidentified foreign organisms” (UFOs).
Some of these appear to be bacteria, while others are likely to belong to an ancient but newly-described group of fungi known as Mucoromycotina.
Tom said: “We believe these can also form beneficial interactions with cereal crop roots, but there has been very little study of them compared to the arbuscular mycorrhizas.”
They were found in several samples and are not unique to a specific type of farm. “They are random in how they crop up, but a strength of this project is that we can repeat these tests in years two and three and see if there are any patterns.”
Tom also hopes that DNA sequencing of these samples may be possible in future, so that the ‘UFOs’ can be identified.
His findings from year one suggest that variations in fungal presence are influenced more by individual farms’ management practices, rather than the different treatments being trialled, but repetition of sampling in years two and three will develop this understanding further.
“There is a lot going on underground, but it can be uncovered through collaboration with farmers and other researchers through projects like TRUTH. It’s been well-documented that farm management impacts the soil microbiome. Moving forward, with an increased focus on sustainability and reduced chemical use, it is going to become more important.”
Microbial analysis
Dr Maria Hernandez-Soriano of the John Innes Centre is leading a fascinating investigation into soil microbial diversity. Her work involves analysing DNA from soil samples collected by Root Rangers across 10 farms, revealing a staggering 15,686 individual species.
At the John Innes Centre laboratories in Norwich some 222 samples from the Root Rangers were carefully processed to extract the DNA. The DNA was then prepared for sequencing by specialists to ensure the best quality analysis, and finally sent to a leading provider of sequencing services.
The scientists then compiled a ‘library’ of all the DNA found in the samples, naming matched sequences using extensive databases. The result is a vast spreadsheet listing all the individual species found in each sample – a total of 15,686 across the Root Rangers’ soils. From there the data was analysed, drawing comparisons across different systems and the whole dataset, but also drilling down into individual farms’ results to assess and compare diversity.
Maria said: “At the moment the results are suggesting that management is the strongest influence.” In particular, the organic farmers amongst the Root Rangers had the most diverse samples with a significant difference in nitrification too.
Diversity is important because these microbes work together as part of a complex network, both in cooperation with each other and regulating their different roles in soil. “It’s a huge community – some of which we know a lot about while others are yet to be characterised.”
Understanding the activity of nitrification bacteria helps in improving nitrogen use efficiency, Maria added. She has been looking closely at two of the most prevalent nitrifying communities, Nitrososphaera and Nitroscosmicus archaea. These have become the biomarkers in the rhizosphere of modern cultivars following N-fertiliser application, to the detriment of other communities, she explained.
“The abundance of these microbes in soil dramatically increases when you apply ammonium-based fertilisers, rapidly turning ammonium into nitrate, which is highly soluble and easily lost to the environment through leaching or gas emission as nitrous oxide.”
Year two of the project will focus more on the rhizosphere and now with 20 Root Rangers on board the sampling will produce an even stronger dataset.
“Working on the TRUTH project is a dream,” says Maria. “The farmers have been brilliant, and have sent us quality samples meaning that scientists like me can focus on what we do best. Through our work together we can deliver information that is of real value to the farmers.”
A 360 view of soil health
The Root Rangers have also been given a unique view of their soil structure and root systems through X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) scanning.
Dr Craig Sturrock of the University of Nottingham explained that CT scans were used to compare soil ‘cores’ from the different farms. The farmers took samples from their chosen fields of first winter wheat using sections of plastic pipe (15 cm x 8 cm). These were hammered into the ground before being carefully excavated to preserve the structure of the soil and roots inside. Each of the Root Rangers took 10 samples in a typical w-formation, five samples from the treated area under scrutiny in their trials and five from the untreated area.
Craig explained: “It’s been a really exciting first year of the project, using the imaging technology to visualise the structure of soils across the UK, completely non-destructively, which is usually really difficult to see.
“We’ve found some nice differences between the soils. There’s variation between geographical location, soil texture, treatments, and differences in the root structure.”
The research highlighted the impact of management practices, such as ploughing and grazing. The results were not always as expected, with ploughed soil showing minimal differences to min or no-till. This may have been related to the time of sample collection being relatively late in the growth season (May 2024), where the soil has had time to settle after cultivation the previous autumn. “This year we plan to sample in March so tillage differences between sites may be more apparent.”
In year two the Root Rangers will repeat the sampling process, but this time with five soil cores just from untreated areas.
Craig concluded: “I’m really looking forward to year two of the project, seeing how the results will look and what more we can learn from repeating the sampling.”
Root Ranger feedback
Anna Pearce is an organic farmer and seed producer from Northumberland. She joined the TRUTH project as she was keen to work with scientists to learn more about the health of the soil on her farm.
She said: “As farmers we don’t often get the opportunity to interact with scientists and this is a huge opportunity to be able to put our heads together.” Anna was particularly interested to find out how her soil compared to other farms and to see the soil core CT scans.
“It is fascinating to see pictures of what is under the ground,” she said. “It was reassuring to learn that my soil copes well with being lightly ploughed and that there is enough life in it to repair any changes to structure.”
Hertfordshire farm manager Ted Allen-Stevens also welcomed the opportunity to take part in the project, particularly as it validated the introduction of regenerative practices on the farm.
He said: “When I saw our results from the TRUTH project I felt that I had some real evidence that soil health had improved since we brought in regenerative practices here.
“It’s only when you drill down into the detail of your own farm that you can get that substance and reassurance of what you’re actually achieving.”
Next steps
The second year of the project will build on the successes so far, with the soil/root testing tools under further scrutiny by the farmers and scientists. An innovative soil health sensor, developed by PES Technologies, will also be circulated amongst the Root Rangers who will put it through their paces. The sensor is designed to measure microbial diversity and fungal:bacterial ratio.
Also, in year two novel wheat varieties are being multiplied ready for trialling on Root Rangers’ farms in the final year of the project. These include a ‘remarkable’ variety that can moderate its own nitrogen supply. Originating from Iran, this particular wheat landrace is part of the historic Watkins collection at JIC.
Maria Hernandez-Soriano explained: “What is interesting about this particular wheat, is that it has demonstrated capacity to decrease the transformation of ammonium into nitrate in the soil. This is believed to be an adaptive trait.”
It means much less nitrogen from fertilisers potentially being lost to the environment and more being taken up and used by the wheat plant itself, because it is controlling the transformation in soil and optimising the uptake.
“We haven’t observed that same capability or trait in any commercial wheat cultivars yet, so that is remarkable.”
Tom Allen-Stevens, managing director of the British On-Farm Innovation Network (BOFIN) which leads the project said: “The quality of samples and resulting data has proven again the value of on-farm trials and what can be gained when farmers and scientists work together.
“There is a huge appetite amongst farmers to learn more about soil health. This project is paving the way for discoveries about how we can improve the long-term productivity of our farms through improved understanding and management of our most precious resource.”
TRUTH is funded by the Farming Futures R&D fund, part of Defra’s Farming Innovation Programme. Defra is working in partnership with Innovate UK, the UK’s innovation agency, who are delivering the programme. TRUTH is led by BOFIN alongside PES Technologies, UK Agri-Tech Centre (which is responsible for project management), John Innes Centre and University of Nottingham.
-
A ‘big revolution’ in nitrogen management
Witten by Clemmie Gleeson from BOFIN
Could hyperspectral imaging revolutionise nitrogen management in agriculture? Clemmie Gleeson spoke to George Marangos-Gilks, CEO of agritech startup Messium to find out.
Hyperspectral imagery can overcome the limitations of existing nitrogen assessment methods, equipping farmers with high level insights that could optimise fertiliser applications according to George Marangos-Gilks.
Conventional approaches like lab tests are accurate, but often impractical due to high costs and time constraints, he says. Handheld sensors, though more accessible, struggle with farm-level practicality. And current satellite technologies using NDVI (Normalised Difference Vegetation Index) offer valuable biomass insights but fall short in directly quantifying crop nitrogen levels.
Hyperspectral satellites however are changing the game by capturing hundreds of wavebands, including the invisible infrared spectrum, far surpassing the capabilities of traditional multispectral imaging.
Initially introduced by NASA over two decades ago, early hyperspectral satellites were prohibitively expensive and data-intensive. However, 2024 marked a turning point with the launch of the first commercial constellations creating the possibility of cheaper and more powerful satellites. Indeed, the number of hyperspectral satellites is increasing at a rapid rate and Messium has secured priority supply deals with the major players.
“There is a new age coming with much richer data,” says George.
George Marangos-Gilks, CEO of agritech startup Messium Hyperspectral’s application for assessing nitrogen in crops is based around the fact that every chemical on earth absorbs and reflects a wavelength and has a spectral signature and research has shown that there are key nitrogen wavelengths.
“We can take these wavelengths and use that to develop a very good understanding of the amount and intensity of the nitrogen in the crop.
“Hyperspectral satellites are the first satellites that can accurately detect nitrogen,” he stresses.
Previous generation satellites such as NDVI are adept at understanding biomass – different levels of green density in the crop and where the biomass is larger or smaller – but they can’t tell if that biomass has high or low nitrogen.
“This is the big revolution. We are linking biomass and nitrogen insights together to then apply the science.”
Messium has collected more than 16,000 samples to date – each sample being a 50cm row of crop which is connected to a GPS location and sent to a laboratory where it is analysed for nitrogen concentration and biomass.
George continued: “We take this data and match it to the satellite images that were acquired at the same time. The more we link this data together the more powerful our predictive AI model becomes.
“We are confident that we’re on track to achieve a 90% accuracy level compared to a lab test in the next year.”
Handheld and tractor sensors are also accurate, but they are time consuming and impractical, he adds. Tractor sensors in particular only assess the crop as it is driven over.
“You could be two weeks too early or too late to hit that optimum nitrogen level. The obvious solution therefore is satellites. With satellites you can image an entire farm, but NVDI simply doesn’t do nitrogen.
“You could have high biomass and low nitrogen in the crop or high biomass and high nitrogen. It doesn’t tell you whether you’re above or below that nitrogen nutrition index, the critical nitrogen curve which is the key to utilising the science effectively.”
Cloud cover presents less of an issue for hyperspectral satellites than NDVI satellites, as they operate in networked constellations to increase the frequency of flyovers. Whereas legacy satellites have historically provided imaging opportunities every five days or more, hyperspectral constellations are moving towards daily, and eventually multiple times per day.
“There is basically a satellite overhead every single day, so the chance of having a cloud-free day in a two-week period in the UK is about 96%. With the number of satellites set to double in 2026, cloud is less of a blocker.”
In 2024 Messium collected over 1,000 samples from 47 farms across Europe.
“The results showed that 51% of fields were over-fertilised, they were 40% above the critical nitrogen curve. Then 39% of fields were under-fertilised, by an average of 28%. That’s a big error either side.
“But it makes sense – it is very difficult to understand the nitrogen concentration of a crop mid-season.”
Worldwide Messium has run 47 recommendation trials and plans to release results from its Australia and New Zealand harvest soon. From its trials in the UK 10 out of the 14 farmers involved saw a significant financial benefit in terms of cost saving from reducing nitrogen application and/or yield gained from increased application.
Three were helped with reduced nitrogen for the second or third application, says George. “For four farmers, who were actively trying to reduce nitrogen use, we could demonstrate how applying a bit more would boost yields.
“Then for three farmers, we noticed that nitrogen was not the limiting factor. Plenty of nitrogen had been applied, the crop was not responding, and it wasn’t increasing in biomass. This indicates, potentially a P, K, manganese or calcium issue instead.”
From left Vishal Soomaney Vijaykumar (Messium CTO and co-founder), Nick Wilson (farmer) and Violet Hill (Lead Crop Growth Modeller, Messium) Farmer experience
Mid Suffolk arable farmer Tom Jewers has been trying to reduce nitrogen applications to increase efficiency and has a keen interest in technology that could potentially help, but satellite imagery had previously been a source of ‘endless frustration’.
Speaking at a webinar co-hosted by Messium and the British On-Farm Innovation Network (BOFIN) he said: “We started using NDVI imagery in about 2011, but realised that if we couldn’t get even establishment, it was pointless.
“We then used a variable seed rate to try and get a level playing field, and then varied the nitrogen. When we were purely looking at biomass the advice was always to chuck more on the low bits, and invariably they don’t catch up, so you then put less on afterwards.
“It seemed to me that was the wrong advice.
“We’re now measuring the nitrogen in the crop. Here in the east of England we can suffer with very dry springs, so we’ve tended to start applying more and more N earlier.
“If we’re above the critical N curve, then it’s not going to take that nitrogen up as efficiently, because it’s already got too much, so our use efficiency will go down.
“The really interesting thing to me from working with Messium is the delay in application.”
Mid Suffolk arable farmer Tom Jewers Tom had eight trial strips – some managed under his usual regime, others with higher rates of nitrogen and another in accordance with Messium’s findings. The Messium strip received 227kg of Nitrogen and the strip next to it received 225kg however Messium strip yielded 0.6t/ha more. This was due to the timing of that application.
“Seeing that yield response from a place in the field where there isn’t historic variation was really interesting,” concluded Tom. “We don’t often see that sort of response from a trial so I’m quite excited by this.”
Oxfordshire farmer and managing director of the BOFIN Tom Allen-Stevens said: “It’s essential that farmers can make best use of the latest technology if they are to increase productivity and sustainability in 2025 and beyond.
“Satellite technology has become part of the toolkit for UK farmers seeking precision application, so hyperspectral imaging is of huge interest to those wanting to take their production to the next level.” “My advice to farmers is that to give it a go in trials as Tom has, to find out what difference you can achie
-
Nuffield Recommendations for ‘AgTech’ entrepreneurship and development
Yorkshire entrepreneur Hannah Senior NSch has published her Nuffield Farming report ‘Innovating AgTech Entrepreneurship’, sponsored by the Elizabeth Creak Charitable Trust.
The full report is now published and available on the Nuffield Farming report library. A recording of Hannah presenting at the Nuffield Farming Conference watch via the QR Code.
During her Scholarship, Hannah travelled to New Zealand, Australia and the United States, in addition to conducting a number of visits in a further 11 countries via video call due to travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hannah wanted to learn how to create a more vibrant ecosystem for AgTech entrepreneurs in the UK, understand beneficial support around entrepreneurship and how interactions between start-ups and farmers should operate.
In her report Hannah found that it was inappropriate to model AgTech entrepreneurship ecosystems on those found in Silicon Valley.
“Farming is a very different ‘problem space’ to computing or software,” she says. “AgTech innovation influences the food system, ecosystem and economic system, all of which are influenced by a complex set of interactions and feedback loops. This makes the impact of a new technology hard to predict.”
She identified a pattern which she named the ‘Chain of Extraction’ that happens at macro-level between the environment, agriculture, entrepreneurs and investors. “Despite both the two-way nature of the transactions and the many exceptions, overall benefits tend to accrue more in one direction than the other and this erodes one party’s ability to sustainably create value.
“Improving AgTech innovation requires greater awareness of this dynamic. It also needs creative approaches to align interests and address imbalances, paying attention to how risk, value creation and trust are created and shared.”
In her report, Hannah shares several suggestions, including involving farmers earlier in technology development, diversifying how early-stage investments are made and equipping people in AgTech with ‘Systems Thinking’ skills.
“Technology is only a partial answer to our problems. Changing less obvious things like how we solve problems, invest our capital and measure success will also be essential,” she concludes.
Study objectives
- Investigate how to better align interests between the environment, farmers, entrepreneurs and investors.
- Learn how to create a more vibrant ecosystem for AgTech entrepreneurs in the UK.
Key messages
- A lot of emphasis is put on technology to address agriculture’s major challenges. Technology matters, but it’s equally crucial to address other issues, e.g. how we solve problems, invest capital and measure success.
- Many entities are involved in agriculture and agricultural innovation, including governments, the environment, farmers, entrepreneurs and investors. Naturally all these parties want to benefit, but currently imbalances in the relationships undermine long-term value creation.
- Important differences exist between AgTech and the Silicon Valley innovation template that often informs entrepreneurial ecosystems. To align interests and make a more vibrant AgTech ecosystem these differences need to be considered.
- Equipping the agricultural sector to understand the complicated relationships and unpredictable effects of change requires a new ‘tool set’ – more skill in Systems Thinking will help.
- Farmers, growers and their representative organisations must be more involved in entrepreneurial innovation as idea progresses from its conception, to commercialisation, to a change in farming practice. We must also diversify who invests in AgTech start-ups and how investments are made.
- All this requires a greater emphasis on collaboration, which involves finding methods to build trust, share risk, and equitably distribute value that’s created.
Executive Summary – From Full Report
Written by Hannah Senior NSch
The potential for entrepreneurs to bring new technology to agriculture (“AgTech”) has created a recent focus for start-up activity ($19Bn invested in “on-farm” innovations in 2021). Most AgTech innovations promise to tackle agriculture’s most pressing concerns: environmental impact, labour issues and farm profitability.
This study set out to explore how to create a vibrant AgTech entrepreneurial community, and investigated questions such as what support around entrepreneurship is beneficial, and how interactions between start-ups farmers should operate. However, it also asked much wider questions such as whether AgTech entrepreneurship can really influence farming, the environment and the food industry in the way founders and investors often hope. I questioned the appropriateness of modelling AgTech entrepreneurship ecosystems too closely on what worked well in Silicon Valley. Farming is a very different ‘problem space’ to computing or software. AgTech innovation influences the food system, ecosystem, and economic system, all of which are influenced by a complex set of interactions and feedback loops. This makes the impact of a new technology hard to predict – what is a good idea in one respect (e.g. artificial fertiliser) can bring unforseen negative consequences (e.g. climate change impact, water pollution). I began to recognise a pattern that I came to call a “Chain of Extraction” that happens, at a macro-level, between the environment, agriculture, entrepreneurs and investors. • Agriculture extracts from the environment (e.g. biodiversity, carbon, water) • Entrepreneurs extract from farmers (e.g. time, insight, risk) • Investors extract from entrepreneurs (e.g. financial returns, mental health, lifetime earnings) • Everyone is extracting from the public purse (e.g. tax breaks, subsidies, publicly funded research) Despite both the two-way nature of the transactions and the many exceptions, overall benefits tend to accrue more in one direction than the other and this erodes one party’s ability to sustainably create value. The chain arises despite most people trying to do the right thing most of the time. It that emerges from the way social, economic and environmental systems operate. Improving AgTech innovation requires greater awareness of this dynamic. It also needs creative approaches to align interests and address imbalances, paying attention to how risk, value creation and trust are created and shared. Examples include: • Involving farmers earlier and more substantially in new technology development. Tennessee AgTech business accelerator AgLaunch does this well, working with farmers to select and trial entrepreneurs’ innovations while ensuring the farmers’ contributions are reflected when financial returns are distributed. • Diversifying how early-stage investments are made. Novel ways to structure startup investment (“innovative finance”) exist but are not widely used although there is emerging evidence that investors can achieve strong financial returns even with agriculture-like characteristics (e.g. ii longer adoption timeframes). Greater efforts to diversify who invests would also be beneficial. • Equipping people in the AgTech ecosystem with “Systems Thinking” skills (e.g. being better equipped to identify how/where to make change in complex systems, and understand how influences can deflect us from our stated goals) alongside an openness to collaboration. New Zealand’s Te Hono movement aims to build a more holistic mindset among leaders of their Primary Industries, and build “collaborative advantage” The study concluded that technology is only a partial answer to our problems. Changing less obvious things like how we solve problems, invest our capital and measure success will also be essential.
Read the full report here: https://www.nuffieldscholar.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Hannah%20Senior%20final%20report%20pdf.pdf
-
Artificial intelligence is speeding up the development of the next generation of Biostimulants
Written by Syngenta
- Syngenta Crop Protection and TraitSeq announce a pioneering collaboration which could help farmers transition to more sustainable practices.
Syngenta and the pioneering artificial intelligence (AI) company TraitSeq are combining forces to use the full power of AI for the development of innovative, high-performance biostimulants.
Syngenta, a world leader in developing the next generation of biologicals products for agricultural use, will use its extensive knowledge of crop biology to complement TraitSeq’s proprietary AI methods to identify highly specific indicators of a plant’s cellular state called biomarkers. When activated, these biomarkers can indicate how well a plant is responding to efforts to boost its health or to block the effects of external, abiotic stressors.
Biostimulants are products applied to plants, seeds or the root environment that enhance natural plant processes, leading to an improved nutrient use efficiency, increased tolerance to abiotic stress or better crop quality. Biostimulants are a vital and growing component of sustainable agriculture, yet their performance can vary depending on environmental factors such as temperature and local climate.
Syngenta has extensive data across different branches of science – such as genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and phenomics. Using TraitSeq’s sophisticated proprietary platform, scientists from both teams hope to leverage AI to analyze complex biological big data, to uncover the intricate molecular interactions that impact a crop’s ability to utilize available nutrients in the soil. Once specific biomarkers can be identified, scientists hope to be able to quickly and accurately assess the efficacy of a new biostimulant in enhancing plant health.
The development of such biostimulants also fits in Syngenta’s efforts to support farmers transition to regenerative practices and its commitment to sustainability. Syngenta’s recently launched Portfolio Sustainability Framework (PSF) rates Syngenta’s products for sustainability and stakeholder alignments into 3 tiers. New products are also included with the aim to shift the portfolio towards the top tier.
Camilla Corsi, Head Crop Protection Research & Development, said: “At Syngenta, we are accelerating the pace at which we innovate, to deliver solutions farmers urgently need. Technologies such as TraitSeq’s AI-driven platform enable us to revolutionize our research, attain important data-driven insights, so that we can develop the next-generation of sustainable solutions faster – while further strengthening our pipeline of innovative agricultural technologies.”
Dr. Joshua Colmer, CEO of TraitSeq, said: “This partnership highlights how TraitSeq’s versatile platform can transform agricultural input development by uncovering predictive biomarkers that directly link molecular insights to biostimulant performance. By equipping Syngenta’s innovation pipeline with these capabilities, we aim to optimise and accelerate the development of new biological solutions, which will support farmers in adopting more sustainable agricultural practices.”
Biostimulants offer an important solution to farmers seeking to improve the sustainability of their farming operations while addressing challenges arising from an increasingly constrained toolbox of available agricultural technologies and evolving consumer demands.
About TraitSeq Ltd
TraitSeq Ltd is an agri-biotechnology company specialising in applying proprietary machine learning approaches to omics data analysis for agriculture. A spin-out from the Earlham Institute, TraitSeq’s platform combines omics data with other data types to predict complex phenotypic traits. This provides agritech companies with actionable insights to accelerate and optimise chemical and biological crop input development, plant gene editing, and complex trait development in agricultural crops and animals.
-
New sequenced genome sheds light on weed resistance
Written by the Earlham Institute
Genomic advances reveal how similar weeds can dominate wheat fields that are geographically separated by over 5,000 miles.
Two new Alopecurus genomes have been sequenced, providing important additions to the growing body of community resources for weed genomics.
Access to the genomes for blackgrass and orange foxtail, sometimes called shortawn foxtail, will help researchers address what makes these weeds such exceptional survivors in modern agricultural systems.
The sequencing of the orange foxtail genome, which was carried out at the Earlham Institute, generated 11.7 million PacBio HiFi reads – nearly 230 Gb of data – corresponding to a haploid genome coverage of 32.9x.
Both blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides) and orange foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis) are native to many regions across the Northern Hemisphere.
Blackgrass has become the predominant agricultural weed in Western European winter wheat and barley, whereas orange foxtail has emerged as the dominant agricultural weed for similar crops in parts of China and Japan.
Both are grass weeds that grow in grass crops. They frequently out-compete cereal crops.
Changes in cropping practices have not been effective in controlling the weeds, and both have evolved resistance to multiple herbicides.
With both weeds presenting a major threat to crop yields and food security, a better understanding of the genetic drivers of their resistances and resiliencies are essential to generate effective strategies for control. Filling this knowledge gap requires high-quality genomic resources.
In December 2023, an annotated blackgrass genome was published by Rothamsted, Clemson University, and Bayer scientists. The blackgrass seeds were from a population collected in 2017 from the Broadbalk long-term experiment that had never been treated with herbicides and so remained susceptible to chemical control.
Comparing this population with resistant populations from other UK fields enabled these researchers to identify genetic mechanisms correlated with resistance.
Now, one year later, an annotated orange foxtail genome has been published. For this genome, Rothamsted researchers collaborated with partners at the Earlham Institute and the European Reference Genome Atlas (ERGA) initiative, which ultimately aims to provide reference genomes for all European species.
The orange foxtail plants sequenced were from seeds held by Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank from a UK-collected population.
As orange foxtail is not present in the UK’s agroecosystem, it is unlikely they have ever been exposed to herbicides.
As with the Broadbalk seeds, this genome is an important reference as it will not have been influenced by the strong selective pressures that have shaped some weed populations.
The orange foxtail genome at 2.83 Gb is smaller than the blackgrass genome (3.572 Gb) and contained just over 33,750 protein-coding genes. The genome is assembled into a total of seven chromosome-level scaffolds, and most are complete with telomere sequences on one or both ends.
The sequencing, assembly, and analysis of the orange foxtail grass were carried out by teams in both the Earlham Institute’s Faculty and its National Bioscience Research Infrastructure in Transformative Genomics, both supported by BBSRC.
Dr Jon Wright, study author and Bioinformatician at the Earlham Institute, said: “Genomic resources are increasingly important to enable breeders and producers, who are under growing pressure to develop new and sustainable approaches to manage weeds, pests, and disease.
“To understand how these weeds compete with the plants we want to cultivate, and look inside the box of tricks they use to frustrate farmers, we absolutely need to have high-quality genomes.
“We’ve been able to start exploring the evolutionary story of these weeds, particularly their development of herbicide resistance. This could be used to develop effective herbicides or other strategies to better control these weeds.”
Dr Dana MacGregor, author and Weed Molecular Biologist at Rothamsted Research, said: “With these platinum-quality genomes in hand, we can shrink the continental-scale geographic isolation and 7.4 million years of divergence between these two species to ask whether similarities between these two species are the result of parallel evolution or have a common origin.
“When we compared the orange foxtail and blackgrass genomes with barley – a crop they grow in – we were surprised to find that the orange foxtail genome structure is more like barley than blackgrass.
“Such genomic rearrangements highlight areas of functional conservation or divergence that drive adaptations to specific environments or ecological niches.”
The genome for the orange foxtail was sequenced by the Technical Genomics group, assembled by Dr Wright, and annotated by the Core Bioinformatics group – all based at the Earlham Institute.
Naomi Irish, Senior Research Assistant in the Technical Genomics Group at the Earlham Institute, said: “The orange foxtail is quite exceptional amongst eukaryotic genome assemblies. We normally see very good assemblies with a contig N50 of between 20-30Mb. Our orange foxtail has a huge contig N50 of 374.7Mb.
“Assembling the genome – from growing the plants, doing the DNA extraction, through to sequencing and annotation – involves a lot of people and expertise. We’re uniquely set up to bring everyone and everything together for these kinds of projects to give us such great coverage.
“The read length, particularly for a plant, was particularly impressive and only made possible thanks to careful coordination and collaboration.”
ERGA contributes to the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP). This ambitious initiative aims to sequence all eukaryotic life on earth – generating reference quality genome assemblies for approximately 1.9 million described eukaryotes.
About the Earlham Institute
The Earlham Institute is a hub of life science research, training, and innovation focused on understanding the natural world through the lens of genomics.
Embracing the full breadth of life on Earth, our scientists specialise in developing and testing the latest tools and approaches needed to decode living systems and make predictions about biology.
The Earlham Institute is based within the Norwich Research Park and is one of eight institutes that receive strategic funding from BBSRC, as well as support from other research funders.
-
What the public think of farming?
I had already written this into based on the IHT announcement and the subsequent farming protests and events organised around the country. But having listened to the brilliant Tom Martin talking on stage at the BASE conference I gave it a little update – as his ideas on communication are spot on and really show us to how to connect more with consumers (our ultimate customers).
But protests don’t necessarily endear you to the public – the train drivers strikes being an example of where this damaged their public support. As an someone involved in the organisation of some of the events, you need to consider what the public think of farming overall.
Public Awareness and Support
The widespread protests have undeniably brought significant attention to the challenges faced by the farming community. Media coverage has been extensive, with major outlets highlighting the concerns and struggles of farmers (possible with the exception of the BBC where coverage has not been extensive). I think, based on looking at our socials, this heightened visibility has fostered a sense of empathy among the public, many of whom were previously unaware of the intricacies of agricultural operations and the financial burdens associated with them.
A public poll conducted shortly after the protests indicated substantial support for farmers, with a majority believing that agricultural estates should be exempt from the proposed inheritance tax changes. I think this sentiment stems from a recognition of the essential role farmers play in ensuring food security and maintaining the rural economy. The public’s growing awareness has translated into a broader appreciation for the hard work and dedication inherent in farming. But does this mean they are more likely to buy UK grown products?
Perception of the Inheritance Tax Reforms
I have yet met a farmer who thinks those buying land to avoid IHT think they should not get taxed. So the policy itself isn’t the issue. But the government’s proposal to impose a 20% inheritance tax on farms valued over £1-3 million (depending on your marital status) has been met with universal disdain. Some segments of the public view it as a necessary measure to address fiscal challenges, but a significant portion perceives it as an undue burden on family-run farms. All organisations, NFU, CLA, TFF, Reform Party, Conservative Party and farmers across the country have been vocal in its opposition, generally arguing that the these changes could impact up to 75% of commercial family farms, potentially forcing them to sell land to meet tax obligations. These are not the demographic that the government said they were targeting.
This perspective resonates with many people who value the tradition of family-owned farms and fear that such policies might lead to the corporatisation of agriculture, thereby eroding local communities and traditions. But there seems to be a big urban / rural divide. The public discourse suggests a growing concern that the reforms could inadvertently favour large agribusinesses over smaller, family-run operations.
Beyond the immediate issue of inheritance tax, the protests certainly have shed light on a range of challenges confronting the farming sector. Farmers have expressed feelings of neglect and misunderstanding by urban policymakers, citing issues such as recent weather, fluctuating market prices, and changes from BPS to SFI post-Brexit. Generally, I think these grievances have struck a chord with the public, many of whom are beginning to grasp the multifaceted pressures faced by those in agriculture. We have the likes of Clarkson’s Farm and others for highlighting these issues over the past 3 years. It’s not the first time the public are hearing this.
I do see that the narrative is shifting towards a more inclusive understanding of the agricultural sector’s pivotal role in the nation’s well-being.
The Path Forward
In this instance, the collective voice of the farming community, amplified by public support, has initiated a critical dialogue about the future of agriculture in the UK. A unified farming community has spoken and the public (and government) have heard 1000s of voices as opposed to just the few.
Tom Martin said a very similar thing on stage. If lots of us take on the responsibility to talk to the public about what we are doing, our collective voice grows and I’ve seen the impact of that over the past 3 months.
Think about who you communicate with, be it online, in parish magazines, in the pub, in local schools and do a little bit more. Because if we all do a bit more the public will know a lot more about farming.
-
Farmer Focus – Phil Rowbottom
Jan 2025
It’s been a while since I last wrote a Farmer focus article in Direct Driller magazine.
Harvest 24’ Seems like a long time ago, yet we’re now closer to the next harvest than we were the last.
2024 On the farm was a year to forget for many reasons, even before the Autumn Budget announcement. We are now into our fourth season Direct Drilling on the farm, still adapting and continuing to learn as we go.
The biggest single change is that for the first time in 50 years, we are not growing any oil seed rape. The continued battle to establish and nurture this crop through to harvest, has made it un-viable to grow as a break crop, the risk simply does not match the reward.
More on that shortly, let’s get back to last summer for a minute, at least it was a bit warmer and less gloomy then!
Wheat yields were far from anything to shout about following the wet winter of 2023/24.
Milling wheats were very average, between 7 and 8 tons to the Ha, with the feed wheats doing marginally better at 9 tons to the Ha.
With continued poor grain prices through 2024, much of the 2023 harvest was still in the grain store at harvest.
Autumn drilling was relatively straightforward this time compared to the year before, even though the summer cover crop between harvest and drilling did not meet expectations, it still maintained a green cover year round and will have ecological benefits to both soil health and wildlife as we’ve seen before, with Grey Partridge back on the farm in the last couple of years and owl populations seemingly increasing too.
With the removal of OSR as the break crop, spring oats will follow an SFI over winter cover crop, to be followed by spring oats, the financial benefits alone from this SFI option vs OSR is frankly a no brainer commercially. It has also opened the door to an additional storage opportunity with one of our merchant clients wanting a 1000 ton of oats to be stored here, which will replace some of the lost OSR storage.
Winter wheats are all in, we’ve only had to re-drill one piece due to ryegrass, a decision that was made very quickly after emergence at the start of November.
We took a decision on wheats to go for the most vigorous varieties, irrespective of milling or feed wheat. Champion is a new variety along with Goldfinch, a milling wheat that is BYDV resistant and Dawson, an old favorite back for another year.
Having walked the farm over the last day or two, it looks in rude health compared to this time last year, with significantly less water damage than last winter, the later sown wheat in November actually looks the best of all.
We trialled leaving stubbles taller this year to reduce the matting effect of chopped straw, which seems to have worked this time at least.
Providing we don’t have too much more rain and the temperatures climb as forecast, I expect to be spraying off cover crops by the first week in March with a view to be drilling oats very soon after.
We continue to test soil health annually, this time with SOYL, every HA sampled to allow a more accurate account of soil mapping to enable us to utilise variable rate application, from drilling, chemical and fertiliser application, the purchase of a new Amazone Sprayer, with individual nozzle control has made this even more critical to not only input cost reduction, but to enable better environmental outcomes.
The Sky Drill still proves to be very successful, Sky UK visiting the farm with other farmers lead us to hosting Fredric Tomas and a number of other farmers at the end of last year.
It’s difficult to write this without touching on the IHT changes announced last Budget.
As a farmer and business owner, who diversified nearly 30 years ago, with family working within that business, it’s very difficult to see a positive outcome for any of it presently. We’ll keep fighting on until the government listens and hopefully sees some sense in altering the proposed policy, until then we’ll just keep on going as we always do.
-
For The Love of Soil…
For a generation, farmers have taken for granted their most valuable resource, often considering it to be simply ‘dirt’. The focus has been on force-feeding the crop and beating the soil into submission, driven by an ethos of yield over profit, with little respect for the aftermath. Inputs for many have typically increased since the 1940’s, as at that time, fertiliser was seen to be the easy solution to maximise crop returns; consequently, the supply and demand situation was then able to keep pace and crop rotations became shorter to satisfy the ever-increasing markets. However, all the while soil was still treated as an abused medium and consequently, this once robust and resilient resource has suffered – until now.
The farming solution has been to counteract this shortfall with greater chemical inputs. This counter-intuitive response has led to increased disease pressure, forcing perpetual reliance on agronomy to maintain healthy plants. STOP!
Back up and look at what’s happening; this is not a sustainable system and it will ultimately lead us down a path that we cannot come back from. You only need to look outside at the hedges and verges for inspiration. Their eco-systems are self-sustaining, resilient and productive; despite a lack of farm inputs – they have predominantly been left unassisted, and now have a naturally evolved durability.
A simple experiment you could try for yourself is to take a spade out to the centre of your field and compare the soil to what’s in your hedgerows. I guarantee the colour will be different, as will the smell. When you look at the soil texture, the hedgerow will be superior; you may also notice that there is a lot more life living in the more natural sample. This should tell you that things can and should be done, in a better, more sustainable way.
A productive soil will naturally cycle nutrients, water and air whilst supporting both biological and crop life optimally; unfortunately, excessive inputs and soil disturbances tend to upset this already finely-tuned environment – who are we to think that we know better?
There’s already a legitimate way that soils provide nutrition to their inhabitants, via biological exchange – subject to demand and conditions and complex reactions that both lock up and release elements within the soil’s profile. This trading of resources is often instigated by living organisms and is dependent on having healthy soil. When soil is degraded, natural resources are scarcer, leading to diminished Bio’ activity and, following this, less active soil will frequently require artificial intervention which in turn will throttle natural demand, thus perpetuating a more self-destructive cycle.
For example, since its conception, the Nutrient Management Guide (RB209), has advocated that farmers apply Potassium, subject to the estimated offtake of a crop and the results given by a standard soil analysis. However, I would suggest that these guidance tables should also be considering the Total K assets that the soil has to offer and not just those measured by standard lab extraction, using a chemical solution. The Total K that is held onto by the soil, will be way above what’s measured conventionally.
I’m not suggesting that Potash is bad for the soil, simply that things need to be more in balance, for the system to work effectively. Wouldn’t it be great to spend less on fertiliser and work with the soil, as opposed to against it? After all, too much of anything can still be a bad thing. One solution would be, to utilise the soil’s capacity to cycle nutrients; or by supposedly satisfying a deficiency via chemical inputs, the natural ability of soil can be made redundant by switching off this valuable support mechanism.
Since time began, KSM (Potassium solubilising microbes), have been a part of the earth’s ecology. These microbial miners can break the connection that bonds Potassium to other elements in the soil, thus making it more ‘available’ to a crop. Locked-up nutrition is so for a reason; once again too much of anything can be a bad thing, so communication is key between plant and microbe; that will instigate the necessary reciprocal exchange of elements beneficial to both parties. A generation of excess has created a deficiency of these bacterial benefactors; as a farmer – a conscientious farmer, the responsibility is yours to rectify this to benefit the grower, the soil and the crop.
It is possible with plant analysis to identify excesses and deficiencies, thus providing a valuable planning tool. There are multiple benefits to Potassium that include turgidity, health, quality and many others. Some are major, others minor, but frequently of equal importance. These KSM can be applied by a sprayer during the growing season, directly to the crop and soil, whereby they set about the task of freeing Potash for the crop to use. Another added bonus is that, with the increased microbial activity, comes a more vibrant rhizosphere, which encourages better soil conditions and structure, leading to better quality air-water efficiency, soil resilience, along with improved plant rooting.
Research has shown that KSM will actively support a crop’s demand for Potash. They produce organic acids and enzymes that help solubilise the fixed potassium into exchangeable form and make it assimilable by plants. They are activated on application and multiply by utilising the food source and or the exudates of the roots.
For the love of soil, please look back at what’s been done and learn from the lessons of the past, to build a better future.
For more information contact info@soilfertilityservices.co.uk
-
Getting a grip on phosphorus
Written by Tim Stephens NSch, Catchment Management Specialist, Wessex Water
A vital element
Phosphorus (P) is essential for life in all its forms, but many UK rivers, lakes and wetlands suffer from an excess of this critical element. Too much P causes growth of algae and duckweed, which smothers aquatic life and starves the water of oxygen. Very little P is needed to turn water green; it is said that just one kilo of P is sufficient to grow 500 kg of algae!
The two main sources of excess P are treated wastewater (i.e. sewage) and agriculture, although road runoff and septic tanks can also make significant contributions to the problem. Levels of P in many rivers have fallen over the past two decades; mainly due to major investment in wastewater treatment processes. As water companies in nutrient sensitive areas install P stripping equipment at their wastewater treatment works, regulatory and public attention is increasingly turning to reducing agricultural P loading to watercourses. Repeated algal blooms in the River Wye and Lough Neagh have led to widespread criticism of intensive livestock farming for overapplication of manure and of arable farms for excessive soil erosion.
How much P is lost from farmland? Farm P losses vary according to rainfall, soil type, soil drainage properties and farm type; ranging from under 0.25 kgP/ha on low input pasture based systems on free draining soils in low rainfall areas, right up to 2 kgP/ha on intensive livestock or arable farms on heavy soils with high rainfall. Nationally, legally binding targets set in the 2021 Environment Act require at least a 40% reduction in nitrogen, P and sediment pollution from agriculture into the water environment by 2038. Early indications are that any future targets which may be set by the Environment Agency in England could require more intensive systems in the most sensitive catchments to more than halve their current P losses. An unbalanced system
Determining the level of P losses by field and farm relies on nutrient loss calculators as measuring actual losses in runoff and drain flow requires costly edge-of-field monitoring installations. Calculating a farm P balance is usually more straightforward for farmers and advisors than estimating field P losses as it uses readily available farm data on P inputs (usually the amount of feed, fertiliser and livestock brought onto the farm in a year) and P outputs (e.g. how much meat, milk and grain were sold off the farm). Farm P balance is the difference between these inputs and outputs and a recent survey of Wessex farms showed a range of values from a -20 kgP/ha deficit on an arable farm with high P indices taking a P ‘holiday’, -2 kgP/ha on an organic beef and arable farm, through to more than 20 kgP/ha surplus for higher stocking rate dairy farms importing a lot of feed. An arable farm selling only grain and importing only enough P fertiliser to replace P exports in that grain had a surplus of zero, or in other words was ‘balanced’.
Did you know? The pattern of agricultural P loss is often likened to a ‘jerky conveyor belt’ because of the way that each episode of heavy rainfall mobilises P held in soils by washing it downhill in soil erosion, as well as stirring up P held in watercourse sediments, washing it a bit further downstream each time. In higher P index soils, heavy rain also washes out P in dissolved form through field drains. In livestock-dense catchments, which cover most of the western half of the British Isles, many decades of annual P surplus has led to the accumulation of significant quantities of P in our soils. Although the majority of this P is unavailable for plant uptake, all of it has the potential for ecological harm if it is washed into water. For example, a southwest England dairy farm recently surveyed had soil total P stocks to 15 cm depth of nearly 2,000 kgP/ha, whilst the amount of potentially available P (Olsen-P) to the same depth was less than 1.5% of the total at <30 kgP/ha. This situation is common but might be alleviated by liming low pH soils, application of gypsum to heavier and high magnesium soils or use of compaction-busting machinery or plant roots. The potential for using soil biology to access unavailable P is gaining more attention, for example by harnessing the ability of mycorrhizal fungi to supply plant roots with P. Soil-applied P activators may also have a role in increasing P availability in soils.
Photo credit: Wessex Water – A multi-species ley grown to lengthen the rotation and build organic matter on a Somerset arable farm – also reducing whole-farm total P losses. How much to apply?
According to the 2023-24 NRM Annual Soil Summary, out of 25,000 soil samples analysed, about a third of those soils were at the target P index of 2, whilst more than a third exceeded target. As awareness grows of the ecological risk posed by soils saturated with P, prominent agricultural scientists have suggested that arable farms need a different approach to P fertilisation strategy to the current RB209 method. Even where soil P tests show that P shouldn’t be a growth limiting factor, widespread P deficiencies shown by plant tissue testing and frequently poor uptake by crops of the P applied in fertiliser led a 2019 AHDB report* to recommend that crop nutrition strategies should be “focussed much more firmly on ensuring crop P sufficiency, rather than on soil P fertility, with crop P status being assessed routinely, especially if circumstances indicate P deficiencies to be possible”. In practical terms, this approach would involve a shift towards little-and-often P applications through the growing season, potentially made possible through greater use of foliar P products and in-crop manure application machinery.
In higher fertility soils with elevated P indices (i.e. 3 or above), future water quality rules could mean that no further P can be applied in manure or fertiliser form until P indices have been drawn down sufficiently. For farmers in this situation to avoid crop P deficiency, especially during the crop establishment phase when P deficiency can be most obvious, much greater reliance on soil health will be needed to help plants access as much existing soil P as possible. If nothing else, regular soil testing for P, K, Mg and pH is essential for identifying the high P index fields which need careful manure management and runoff risk action.
The leaky phosphorus bucket
In certain catchments, like that of the River Wye, a tipping point has been reached where some soils have become saturated with P and readily leak the excess. In other catchments where the soils are heavier and more P retentive, the main form of P loss is when it is attached to any soil particles which are washed off the surface of fields. Increasingly intense rainfall makes it even more important that action is taken to keep soil in the field and away from roads and rivers. Addressing soil compaction and keeping soils covered year round are crucial, especially where maize, root crops and winter cereals are grown, or cattle outwintered. Research** indicates that climate change driven deluges will cause agricultural winter P losses to increase by 30% by the 2050s if no preventative measures are taken.
Manure: a dirty word or brown gold?
Dairy, pig and poultry farms often run a high annual farm P surplus and have above target P index soils, meaning that manure export is likely to be a consideration in their future plans. When this manure is in the form of slurry however, its bulky and dilute nature make it costly to transport, store and apply on the arable farms which could best use it. Investment in slurry separators by dairy farms allows them to concentrate some of the manure P into a form which is easier to send off farm. There will still be some P in dissolved form in the remaining liquid, so more advanced manure processing technologies will be needed to extract this into a form which can be used as fertiliser. Although some nutrient stripping processes have been trialled on dairy farms at Harper Adams University and Coleg Gelli Aur, and plants are starting to appear at AD sites and livestock farms, particularly in Northern Ireland, much more research is needed into these technologies if they are to become affordable enough to become widespread. The variability in dry matter content of dairy slurry, and use of sand for bedding, present a particular challenge for ultrafiltration and coagulation processes. Upfront capital costs, high energy and chemical consumption and the labour requirement for operating and maintaining the equipment will present a barrier to uptake for most farms unless public or private sector financial support is made available. There could be opportunities to combine nutrient stripping with small-scale anaerobic digestion as the technology for both evolves.
As restrictions on manure use become more onerous, especially in the autumn period, manure brokerage is likely develop as a service, presenting commercial opportunities for those who can connect suppliers and users of manures and manure-derived fertilisers. Key to this will be processing of manure into a concentrated, storable, spreadable, weed-free, disease-free, low-odour product.
The more concentrated the nutrients in manure are, the easier it will be to transport them from livestock farms to either nearby arable farms or further east, where they can replace the inorganic P fertilisers used on many crops. Inorganic P usually comes from mined sources, with Russia, Morocco and China all major exporters of phosphate rock.
Photo credit: Wessex Water One of Wessex Water’s edge-of-field runoff monitoring stations which continuously measures how much water flows off an arable field, and what the concentration of P in that runoff is. This data is used to ‘sense-check’ what levels of P loss to water a nutrient-loss calculator had predicted for that field and crop type. This type of monitoring supports a Wessex Water grant scheme which offers farmers in parts of Somerset and Dorset funding to reduce P losses to water, for instance by growing overwinter cover crops or establishing watercourse buffer strips. 21st century mixed farming
Although the simple answer to the P issue would be a return to mixed farming, in reality the trend towards specialisation is unlikely to be reversed in the majority of lowland Britain. Collaboration between arable and livestock farms offers many of the advantages of the traditional mixed farm however, whether that be arable farms growing grass and herbal leys for grazing or entering into ‘muck-for-straw’ deals. ‘Muck-for-feed’ deals are especially advantageous to both parties as they ensure the flow of nutrients is two-way, rather than the more common one-way traffic of nutrients in feed grown in the UK or abroad never leaving the receiving livestock farm until these nutrients eventually get washed out of soils into nearby rivers. Studies have shown that dairy farms feeding higher proportions of homegrown feed have lower farm P surplus, with 65%+ homegrown feed having been proposed as a target for Dutch dairy farms. It seems reasonable to suggest that animal feed grown on a neighbouring arable farm with which there is a muck-for-feed arrangement could still be considered ‘home-grown’.
Conclusion
Clearly, there are no simple answers to the challenge which P accumulation in soils presents, not least because weather plays a major role, and climate trends are for UK winter rainfall to increase in volume and intensity. Despite this, there are three steps within farmers’ control which can be taken to get a better grip on their valuable and finite P reserves:
- Turn back the tap: Stop adding P to P saturated soils and better use what is already there by targeting sufficient levels of crop P rather than soil P. Realise the potential of soil biology to feed the plant when it is unconstrained by compaction and low organic matter. Drawdown high soil P indices by exporting manure to replace use of P fertiliser on arable farms.
- Plug the leaks: Hold soil in the field by keeping soil covered and improving water and root infiltration.
- Collaborate: For financially and environmentally sustainable businesses arable farmers need livestock farmers to sell them manure and buy their forage crops, which helps to justify longer rotations. Livestock farmers need arable farmers for feed, grazing, bedding and a home for their excess manure.
2025 Nuffield Farming Scholarship applications open the evening of 29 January 2025. All interested are invited to join in our Zoom Open Night to learn about the applications process, ask questions, and hear from 2023 Scholar Roisin Taylor – contact charlotte@nuffieldscholar.org to register.
References:
*AHDB Final Project Report: Cost-effective Phosphorus Management on UK Arable Farms by Sylvester-Bradley et al., March 2019.
**Nature Communications article: Major agricultural changes required to mitigate phosphorus losses under climate change by Ockenden et al., 2017.
About the author:
Tim manages the Wessex Water catchment management team which works with farmers in nutrient and pesticide sensitive catchments across Dorset, Wilshire and Somerset. He comes from a practical farming background and studied Agriculture at University of Edinburgh before working in the fresh produce and agricultural education sectors. Tim completed a Nuffield Scholarship in 2019 with the title ‘How can farmers keep nutrients out of water?’ and has recently achieved an MSc in Sustainable Agriculture from Aberystwyth University.
-
Soil Winter Blues
Unmoved stubbles can often be the driest land on the farm after heavy rainfall. Yet we are told that cultivation helps to dry land out. What are the factors that allow stubbles to move water downwards faster than cultivated ground? It’s now apparent that many cultivated soils are not draining recent deluges fast enough. Crops are rotting due to waterlogged anaerobic conditions. Many put this down to underlying compaction, which is mostly nonsense, in my experience. The soil isn’t compacted (at least not in the traditional trafficked sense), it’s only just been cultivated! The reality is poor natural drainage caused by compounding a multitude of problems.
Struggling to believe that something man has been doing for 10,000 years could actually be working against us? All that time and money spent moving soil to release compaction, aerate the soil, and bury the trash could be for nothing. Mike Abrams excellent article ‘Glyphosate or Tillage’ in the last edition of Direct Driller reveals how quickly the natural soil structure and soil porosity collapses once the soil is disturbed. This is the major contributing factor to perched water, or soils that appear not to drain.
Clearly there are aspects of this knowledge we can use to our benefit. Getting winter crops established in good conditions is becoming very challenging. Having had four wet autumns in five years perhaps we need to rethink our drilling strategies. Therefore, understanding how we can exploit the dry stubble is critical to the success.
Soil cover:
Stubbles can offer a good degree of soil cover, reducing the direct impact of rain. Raindrops fall on average at 20mph. When hitting bare soil the raindrops can easily break apart soil aggregates allowing silt particles to slake and slump together blocking soil pores and root channels.Roots:
The drains and pore connectivity offered by roots is considerable. Any root over 0.5mm in diameter can help water move downward through the soil profile. Similarly roots (whether dead or alive) can help aggregation and stabilise the soil, preventing the soil from slumping and loss of porosity.Loss of connectivity.
Drains only work when they are connected. Cultivation destroys the connections between the top and sub-soils. Connections could be root channels, earthworm burrows or connected porosity. During and after heavy rain this is quite apparent as the cultivated layer can be saturated while the sub-soil is relatively dry. The now slumped cultivated layer is waterlogged and struggles to drain fast enough. Each subsequent rainfall event just tops up the water within the cultivated layer.Soil texture:
The proportions of sand, silt and clay within the soil determine the soils’ natural ability to remain aggregated, along with the actions of the biology. Clay has a natural affinity to other clay particles, while sand and silt do not. They are reliant on the exudates of biology to bind and clump them together into what maybe termed crumb or tilth.Chemical balance:
The relative amounts of calcium and magnesium play an important part in the natural aggregation of clay particles and its propensity to hold onto water. One hydrated magnesium ion can typically attract 6-8 molecules of water, due to the charge density of magnesium it will hold onto water molecules very tightly.Organic matter & biology:
Clearly the level of organic matter in the soil plays a very significant part in the ability of the soil to maintain its structure and porosity. Soils which have been in long term grass or grass/arable rotations are much less vulnerable due the larger quantities of OM contained within. OM is the single largest component within the soil we can actually influence. Our actions directly relate to the amount of organic matter within our soils. Continuous arable cropping with annual cultivation will drop the OM levels very quickly to a level where the natural aggregation and porosity is lost. Grass in the rotation will help restore OM, and can do so quickly dependent upon grazing system. Similarly a zero-till, cover crop and soil feeding arable rotation can increase OM over the long-term. If the soil is not being fed the biology is unlikely to produce the goodsIn summary, uncultivated land tends to have more porous soil with better organic content, less compaction, and better root structure, all of which contribute to greater water percolation compared to cultivated land. Do not underestimate how quickly cultivated soil can and will slump leading to waterlogging. Min-till shallow surface cultivations can almost be worse than deep cultivation as the water will sit in the shallow cultivated area where the seed or establishing crop will be. Cultivations increase porosity in the short-term only, evidence in the Glyphosate or Tillage article reveals that in less than 7 weeks this porosity can be lost and the situation worse than a non-cultivated soil.
I am not saying don’t cultivate, clearly that is not going to work for all. The timing and intensity of soil moving does need careful reflection and consideration. Not all cultivation is deleterious, especially when combined with soil-feeding strategies. We are all reliant on our soil, and its green mantle, to remain productive and resilient.
-
Unlocking the power of soils
Three practical days featuring US soil biology researcher Dr Elaine Ingham about unlocking the power of soil were run by Soil Ecology Laboratory last November. Direct Driller visited the one held in Norfolk
The promise of a day with Dr Elaine Ingham and her team is always likely to attract a crowd and that was certainly the case with the event organised by Daniel Tyrkiel’s Soil Ecology Laboratory in Norfolk.
Elaine, a US-based microbiologist and soil biology researcher, is best known for championing the application of soil food web principles in regenerative agriculture.
As most readers of Direct Driller will no doubt know the soil food web is the complex and interconnected network of organisms that play a crucial role in maintaining soil health, plant growth and overall ecosystem function. A thriving soil ecosystem should also promote nutrient cycling, disease suppression and overall plant health.
In the day’s introductory presentation Elaine ran through the basic principles of the soil food web from how plants converted sunlight energy using photosynthesis into food for soil microorganisms to how those bacteria, fungi, nematodes, protozoa and arthropods interacted and provided functionality within soils.
She also stressed the importance of being able to identify the different types of microorganisms, including distinguishing between beneficial and potentially harmful organisms. Learning to effectively use a microscope to develop this understanding was crucial for making informed decisions about soil management practices, she said.
How to cultivate and work with soil biology was what Soil Domains’ Dr Carla Portugal, an instructor for the Soil Food Web School, concentrated on following Elaine’s introduction.
She described how the soil food web was the foundation of regenerative agriculture, emphasising a balanced and active soil food web formed the basis for healthy plants, reduced reliance on chemical inputs and enhanced profitability, with composting a key tool for cultivating the right type of soil biology.
“Creating a biocomplete compost is the first step to achieving soil transformation,” Carla explained. While it was far from the only type of compost that could be used, she said using thermophilic composting techniques, which keep the developing compost above 55C for long enough to ensure pathogens and weed seeds are destroyed, was Elaine’s favoured choice.
“You can develop your own recipe, but start with 60% of brown, 30% green, and 10% high nitrogen concentration material,” Carla said. “But try to find feedstock as close to the farm as possible as the microbes should already be adapted to your microclimate, and you won’t be adding species that might be harmful.”
Adding soil from local forests or grasslands to add to the compost could also be helpful, she suggested.
Elaine Ingham 
Carla Portugal 
Daniel Tyrkiel Typically piles will need turning at least three times after reaching a minimum temperature of 55C in the centre. She presented guidelines suggesting turning compost piles after 72 hours of temperatures between 55C and 63C; 48 hours for piles between 63C and 67C; 24 hours between 67C and 72C. If temperatures reach above 72C they should be turned immediately or within 12 hours if that’s not possible.
After turning a few times, the pile will reach stage two – the mesophilic stage – when the temperature will reduce, and the compost matures. “This is when the biology settles down, and also the nutrients will stabilise,” Carla said.
Check the microbial composition of the final compost or extract under a microscope, she stressed. “That’s the guide to telling you if you’re on the right track or if you can improve. And if you learn with the microscope what is missing from your soils, you can tailor your amendments to replenish that missing biology.”
That was what Nick Padwick has started to do on the arable land at Ken Hill Farm and Estate in west Norfolk.
With a strong remit to implement regenerative agricultural practices on the farm since his arrival as farm manager in 2018, he sought guidance from Elaine and the Soil Food Web School team after becoming frustrated with the time it took to get results from conventional soil analyses and their accuracy.
Having completed the Foundation course, which provides background to soil science and biology and application methods in a series of 63 online lectures, he followed up taking the consultant training programme which puts the theoretical into practice.
A key aim where growing cereals is to have approximately equivalent amounts of fungi and bacterial biomass in the soil, with higher microbial biomass levels contributing to higher yields, better retention of nutrients, deeper root growth and more organic matter sequestration.
But like the majority of the 400 soil samples he has analysed from other farms as part of his new consultancy Wild Soils, he found his soils were bacterial dominant, with low fungi and protozoa counts.
Compost thermometer Nick explained he began making compost in relatively small-scale circular wire mesh towers, but quickly realised that he would need to scale up to be able to make the volumes required for broad acres.
He uses wood chips sourced from woodland areas on the farm as his brown material, while herbal leys and clover understories grown within SFI / Countryside Stewardship schemes have proved to be a good source of high nitrogen and green material.
“I’ve planted the herbal ley so that it is clover or nitrogen dominant, with some grasses, to hopefully get the right diversity of green and high N material in the windrow,” he explained.
When laying out the windrow, Nick stressed the importance of having enough moisture – when squeezed a couple of drops of water should come out. His compost turner is equipped with two IBCs and a pump to apply water during initial mixing of material.
“We’re putting on between 20-100 litres/m of water on windrows that are 250m long.”
Nick records daily temperature and moisture readings from each side and the top of the windrow to monitor when to turn the piles. “Having a log helps with our composting process,” he said.
The compost is then applied either as a 5t/ha direct amendment or as an extract to use through the season. For the latter he uses a custom-built Tow and Fert sprayer with a perforated basket that takes around 200kg of compost.
“The basket drops into the tank, like a cartridge going into a slot, and water flows through the compost, spinning it around,” he explained.
Nick Padwick “All the goodies come out of the compost and into the water. When I take basket out after putting 4000l of water in, I end up with washed wood chips. It has made an extract that I’m able to apply at 400l/ha using 13mm nozzles. At 10ha/load I can treat 150ha/day, its game changing compared with the 15ha/day I could do when making extracts from compost towers.”
Early results for increased use of compost looked promising, he said. Soil analyses show fungi: bacteria ratios are moving closer to the desired 1:1 ratio at around 0.6:1 compared with just 0.01:1 a year previously. Fungal and protozoa biomass have increased too.
“We’ve certainly seen a change in our soils,” he said.
The next step will be replicated trials to assess crop performance with and without amendments in the coming season.
That was work the Soil Ecology Laboratory had already started doing using their NutriBridge compost extract product – sometimes known as “The Goop”, the Lab’s director Daniel Tyrkiel said.
“In compost, we’re able to cultivate almost all kinds of beneficial microbes apart from mycorrhizal fungi, including bacteria and fungi that can efficiently capture nutrients from the environment, and protozoa and nematodes that mineralise these nutrients into plant available forms,” Daniel explained.
“In the past, if you wanted to experiment with such diverse mixes of organisms you had to perfect compost making, then extraction and application. What we’ve done with NutriBridge is not only increase the repeatability of production, but also provided the convenience of a ready-made solution, which can be used on its own or in combination with inputs.”
The first trial with the product was in a spring barley field that had received an application of compost from a green waste local site. The trial compared three applications of Daniel’s NutriBridge prototype versus a water-based control and conventional treatment including 100kgN/ha and crop protection chemicals.
There was a 40% difference between the control and the biology treatment, suggesting the biology unlocked the nutrients in the applied compost better than the native biology in the soil, Daniel suggested.
And while the treatment only achieved 70% of the yield of the conventional treatment, he thought the results suggested the potential of cutting N applications by 20-70% without any loss of yield, and at a much lower growing cost.
A follow up trial in winter wheat also suggested NutriBridge could unlock 70-90kgN/ha for the crop.
Another potential benefit from NutriBridge could be to help soil recover from glyphosate applications – for example, following cover crop termination. A trial where pasture was established following various different establishment techniques showed higher biomass production where the product was used following glyphosate application compared with a conventional fertiliser application.
In comparison, where other establishment techniques, such as ploughing or grazing was used before the grass was drilled, there was greater biomass from the fertiliser treatment.
“The hypothesis is that higher rates of glyphosate knock back the soil biology and then the extract helps it recover,” Daniel concluded.
-
Balancing Wildlife and Farming at Lower Pertwood Farm
Written by Nick Adams, Wildlife Consultant, Lower Pertwood Farm
The winds of change are blowing strongly through the Agricultural sector. Leading the charge is the word “wilding” with all its different permutations and options. Lower Pertwood Farm has always had a strong commitment to its wildlife and is fortunate in that it has many acres of land committed to scrub, gorse, woodland and steeply undulating fields which are typical of the Wiltshire chalk downlands in the AONB designated area. For the last 20-years – the last 10 of which has been under the guidance of myself, a freelance naturalist with a sensible approach to the subject – Lower Pertwood Farm has chalked up many successes regarding the creation of habitats which allow certain species to thrive. The true measurement of this is their ability to find a habitat that protects them and provides access to a food source that sustains them.
Wilding is a term that can cause mixed reactions in both the Farming and Conservation communities. From my point of view, I see it used to cover a myriad of conservation work; things that have been carried out for decades with considerable success are sometimes rebranded as cutting-edge. Whereas processes and options I could only dream of are now happening. Farmers I have the pleasure of working with sometimes see it as an attack on their way of living; a push for them to cease food production on their entire holdings and give the land over to species like beaver and pine marten.
At sites like Lower Pertwood, which in recent decades has been c1,000 hectares of mixed organic farming with some mixed conventional farming in the last five years, due to the size and variation in habitats, there will be opportunities to farm for wildlife, humans, carbon and water.
On my first visit to the farm, in late Autumn, it was clear that certain bird species were doing well, namely farmland birds like skylark, linnet, yellowhammer and in particular corn bunting. The first stage of assessment was a year of baseline surveys, to work out where the hotspots were for these species and then to try and work out why that was the case. Perhaps the most important part of my job is finding the current successes, as we might be able to build on those more easily.
using a Garford hoe in February. Monitoring the
impact of changes in farming process is vital.
a male corn bunting looking to establish a territory
in February.
a male corn bunting on an established territory in
May.
late winter flock of corn bunting in a field of Organic winter barley. Throughout this year, I was having discussions with the agronomist, the landowner and the farm contractor which helped me understand what had happened in the hot spots. Giving positive feedback on what was working and starting to form ideas of what we could consider doing to improve other areas for wildlife. These relationships were vital, two-way communications to show we appreciate each other’s aims and will listen to other’s opinions. We undoubtedly hit the ‘no Nick’ line a few times. This is where I suggest something that is just that bit too much of an impact on the farming process, the response being ‘no Nick, we can’t do that’, the key was the next bit ‘and here’s why’. From there we can further discuss the outcomes we are looking for and often as not, tweak what is happening already or what I was suggesting just a little bit, so it benefits the wildlife without impacting the farming significantly.
A great example of this would be when I was trying to find ways to improve the breeding success of the corn bunting. This ground-nesting bird was doing well in the cereals, especially spring oats where they would fledge two broods due to the relatively late harvest date. Almost unheard of in a lot of their range as they do not start to nest until the end of May, fledging their first brood in early July.
Being organic, there were significant amounts of herbal leys. Some were cut for forage; others were grazed during the summer and some might just be topped. The baseline surveys had shown me which fields were the priority ones for breeding. This greatly reduced the ‘discussion’ points. For the first Summer after the baseline surveys, we had two fields to consider. Field one had one of the densest populations of corn bunting I had ever seen, 25 territories, a true sacred cow. Field two was important, but not on this scale with six territories. For context, the UK breeding population for corn bunting at the time was around 10,000 territories, a site with 1% of the UK population (100 territories) was considered nationally important, the surveys showed a population of c130 territories. Therefore, these fields were a key part of a nationally important population.
For field one, we had a robust discussion about the available options. It was agreed to take a haylage crop, at the point the corn bunting chicks fledged. I suggested a time of around 10th July for this. As it turned out, this was the date the chicks were on the wing with sufficient strength to avoid the machinery and cutting commenced in the afternoon. The adjacent field had been cut at a more standard time of the year and had regenerated sufficiently to offer immediate cover.
juvenile corn bunting feeding on invertebrates on sunflowers For field two, we tried a different approach. A relatively early cut for silage on 20th May, a week or so before the corn bunting would start to nest. Then another late cut in August for haylage. This gave the farm two crops and the corn bunting enough time to produce two broods. We were lucky with the growing year and after the initial cut, rapid regeneration gave the corn bunting a safe area to commence nest-building at the start of June. It turned out to be an all-round success; instead of the expected six territories, we managed 15.
Through open discussions, everyone was able to get mostly what they would have got if they were solely driving the farming processes. We all gained a lot of knowledge. Using these sort of tweaks, coupled with being proactive as everyone knew which fields we needed to discuss well in advance; we managed to increase the corn bunting population by 87% in three breeding seasons, with no reduction in the amount of productive land. Taking it to close to 2.5% of the UK population.
With animal welfare front and centre at all times, we were able to identify a number of nature tweaks. Others were as small as changing the grazing times by a few days on species-rich grassland year-on-year, to reflect that growing season or perhaps fencing off critical areas allowing the vast majority of the grassland to be grazed. This meant it was possible to get endangered butterfly species like Adonis blue and marsh fritillary back on the farm by ensuring their food plants were allowed to grow sufficiently.
The farm was doing great things for wildlife by farming before I was involved, there just wasn’t any recognition of exactly what they were doing. Once that was recognised, we could build on it. The opportunity was there to diversify into farming for wildlife and humans. Additional funding opportunities are now available, as are a number of extra challenges. If we keep having robust, open discussions, there is no reason why we cannot farm in a positive way for all interested parties.
-
Issue 29 Contents
Found In:
Inside this issue:
- Step or Incremental Change: A Strategic Decision
- Can Tech save Carbon from a crisis?
- Harnessing the power of the sun
- A Revolution in Bio-Positive Agriculture
- Living up to the SFI and its actions
- Using Farm Tech to Maximise and Manage the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) Opportunity
- In pursuit of pixel perfect
- Agronomist in Focus – Simon Francis
- We can benefit from innovation
- First look: Innovations that might be on your farm
- Ensure Your No-Till Vision is 20/20 with Precision Technology
- New technology connecting the lab to the field
- Learning about machine learning
- Farm management software gets an EasyPlan
- The optics of pest invasions
- Leveraging NDVI for Sustainable Land Management: Enhancing Natural Capital for Farmers and Landowners
- OSR monitoring network strengthened to help predict CSFB migration
- Safety and stewardship with closed transfer systems
- 3 Reasons Why Regen Farmers Should Use More Precision Technology
- Digital Technology Farm Network explores data-driven ‘fields of the future’
- Patents – how to make them work for you
- Data driven sheep management
-
Step or Incremental Change: A Strategic Decision
When many people think about technology in farming, they envisage the big step changes such as the complete move from manual picking
to robotic picking. Or big tractors to little robots. And these changes have happened before in farming. But more often, technological change has been incremental, giving a small benefit over previous actions.Understanding the difference between step change and incremental change is a lot like knowing when to use a big tractor versus when to take a more careful, hands-on approach. A step change is like bringing out the big tractor, making a big impact, and able to transform things fast. On the other hand, incremental change is like walking the fields and tending to the crops by hand—slow, steady, and deliberate, leading to gradual but steady progress over time. Both have their place on the farm, depending on what’s needed to get the best results.
But let’s face it we all love big tractors!
You as farmers are confronted with a choice, a strategic crossroads that can significantly influence the direction and ultimate profitability of your farms: should you embrace a radical rethinking, known as a step change, or choose the measured journey of progressive evolution, the path of incremental change?
When you think of technology on your farm, are you thinking big or incremental. A step change often requires a comprehensive rethinking of farming processes and commitment to whole new machinery. Even getting the timing right of such a big change is a massive decision. But this sort of decision has the power to change a business overnight, ignite new feeling and renew business growth. With these big rewards, step change carries inherent risks as well.
How will staff react to the change, how stable and reliable is the new technology? Lots of things to consider. In contrast, incremental change is a journey of progressive evolution, promoting the process of continuous improvement. This approach excels in stable environments where change is slow and where predictability is critical.
For farms constrained by limited resources, incremental change offers a path to controlled growth. It also acts as a safety net, offering a cautious progression when the risks associated with drastic changes loom large. Crucially, incremental change allows a farm to evolve while preserving its core values and staff culture. That said, changing slowly may be too slow if others around you are moving faster.
The agricultural landscape does change around you and farmers need to make sure they aren’t left behind. A balance is required and knowing when you can take small steps and when bigger ones are needed is complicated. And so, the choice between a dramatic decision —step change, and a graceful slide—incremental change, isn’t a binary decision. You are going to need to make a some big changes and lots of little steps. Many of these will be dictated by the latest technology available and we discuss many of these in this magazine. From choosing a different wheat to grow next year, though to adding a vertical farming container to your farm.
There are now so many ways a farm can change what it grows, with some of these changes being a radical shift based on the history of what you have grown. But you have the land, the power and the resources (like this magazine) to choose what decisions suit you (and your family). Farms have lots more options than many businesses as they have space.
That should be seen as a good thing, even if it complicates your decision-making process. Have a read of the rest of this magazine and see what makes you think of taking some big steps on your farm and what will help you make those smaller incremental changes. While remembering, the ideal strategy harmonises the radical transformation of step change with the steady progression of incremental change. Get this right and your farming will thrive and you will also learn a lot along the way.
-
Can Tech save Carbon from a crisis?
Tom Allen-Stevens travels forward to 2030 and looks for the farmers who would emerge strengthened if the bubble burst on the carbon market.
Here in 2030, it’s very easy to claim the benefit of hindsight. But it’s fair to say few could have foreseen the depth of the scars that would lash the farming landscape when the carbon bubble f inally burst. In the UK, this wasn’t helped by the disastrous and now notorious family farm tax the incoming Labour government introduced in its first budget, back in 2024. As land rapidly changed hands, its value as a carbon sink was overplayed by unscrupulous traders, keen to sucker in a new generation of hapless landowners.
The deregulation brought in by the Trump administration in the US fuelled worldwide growth in carbon markets that many economists warned was dangerously unstable. Following market collapse, the question many in the food industry are now asking is whether the measures brought in by the new Lib/Lab coalition will stem the current meteoric growth in food prices. It’s probably too late for family farming businesses to come back into land ownership and make a credible difference to food security, following its dive to a reported 40%.
The NFU has also dismissed the proposed food security capital fund the government is intending to pour billions into – this won’t be incentive enough for new landowners to rebuild the farming infrastructure lost over the past five years, they say. But the carbon market has now stabilised in the US, thanks largely to measures the new president brought in shortly after she took office. So could confidence in carbon tempt landowners to make the investment needed for farmers to grow the nation’s food on so much of the UK’s land that’s just been left to deteriorate? There is a glimmer of hope.
One sector of the carbon market that remains rock-solid is where it’s built on the new Regenerative Carbon Standard. This came about because scientists worked directly with farmers to develop on farm new technologies in measuring and understanding the soil microbiome. And that’s where the benefit of hindsight comes in. If you have retained your 2024 copies of Tech Farmer, you can leaf through the pages of those early editions and remind yourself of the tech you saw first, and that’s now underpinning the standards of more sustainable farming systems. It was why we featured Rachel and Jacob Holmes back in November 2024.
At a time when there was precious little scientific measurement of practices claimed to build soil health, they were determined to bring this into play across A more scientific understanding of the soil microbiome could be the key to a rock-solid carbon market. their farm on the Isle of Wight (see Issue #31 p41). Photosynthetic promoters are another example (see p6). Working with scientists, farmers trialling those early, pre-commercial products developed an understanding of their crops’ biosynthesic pathways. It’s this knowledge that now forms the backbone of cropping solutions for carbon capture that can be reliably measured and consistently improved.
Then there’s the World AgriTech Innovation Summit (p26), the biennial event that takes place in San Francisco and London, now recognised as the stimulus for pioneering farmers on both sides of the Atlantic to take on new tech. Few growers in 2030 would trust anything other than RNA diagnostics for a truly accurate and measurable picture of crop health. This was first presented at WATIS San Francisco in 2024. Perhaps the most promising tech for sustainable and reliable soil carbon capture is now coming from precisionbred crops, however. Cast your mind back to November 2024 and the launch of #PROBITYPledge, the campaign that encouraged farmers to find out about this new technology and help shape how it should be introduced on farm (p39).
These are among the technologies we now consider as fundamental to delivering a robust and sustainable agriculture. But five years ago, in 2024, they were seen as fairly remote, with the opportunities they held unclear. They would never have made it into the field had it not been for pioneering farmers who diligently undertook the trials to acquire the knowledge the entire industry now relies on. So what were you testing in your fields back in 2024, and what will you glean from the pages that follow in this issue that could stave off a catastrophic crisis in five years’ time? Happy hunting.
Tom Allen-Stevens farms 170ha in Oxfordshire and leads the British On-Farm Innovation Network (BOFIN).
-
Harnessing the power of the sun
Farming in a greener way generally involves increasing efficiencies in pursuit of the goal for crops to produce more from less. Tech Farmer explores some novel technologies that use energy from the sun to enhance crop production.
Written by Lucy de la Pasture
About 93 million miles away the sun powers all of life on Earth, providing solar energy for plants to capture and turn to chemical energy through the process of photosynthesis. And it’s this solar energy that’s being harnessed to develop products that can help crops be more efficient in a surprising number of ways.
Photosynthesis is naturally an inefficient process, with plants only able to use about 1% of the solar energy available to them. That’s because plants evolved to harness the sun’s energy for the sole purpose of supporting growth sufficient to produce seeds, thus ensuring continued survival of the species. But humans ask much more of plants as they push the boundaries of food production, farming at scale, and despite the tremendous advances in crop production, a biological limit to yield remains because of a plant’s natural ability – or inability – to process light.
But what if the photosynthetic process could be more efficient, remove more carbon from the atmosphere and increase crop yields without using more fertiliser? This is exactly what ex-Bristol University researchers Dr David Benito and Dr Imke Sittel set out to achieve and they’ve been so successful in their quest that they founded Glaia in 2019 to commercialise a photosynthetic promoter.
The company is licensed to use the technology in biostimulant products to help increase crop yields in a sustainable way. The first product of this kind, Fragaria, has just been launched in the UK and Netherlands for use in strawberries, with availability in Spain and the US soon to follow.
“If we could increase the efficiency of photosynthesis to 2%, we could double the yield of crops. But we’re not there yet,” explains David.
Drawing inspiration from the carbon-based nanomaterials found in nature, the photosynthetic promoter uses a nanocarbon material derived from sugar. These sugar dots open up the photosynthetic process inside plant cells so they can take in more solar energy and convert it into more biomass. Essentially, it fine tunes nature’s engine, giving plants the potential to increase efficiency at a molecular level.
So how does this happen? David explains that plants capture energy from sunlight in the leaf, causing electrons in the chlorophyll to become ‘excited’. “It’s this energy stored in the chlorophyll that’s used to split water and generate oxygen. Additionally, electrons are transported down the photosynthetic chain and incorporated into high energy molecules that are then used with CO2 and nutrients to form carbohydrates.
“But the biological processes involved in transporting those electrons can’t cope with all the available energy, so the plant uses mechanisms to protect itself against light. What it does in very simplified terms is to stop photosynthesis when the light is very intense,” he explains.
A feedback loop switches the process back on when light intensity falls and it’s this ‘on/off’ switch that contributes to the inefficiency of photosynthesis, adds David.
“Our photosynthetic promoter allows plants to process more of that energy because it facilitates electron transport, enabling plants to capture more solar energy and transform it into chemical energy. And because less damaging, unused energy is left in the leaf, the plant doesn’t have to switch off photosynthesis for so long and there’s an overall improvement in photosynthetic efficiency.”
Although the technology hasn’t yet improved photosynthetic efficiency enough to double the yield of crops, trials are producing a very respectable 20% yield increase with no additional nitrogen inputs, effectively producing more food without increasing CO2 emissions, he says.
“We saw an opportunity for this technology to change the way we produce food in the sense that it can help reduce the climate impact of agriculture. Its mode of action improves the photosynthetic efficiency of plants by allowing them to utilise more sunlight, capture CO2 and increase yields sustainably because no extra nitrogen is required.
“By applying the Glaia technology, there’s an increase in yield and that’s because it improves nutrient use efficiency as well. It translates to an overall reduction in CO2 emissions per tonne of produce by at least 15%,” he claims.
The company aims to bring its biostimulant technology to all crops, with the biggest impact on CO2 emissions possible in arable crops, highlights David. Trials in winter wheat are underway and earlier work has already shown average yield increases of 18%, underlining its potential in broadacre crops.
“Because there’s a more limited opportunity to apply a photosynthetic promoter in wheat than in strawberries, we’re developing an application protocol that won’t involve an extra pass for growers,” he adds.
Another biostimulant technology with solar radiation at its heart is being developed by Hertfordshire-based SugaROx. The company was spun out of Rothamsted Research and Oxford University in 2021, bringing together the knowledge gained by researchers to improve sucrose allocation in crops, thereby increasing yield.
T6P marries up with innate plant chemistry, causing T6P levels to spike and supercharging the grain fill process, explains Dr Cara Griffiths. The technology is patented and licensed and will be the only authentic trehalose-6-phosphate (T6P) synthase technology available to growers, born out of the decade of research undertaken to develop it, explains Dr Cara Griffiths, co-founder and chief technology officer of SugaROx.
T6P is a signalling molecule and an intermediary of the trehalose biosynthesis pathway, in which endogenous levels are synthesised to match sucrose content. “You can think of T6P as a sucrose fuel gauge and it’s a mechanism that’s present in all plants to regulate sucrose use and allocation.”
It does this by interacting with an enzyme called SnRK1, explains Cara. “It’s a major sucrose utilisation enzyme, and it has two kinds of modes – feast and famine. This is where T6P comes in; it can switch the plant from famine into feast mode by telling the plant that there’s lots of sugar around so that it can transport it to where it’s needed and store more sucrose in its tissues.”
The discovery of the role of the signalling molecule highlighted the potential for manipulating the T6P mechanism for crop improvement purposes.
“Our aim was to find a way of increasing T6P and carbon allocation in a non-genetically modified way. To achieve this, we had to create a novel version of T6P,” she comments.
The products SugaROx is developing are a modified version of T6P, with a chemical group added to the molecule. “Essentially, it’s a caged T6P compound which acts as a T6P delivery system,” explains Cara.
This was needed as in unmodified form, T6P can’t be taken up by plants when applied as a foliar spray, she adds. “T6P itself is very polar, so once sprayed onto a leaf it will just sit on the leaf surface rather be taken up by the plant. The chemical addition that we’ve added changes the charge of the molecule, helping the uptake of T6P within the plant.”
And this is where solar energy has an important role. “Sunlight is needed to cleave this group off the modified T6P, which was added to aid its transport. The T6P is then released into the plant where it’s biologically active.”
The SugaROx technology is particularly suited for crops with a sink-based yield, such as wheat where Cara describes it as “a magnet for sugars and nutrients”. By applying during grain development, the applied T6P marries up with innate plant chemistry, causing T6P levels to spike and supercharging the grain fill process.
Dr Imke Sittel and Dr David Benito are commercialising a photosynthetic promoter to help plants process more light into sugars. “It switches on the SnRK1 enzyme which pulls everything that supports good yield production into the ears of the plants, producing yield increases of up to 22% in the field,” she claims.
The interaction of T6P and SnRK1 affects a number of plant pathways, including sucrose use and allocation, starch conversion and storage, as well as a general nutrient uplift into the area, explains Cara.
“Essentially, T6P is signalling to the plant that there’s lots of nutrition around and it should turn on all of its processes to do with growth and resource allocation. We’re just enhancing processes the plant already uses itself.”
The use of solar energy isn’t limited to influencing photosynthesis and sugar metabolism, it can actually initiate a process that simultaneously removes pollutants and greenhouse gases from the air while also fertilising the crop.
Photocatalysts such as titanium dioxide have long been known for their powers of detoxification but can only absorb light in the ultraviolet spectrum. This would limit their efficiency as an application to UK crops.
And it’s this problem that Crop Intellect has solved by processing titanium oxide in a way that makes it able to function as a photocatalyst under normal daylight conditions. The technology is available as R-Leaf, a sprayable suspension concentrate which acts as an alternative source of nitrogen and can replace 25% of the total nitrogen applied, according to the company’s trials data.
The science behind sucrose levels and allocation, Source: SugaROx “This is the first time that photocatalysis has been used in agriculture as a way to generate nitrates, but the story does not stop there,” says Alvaro Montero Bockos, Crop Intellect’s chief operating officer and sustainability lead.
“While the conversion of NOx air pollutants into nitrates produces an input to support crop growth and reduce fertiliser usage, R-Leaf brings a key difference to traditional fertilisers through its capacity to remove N2O greenhouse gas at the same time.”
The effectiveness of the photocatalyst used in R-Leaf has also been verified by researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University. Their work has shown the R-Leaf material is 10 times more effective in photocatalysis, both under UV light and normal daylight, compared with the unprocessed material. The results confirm that under daylight the product works close to that of the performance of titanium dioxide under UV light.
R-Leaf has been six years in development and is already on the market, with limited quantities available in the UK and Europe since 2022. This year up to 60,000 litres is scheduled for production and looks set to grow as distribution also begins in the United States
According to Alvaro, the technology is already firmly embedded in some agricultural supply chains because of its unique sustainability credentials.
“Instead of being a source of nitrous oxide, as all synthetic nitrogen-based fertilisers can be, R-Leaf converts these and pollutant NOx gases from the air into plant fertiliser, with an overall environmental impact of 5.4 t CO2e removed per year,” says Alvaro.
The company’s claim has been verified by the Climate Impact Forecast Tool and relates to the recommended two applications of R-Leaf at 1 l/ha and 25% nitrogen reduction.
So how does it work? “When R-Leaf is sprayed onto the crop, the photocatalysts it contains are charged with daylight. Electrons and hydrogen ions are produced which react with oxygen and water from the air to form powerful oxidising agents which break NOx down into nitrate and water,” he explains.
When R-Leaf is sprayed onto the crop, the photocatalysts it contains are charged with daylight. Electrons and hydrogen ions are produced which react with oxygen and water from the air to form powerful oxidising agents which break NOx down into nitrate and water. The nitrate produced in this reaction solubilises on the leaf, enabling foliar uptake by the crop. Because the photocatalyst is persistent on the leaf, lasting around six weeks, plant growth is supported by a slow daily release of nitrate.
“During the same process, when interacting with N2O gases, R-Leaf breaks it down into inert nitrogen and oxygen gases, effectively removing a GHG from the air. This brings additional sustainability benefits by reducing the overall carbon footprint.”
This removal has been confirmed by Ostrava University which showed a daily 10% removal capacity in the laboratory under simulated outdoor conditions. “Pollution is transformed into a positive. We have seen in the past three years of trials that we are able to generate 50-100KgN/ha and we have data that shows R-Leaf supports plant growth in a better manner than current fertilisers,” he adds.
Photocatalysis experts at Imperial College London have also quantified the amount of nitrate produced by R-Leaf under a system that simulates conditions in the field. They showed that R-Leaf provided the equivalent of 90kgN/ha over three months, explains Alvaro.
Cutting back on nitrogen from the bag may require a leap of faith for some farmers but Alvaro is confident the agronomic benefits from R-Leaf application add up. “Normally our recommendation is a 25% reduction in synthetic fertiliser when using R-Leaf and we consistently see an increase in yield of 5-10%,” he says.
The novel product is tank-mixable and the company recommends applying with T1 and T2 fungicide applications so that no extra sprayer passes are required.
The product has been trialled in a number of other crops including potatoes, carrots, peas, brassicas, and grassland with good results, the company claims. Interestingly, peas have also shown a yield response to R-Leaf application. It’s a surprising finding given the leguminous crop is often adversely affected by nitrogen application which reduces its nitrogen fixation and makes it more susceptible to disease. In three years of trials in the crop, yield responses of up to 20% have been obtained, according to Alvaro.
R-Leaf peas trial – nitrate. The additional nitrogen available to the pea crop after R-Leaf application seems to have a beneficial effect on growth and yield. Crop Intellect has just been awarded funding from Innovate UK for a project which will investigate the use of R-Leaf with endophyte products to further boost the sustainability of growing arable crops by potentially halving nitrogen inputs.
The project consortium is led by Crop Intellect and includes Barworth Research, University of Lincoln, CHAP, The Allerton Project, and Dyson Farming Research.
Multi-location field trials hosted at Dyson Farming will test how R-Leaf can be used with endophyte prototypes to combine their nitrogen-fixing benefits. The trials aim to reduce an estimated 50% of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser applied to wheat under standard farming practice.
Richard Meredith, head of Dyson Farming Research, adds: “We see large potential in how this can help reduce farm input costs while improving soil health through reduced synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use. It will contribute directly towards net zero emission targets in agriculture and impact positively across the entire agri-food supply chain, from farm to retailers and end consumers.”
And that’s the exciting potential of agricultural innovations such as these, believes Alvaro. “Potentially R-Leaf could be a simple solution to help limit farming’s GHG emissions – every leaf could be an R-Leaf.”
-
A Revolution in Bio-Positive Agriculture
In today’s rapidly evolving landscape, farmers and agricultural professionals are always looking for innovative solutions that build better soil resilience and improve crop health whilst striving to lower their fertiliser inputs and their environmental impact. ActiV8-Bio, a unique biological product designed by SFS, is one solution that sparks curiosity and gains significant traction with a revolutionary approach to revitalising soil and boosting crop growth. But… before we get on to that, let’s delve deeper into what drives some of these decisions and promotes poorer growing conditions.
A ruler’s strength typically comes from the power of its subjects, so, if yield is king, yield is subject to this and subject to that.
Take a plant, for starters; as a seed, it gets thrust down into the soil’s hostile environment, fending for itself and scavenging for essential elements, all with one aim, to reach upwards and get its solar panels out of the ground quickly so that it can begin to make its food and support itself via photosynthesis. Sounds easy, right? After all, it’s a natural process; plants will do it anyway.
When you’re a young seed, the soil is not a nice place to be; everything down there wants to support itself first before lending its new neighbour a helping hand. Our new inhabitant has limited resources, so to bolster its dwindling reserves, it is keen to make new friends (quickly). Still, with all good relationships, things need to be mutually beneficial, which can be a bit of a sticking point for this fledgling seed; it ends up giving away some of its supplies to barter and attract the correct type of supportive partner, and unfortunately, the simple act of spending to survive, negatively impacts our seeds performance, but what choice does it have?
How about if there wasn’t such a panic to go upwards, and instead, the young seedling had the available resources to leisurely extend its rooting further, optimising its nutrient cycling capacity first, rather than desperately scrabbling for the surface? And what if the soil environment already contained billions of biological helpers supporting the seed and stimulating better soil health? Imagine building hardier growth with a plant that’s now less susceptible to stresses, insect and pathogen attacks.
Innovative biological starter products are more than fertilisers. They provide both soil and plant nutrition while reinforcing the soil microbial workforce. This departure from conventional fertilisers offers a more holistic and sustainable approach to agricultural production, inspiring a sense of responsibility and environmental commitment.
A blend of carefully selected ingredients that work synergistically to improve soil health and promote plant growth must be at their core. These elements should include humic and fulvic acids – crucial for enhancing soil structure and increasing aeration and water retention. These acids also play a vital role in chelating essential minerals, making them more accessible to plants.
In addition to humic and fulvic acids, ActiV8-Bio is enriched with a diverse range of beneficial micro-organisms, including
Phosphate fixers, Nitrogen fixers, plant protectors, and soil pathogen combatants. These micro-organisms work tirelessly to improve soil quality, enhance nutrient uptake, and safeguard plants from diseases and pests.Trace elements may only be needed in tiny amounts, but this doesn’t make them any less critical to crop productivity, which can suffer when many of these elements are deficient in soils. For example, Zinc, Boron, and Manganese are all vital for early growth and development, and by providing a readily available source of these elements, growers can effectively address nutrient deficiencies and optimise plant health.
It all sounds good, but how does it work? Well, by establishing a symbiotic relationship between the soil and the plants, micro-organisms can do what they do best, and that means that both parties are kept happy: The plant gets an available version of the element it needs, like calling in a food delivery driver – Our driver (microbe) gets paid in sugars from the plant exudates.
Still, it goes further…those microbes will defend their territory and meal ticket, leading to a healthier root zone with fewer pathogenic organisms where a plant can prosper better. An excellent biological product will contain billions of these helpful microbes. Still, an exceptional one will go that one step further and provide the biological army with food, so that it doesn’t need to rob soil resources and can get to work immediately.
Imagine you’ve planted your seeds, and they’re starting to grow; but you’re worried about pests and diseases that could harm your crops. But what can a biological product do to protect them? One way is to introduce beneficial micro-organisms to your soil. These tiny creatures can help your plants grow stronger and healthier.
One such beneficial micro-organism is Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens. I like to call this one the guard dog: This bacterium can recycle nutrients in the soil, making them more available for your plants to use. It can also create a protective layer around plant roots, shielding them from harmful pathogens. It produces substances that can kill harmful bacteria and fungi. By doing all these things, Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens can help your plants grow bigger and stronger and improve soil quality.
The opposing argument would suggest that using N, P, K, S, and Mg fertilisers as a starter will do the same job; the plants would grow, and the soil would be fine. I am not suggesting that fertiliser is not required, but available nutrition is, and many fertilisers are inefficient – with losses expected, not only wasting money but also increasing the risk of environmental contamination.
Biological starters such as ActiV8-Bio provide accessible nutrients in a form a plant can readily use without oversupplying or forcing feed, creating a more harmonious ecosystem.
Whether you adopt it now or sometime in the not-too-distant future, biological products that offer a sustainable and effective solution for modern agriculture are the way forward. By enhancing soil health, improving crop growth, and reducing the reliance on chemical inputs, growers can improve profitability and contribute to a more bio-positive, sustainable system. If you want to know more about biological products supporting today’s plant and tomorrow’s soil, contact us at SFS.
