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.
-
Farmer Focus – Lower Pertwood Farm
Regen and Tech – Hand-in-Hand
Written by Daniel Davies, Arable Division at Lower Pertwood Farm – Nov 2023
The concept of regenerative agriculture is continuing to gather momentum across the globe. To me, it is clear that technology is going to play a bigger part than ever in farming, as methods continue to change and evolve to embrace this new farming concept with its exciting market potential in the years to come.
There is much talk at the moment surrounding the lack of an official definition for regenerative agriculture, and what (if anything) may be done to produce such a definition. A big part of the regen appeal to farmers is the wide spectrum of approaches that can be adopted in the regenerative farming system. Rigid rules and regulations deter farmers from adopting the organic Farming system, depriving the farmer of necessary inputs and ultimately preventing their rigid system from being able to function.
Regen is taking off fast because this lack of prescription allows farmers the opportunity to try out new ideas and concepts, whilst still being able to do what they need to in the near term to maintain a functioning profitable enterprise. This is a positive step, because farmers can go at their own pace, introducing change that works for them. In time, these continued changes can move us towards farming systems which exercise better practices not only for the production of better quality and healthier food, but also for the environment.
In my day-to-day, there are two areas – crop establishment and crop protection – where the role of tech in the regen journey is obvious.
Starting from the beginning: crop establishment. I have always taken issue with ‘blanket’ systems, i.e. we plough everything, or we cultivate, or we direct drill. This doesn’t do the crop, the bank account or the environment any favours. The idea behind regen is to produce good quality, healthy food with minimal negative impact and a central objective of soil restoration. With our winter wheats across the farm this autumn we have covered all methods, from ploughing and power-harrowed, to min-till cultivations, and direct drilled crops, all dependent on the conditions on the ground. We are fortunate to have a variety of cultivation equipment at our disposal to be able to do this, however the jewel in our crown here is our drill.
We run a Horsch Avatar, and to me this machine fits the regen model to a T. Flexibility is the name of the game here, because being able to do what a unique set of circumstances dictates at the time can be the difference between the success and failure of a crop, and what may previously have required several passes with multiple machines, if possible at all, can now be achieved in one pass. The precision metering technology and accurate depth control allows us a huge range of options when it comes to drilling, and the option of applying small seeds, slug pellets or Avadex to the surface on the back often saves time and money from additional passes and in some cases gives us the ability to apply these products at all when weather windows are tight.
Many regen concepts, such as bi-cropping, have been around for years, but being able to do this in one pass with one machine not only makes previously unviable options possible, but can bring about added benefits to the ground and the environment. These include reduced compaction from a lesser number of passes, and specifically in the case of bi-cropping providing a greater variety of species in a field for wildlife to take advantage of.
Moving on from establishment, we look at crop protection. Here we enter a new arena which has seen a real desire for change in recent years, as the environmental pressures to reduce chemical usage increase. A need to cut costs also plays a big part of this. Whether looking at mechanical weeding options, such as spring-tine harrows, or inter-row cultivators, or spraying and fertilising technology, there are many avenues where tech can make these practices possible for farmers.
It really doesn’t matter whether your stance is an environmental or financial one, if there is an option to save 50% or more chemical usage (with some boasting even bigger savings than that), whilst maintaining yield, any farmer would jump at the chance. Spot spraying is something which I personally am very interested in, and I think it is inevitable that it will eventually become mainstream. The use of cameras on the sprayer booms to identify upcoming plants, and then treating only those areas necessary, has got to be the way forward. Why spray an area when the chemical is being wasted, landing on non-target species which don’t need it?
This is another part of the regen approach that I can really get behind, because it is sensible from both ideological and practical standpoints and has historically been an area where organic has proven impractical. If regen can bring about a precision middle ground whereby chemical application is reduced to only target species, it is a strong step in the right direction.
Now more than ever, farmers have to look very hard at their costings, and make savings wherever possible. If technology can help to do that for them, then it can only be a good thing. Any new technology is expensive, and justifying the costs of these progressions will take time. If farms can gradually alter their practices, and each time they replace a piece of equipment look seriously into the options available to them, the advantages of flexible and precision tech described above should result in long-term savings, making the transition worthwhile.
Over the next 10-15 years, I don’t think we are going to have any choice but to adapt and review our methods. As with every other industry, technology is going to play an ever-increasing part in our day-to-day work, challenging methods which have sat pretty steadfast for a number of years. Outside of agritech, the ever-increasing presence of social media with its access to global communications is allowing what we do as an industry is becoming ever-more publicised. This digital ecosystem brings accountability, and is a chance to show that we are committed to moving forward. It is also a learning opportunity, where we can see how farmers, researchers, input producers and equipment manufacturers are rising to the regen challenge while continuing to produce excellent quality, healthy food.
-
Catapult plans for UK agritech
The Government has set out a strong desire for the UK to be an agri-tech powerhouse. Tech Farmer looks behind the ministerial announcements to what they may mean for on-farm R&D.
By Tom Allen-Stevens
UK Agriculture is set to get an Agri-Tech Catapult, following the announcement by the Government that three of the four Agri-Tech Centres are in merger discussions to create a new “integrated capability”.
George Freeman, Minister of State* at the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) announced at the World Agri-Tech Innovation Summit in London that the Agri-Tech Centres are looking to merge.
“These companies were designed to be the model showcase testbed farms, but in my view, we need to commercialise better. We need to make these the interfaces of much deeper industrial investment and commercialisation,” he said.
“So we are reviewing those centres with a view to creating a Catapult. This is a big commitment [by Government] in the UK research ecosystem. It’s ring-fenced long-term funding, and we are absolutely determined to set out a long-term framework so that companies, from the big agri-food majors around the world to UK companies, can come and invest in it.”
The three Agri-Tech Centres coming together are Crop Health and Protection (CHAP), the Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock (CIEL) and the Agricultural Engineering, Precision and Innovation Centre (Agri-EPI). They were set up in 2015/16, along with Agrimetrics, which aims to use agricultural data to build a better food system, and will remain a separate company.
The Centres exist to drive agri-tech innovation and adoption through “world-class” facilities, expert knowledge and business and project management support. They’re designed to strengthen the connections between science, business and funders, to accelerate R&D and tackle the agri-industry’s most critical challenges.
George Freeman wants to make the Agri-Tech Centres interfaces of much deeper industrial investment and commercialisation. As a combined, Agri-Tech Catapult it would join the nine others in gene therapy, medicine, electronics, connected places, digital, energy, high-value manufacturing, satellite applications and offshore renewables. These Catapults are established by Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the government’s R&D arm that has an annual budget of around £8bn. They aim to accelerate the commercialisation of innovative technologies, thereby driving economic growth.
An Agri-Tech Catapult would seek to improve productivity, efficiency, and sustainability in farming and agriculture by helping to accelerate innovation. Minister Freeman is hoping it will act as a channel for private investment into the sector. “For too long in this country, we’ve incubated bioscience in all sorts of technologies, grown great businesses and then seen them disappear across the pond,” he said.
“We are finally going to make that move and unlock some of the trillions here in London in the pension funds that aren’t investing in UK equities. Just a tiny fraction of the money under management here in The City, properly connected, would help us pull through these companies.”
The Government already spends £400M/year on agricultural R&D, he said, and had identified “engineering biology” as one of five critical technologies to prioritise. This will be backed up by “a clear, reliable, long-term framework” to give confidence to farmers and to investors in supply chains.
The Agri-Tech Centres have partnered with a number of UK start-ups to advance robotics and highly novel and entrepreneurial projects on farm. New R&D “clusters” were also promised. “If we’re really going to deliver the strength of this innovation economy, it can’t just be Cambridge, Oxford, London. We will shortly be unveiling the first ever digital cluster map – a heat map to show investors what’s going on around the UK in agri.
“You will see incredible strength in Norwich, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales, Aberystwyth, Kent. And through the work that UKRI is doing, we intend to pull that together through that Catapult network.”
Not all are convinced by the Minister’s words, however. Plant scientist and former NIAB CEO Professor Tina Barsby notes that so far, the Agri-Tech Centres have delivered a return on investment of just 0.6:1, constrained by a risky ‘capital-only’ funding model, and lacking a core focus on genetic innovation.
Writing for Science for Sustainable Agriculture, she says “the legacy of the centres of innovation is not one of unmitigated success”, pointing out that growth in UK agricultural productivity has continued to fall behind other countries.
“I would struggle to name specific projects where the three Centres have translated agricultural innovation into commercial success over the past decade. Maybe there are some, but are they sufficient to justify the considerable government spend which the Centres have had access to? And does this bode well for a Catapult?”
A capital-only funding model may have left genetic innovation behind. The Centres have received capital-only funding from Government. There are large infrastructure projects, such as CHAP’s Advanced Glasshouse facility at Stockbridge Technology Centre (STC) near Selby which allows for testing of new production approaches and growing media. Extensive precision machinery equipment located at Newcastle University is used to test new regenerative farming techniques.
These rely on industry stepping up to fund projects delivered through them. Tina says the plan has only partly been successful and in 10 years, they have translated government investments totalling £162M into projects worth £99M to the agri-food sector.
A fundamental flaw, she says, is that genetic innovation, “the single most important factor in driving on-farm productivity gains”, was not a core focus for any of the Centres. “Consequently, the John Innes Centre, our flagship genetic institution, has hardly interacted with them at all.”
Tina calls for “a more strategically targeted approach, and a focus on tangible, deliverable outcomes, for the next phase”. So will this happen?
The Crover is a sensor that burrows through a heap of grain gathering data on quality and condition. “Crop improvement is an important part of the cropping system. But other considerations such as crop nutrition, plant and soil health and efficiency, on which the Centres also work, are essential for on-farm profitability,” points out Fraser Black, CEO of CHAP.
“In addition, the Centres are also working across many production systems including animal health, aquaculture, horticulture and robotics where collaboration across the industry is also needed.”
He argues that 10 years is a short timeframe on which to assess return on capital-only funding in innovation. “It takes time to reap the rewards of both capital investment as well as highly novel and entrepreneurial projects. It is often necessary to stress-test new innovations and approaches at an early technological stage before they can be fully utilised on farm.”
The merger talks will take place over six months, with the combined Centre due to be complete by April 2024, he explains. He believes combining forces would give the Centres the capacity and ability to work together more effectively.
Agri-EPI’s network of 20 commercial farms are equipped with the latest precision sensor technologies that are purpose-built to measure agricultural innovation. “There are obvious crossovers, such as between CHAP and CIEL on rotational grassland and cover crops, and in robotics for Agri-EPI and CHAP. A single portal provides one place to go,” he says.
Fraser recognises CHAP has not always engaged directly with farmers, and it may be that many don’t know what the centre actually does. “This is because CHAP’s primary goal is to get effective technology market ready and then to work with farmers as part of the supply chain. We are still a young organisation, and it takes some time for innovative technology to be scaled up and usable on farm.
“Few projects we’re involved with have specifically been about engaging with farmers – most are taking technologies to proof of concept or pre-commercial stage. CHAPs strength has been in bringing consortium members together, connecting with SMEs, start-ups and industry to accelerate real-world solutions to real-world problems. We tend to work with others, such as BOFIN (British On-Farm Innovation Network), who provide the connection to farmers.
“Looking ahead, though, and with the expectation we will become a Catapult, bringing the strong networks we’ve built up closer to farmers will be one of the key priorities, as will being even more joined up across the whole of the agri-tech ecosystem.”
Fraser points to the Crop Storage and Post-harvest Solutions (CSPS) facilities, located across three locations in the UK, as a recent example of the use of capital investment to support the industry. The need for this was driven by the closure of the Sutton Bridge facility after the loss of the potato levy. These facilities provide much-needed R&D opportunities for companies to test new sprout suppressants and storage options to reduce energy use, he notes.
Fraser Black wants to get good technology into the hands of farmers. Agri-EPI already has a network of 20 commercial farms across the UK, notes CEO Dave Ross. These are all equipped with the latest precision sensor technologies that are purpose-built to measure agricultural innovation.
“The concept is to create many insights of farming systems and gather data through on-farm trials to optimise productivity within environmental and physical constraints. In essence, it’s about getting actual data to help farmers manage a biological resource,” he explains.
Examples of farmer-facing projects Agri-EPI has been involved with include Earth Rover (see page xx) and the Crover – a sensor that burrows through a heap of grain gathering data on quality and condition.
For Fraser, the difference when the Centres combine is that there will be a single point of contact for farmers, agri-tech innovators and the whole agricultural sector to come to. This will provide access to all of the facilities and individuals with a high level of expertise.
“We want to get new innovation into the hands of farmers as soon as possible and to be the trusted place to come to for that – we’re independent and not-for-profit, and here to make things happen – I am very excited for the future,” he says.
*NOTE: George Freeman resigned his post as Minister of State at DSIT on 13 November, following 13 years in which he had served in various ministerial roles championing science and the importance of an active strategy for innovation.
Farmers encouraged to ADOPT new technology
Defra has announced plans to launch a new scheme for farmers to adopt new technology and take part in on-farm R&D. £40M over five years is set to be made available for farmer-led projects under its new ADOPT Fund (Accelerating Development of Practices and Technologies), due to be launched in late 2024.
“Next year, we’ll launch a new scheme to support farmers in leading their own on-farm trials, testing the viability of your approaches and driving adoption of what works.” announced Defra Farming Minister Mark Spencer at the World AgriTech Summit in London.
“Our brand-new approach seeks to transform innovative concepts into practical solutions that drive productivity, economic growth and environmental benefits.”
The new fund is part of Defra’s £270M Farming Innovation Programme – the R&D strand of its post-Brexit approach to funding for agriculture up to 2029. A few farmers have already received funding from this through various rounds of projects delivered by Innovate UK, with £120M committed to date.
Mark Spencer seeks to transform innovative concepts into practical solutions that drive productivity, economic growth and environmental benefits. Most of the budget has so far been awarded to UK tech start-ups, supply chain companies and research organisations that have typically come together in consortia on collaborative projects each worth a total of £200,000 to £6M. All projects have had to demonstrate farmer engagement and a route to commercialise the technologies that have received funding. That’s involved some farming businesses joining as partners or even leading bids. Significantly, there have also been three rounds of smaller Research Starter Projects – one-year projects worth up to £56,000, led by farmers looking to explore a new idea.
Uptake by farmers and involvement in these projects as a whole has been very low, however. Part of the difficulty has been the process of tendering for and then obtaining funds through Innovate UK. This is a system that’s largely designed for ambitious, multi-million pound projects tendered by research organisations with dedicated finance departments. Tech Farmer has spoken to several farming businesses that will “never want to work with Innovate UK again” following successful bids for funding.
To get round the difficulties, some organisations have taken farmers on as contractors. BOFIN (British On Farm Innovation Network), for example, is leading or partnering on six projects, worth a total of over £10M over the next four years. Within the company’s budget are total payments to farmers worth £800,000, that may be shared by around 200 farmers taking part in trials. While BOFIN has to submit timesheets, invoices, and payslips as proof of expenses to claim funding, as well as attend regular project meetings, meet milestones and deliver update reports, the farmers, paid as contractors, simply agree to a protocol to follow and submit an annual invoice to BOFIN.
The new ADOPT fund is designed to get farmers directly involved in projects without the administrative burden of dealing with Innovate UK. Farmers or groups of farmers will be invited to propose one to three-year projects worth £25,000-75,000 each. Brand new will be an Innovation Support Service (ISS) – a third-party organisation that will promote the fund to farmers, manage applications and provide support and resources.
The grant-funding will be competitive, but two levels of support will be offered – firstly a grant of up to £2500 is available to submit an application. Farmers could use this to fund an Innovation Manager (IM) – an industry consultant hired to assist them, design an application more likely to be successful, and submit it to the level of detail required by the Innovate UK platform. If successful, the full grant (£25,000-75,000) would be awarded and the IM may then help manage the project for a fee, drawn from the award.
The IMs would play a key role, both in applying for the grant and running the project, and Defra envisages these will be farming industry “experts” (e.g. farm consultants or advisers) already proficient with the Innovate UK bidding process “with skills beyond basic facilitation and project management”. They would need to register with the ISS, who would be responsible for maintaining standards.
While the tender process for appointing an ISS provider is now underway, much is still unclear about ADOPT. A key question is to what level farmers will be asked to fund their own projects – typically commercial partners in Innovate UK projects contribute 30-50%, depending on the size of the company. How a farmer’s time will be valued is also unclear – in current projects, they can claim no more than £176/day for their time, unless they can present PAYE slips that prove they are paid more.
Once the ADOPT fund gets underway, Defra is planning to support up to 40 farmer-led projects per quarter. In addition, Minister Spencer pledged support to leverage more private funding into agriculture, and to address regulations around robotics, autonomous vehicles and genetics that may present a barrier to adoption of new technologies at present.
“The world faces many challenges that demand innovative solutions, and that also offers huge opportunity. Together, we can develop a world-leading Agri-Tech that empowers farmers and growers to combine productive and profitable businesses where they thrive in a thriving, natural environment,” he said.
-
Shedding light on LED grow lighting
In the first part in a series of five articles that are going to look into how modern LED lighting can be used to grow food, Alex Martin and Alessandro Oliveri from Dextra and Igrox Srl looks at some of the fundamentals.
The question of how LED grow lighting helps horticultural, and potentially other crops, to grow is being asked more and more. However, as with all new technology this can raise more questions than it answers. An example of this is the type of grow lights required for different plant types and environments. Most seem to assume that all LED horticultural lighting is the same but that is very far from the truth.
In recent years, advancements in lighting technology have revolutionised the way we can grow plants in artificial environments. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have become a popular choice for horticultural applications due to their energy efficiency, longevity, and the ability to tailor their light spectrum to meet the specific needs of plants. To elaborate on this, we will explore the main differences between the LED lighting spectrum for greenhouse and for vertical farming applications. In doing this, hopefully we will highlight the unique considerations for each setting.
Greenhouse Lighting:
Greenhouses are structures designed to harness natural sunlight while providing a controlled environment for plant growth. When supplementing natural light with artificial sources, the LED lighting light spectrum must complement the sunlight to optimise photosynthesis and plant development. Greenhouses receive varying sunlight throughout the day and seasons. LED lighting in greenhouses aims to supplement the natural light, filling in gaps and extending photoperiods when necessary.
The LED light spectrum for greenhouses often mimic the sunlight spectrum, providing a balance of red light, that has a wavelength of 600-700 nm(manometers)and blue 400-500 nm – both of these ranges are crucial for photosynthesis.
Plants have specific light requirements during different growth phases. For example, blue light is essential for vegetative growth, while red light promotes flowering and fruiting.
Vertical Farming Lighting:
Vertical farming involves cultivating plants in stacked layers or vertically inclined surfaces, often in indoor environments. Unlike greenhouses, vertical farms are not reliant on natural sunlight, allowing for precise control over the lighting environment.
In vertical farming, LED lighting is the primary source of illumination. The light spectrum can be precisely tailored to meet the specific needs of crops without considering the natural sunlight spectrum.
Red and blue light spectrum are still crucial, but vertical farms can leverage a more targeted approach, emphasising light wavelengths that directly contribute to photosynthesis and plant growth efficiency.
Vertical farms are designed to maximize space efficiency. LED lighting can be strategically positioned to ensure uniform coverage throughout the vertical growing space.
Furthermore spectral optimisation in vertical farming aims to minimise wasted energy and enhance the overall yield per sqm.
In addition to that different crops have varying light requirements. LED lighting in vertical farms can also allow for multiple tailored spectrums based on the specific needs of the cultivated plants, ensuring optimal growth conditions for diverse crops within the same facility.
In conclusion, the main difference in LED lighting light spectrum for greenhouse and vertical farming applications is the degree of control over the light conditions. Greenhouses seek to complement natural sunlight. On the other hand, vertical farms exploit the freedom to customise the light spectrum , optimising efficiency and space utilisation. As technology continues to advance, the integration of LED lighting in both settings is set to play a pivotal role in meeting the increasing demand for sustainable and efficient agriculture.The Basics – The Electromagnetic Spectrum
When we discuss light in everyday terms, we typically refer to visible light – the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (EM spectrum) that our eyes can naturally perceive. But isible light constitutes only a small segment of the entire EM spectrum, as illustrated in the picture, and when growing food using LEDs we talk about a wider range of light.
Wavelength, a term frequently used in this context, describes the oscillation of a passing photon through an electric field as it traverses space. The EM spectrum encompasses all possible energy levels that photons may possess, with higher energy corresponding to shorter wavelengths.
Visible light wavelengths span from around 380 nanometers to 760 nanometers. However, both the sun and artificial electric lamps can emit waves shorter and longer than those within the visible light range.
Our sun produces a full spectrum of light however, we can only see some of that light with our eyes. There are animal species that can see parts of the light spectrum that we cannot. Equally not see some of the colours of the spectrum that we can. The same is true for plants, some plant species thrive on a different light colour spectrum than other plants do.
Just beyond the realm of visible light lies the ultraviolet (UV) portion of the spectrum. Named for being “beyond” the colour violet in the visible spectrum, UV light, a component of sunlight, is responsible for causing sunburn and encompasses a broad range of wavelengths.
Descending below the threshold of visible light brings us to infrared (IR) radiation, often referred to as heat radiation. This electromagnetic radiation, emitted by all objects, correlates with temperature—the warmer an object, the higher it registers on the IR scale. In instances where objects become sufficiently hot, they transition to incandescence, emitting EM radiation in the visible spectrum, a principle observed in incandescent lamps.
Further down the scale, we encounter microwaves, utilised for heating food, and radio waves, employed in long-distance communication. The EM spectrum thus unveils the expansive range of energy levels and wavelengths beyond what is perceptible to the human eye.
-
Agronomist in Focus – Drilling down into fixed costs
New Machinery Tool provides in depth fixed cost analysis
Improving financial performance on combinable crops relies on a true and accurate understanding of fixed costs, says Will Foyle farm business consultant with Hutchinsons.
“Whilst a focus on yield is still important, understanding and being able to control overheads or fixed costs, is key to financial integrity. We know that a higher wheat yield improves financial output, however, it is a lower level of fixed costs that will make the greatest difference to performance/hectare,” he says.
Mr Foyle recognises this is a complex area as machinery depreciation costs are often misunderstood or incorrectly valued which can make a large impact on profit/hectare. “It can be difficult to clarify the metrics of depreciation of machinery, linked to areas worked and work rates for example, alongside the more visible labour and diesel costs.”
“You don’t receive a monthly statement for your fixed costs in the way you do for variable costs.”
As a business looking at costs of producing a crop is an area that Hutchinsons has been working towards making simpler. This began last spring with the launch of the Business Performance Module on the Omnia digital farming platform, which allows for retrospective calculation of the cost of production of field operations in both £/tonne, CO2/tonne or CO2/ hectare, based on a slider measurement for where those costs sit.
The new Machinery Tool takes this one step forward, providing a simple way of calculating actual and accurate operational machinery costs before committing to field operations, for individual farm businesses based on its own figures.
“This is done by breaking down all the components of cost related to running a particular piece of machinery to realise the true, not approximate, costs of operation,” explains Mr Foyle.
Within the Machinery Tool, depreciation ranges take in to account the age, value, areas/hours worked per annum, alongside servicing and repairs to give the fixed costs of a particular piece of machinery, so instead of an approximate figure being used as was previously the case, real costs can be inputted. Work rates alongside diesel and labour costs are then calculated giving a total cost per ha and per ha for running both the tractor and machine.
This cost can then be added into the virtual machinery shed in the Business Performance Module on the Omnia platform and when overlaid with yield and variable costs gives the real costs of producing a crop.
It is possible to use the tool to look at how invisible or fixed costs may be better managed. For example, if the depreciation cost is higher than anticipated is it that the capacity of the machine is greater than needed? Perhaps it is possible to run the machine for longer say six years rather than four?
Mr Foyle quotes an example of how a farm changing over from a mixed tillage system using a 2015 4m Vaderstad Rapid to a direct drilling regime with a new Claydon Hybrid.
Looking at what the Vaderstad is used for – it was retained for drilling 40ha of grass seed annually but alongside power unit fixed costs, fuel and labour the calculated depreciation of £1,680/annum across a small area meant this operation was now costing £66/ha as opposed to £27/ha when covering 200ha annually.
“So in this situation, a discussion around whether to keep the drill for flexibility purposes or sell and use a contractor for the grassland re-seeds, would be sensible.”
Helix host farmer, Thomas Todd, of Bareless Farm, Cornhill upon Tweed, Northumberland was one of the first to trial the new Machinery Tool.
“With the demise of the BPS it is more imperative than ever before to have an accurate figure for fixed costs. This is for two reasons, one just to know exactly what it is costing to grow a crop, but also for future planning and making decisions over cultivation changes and the implications of buying new machinery.
He used the machinery tool to look at the potential implications of moving from min-till to predominantly direct till. “We have been looking at going down the direct till route. Currently we min-till but this would require buying a new machine.
“What it showed was that the costs just didn’t play out, particularly as we would not be using it for 100% of our cultivations.”
“Thew tool has allowed us to look at using our machinery more efficiently, and we have even thought about dropping some cultivations, for example on the rape.”
“Using the Machinery Tool has certainly challenged our perception of which crops are the most profitable; for example, our spring barley can be as profitable as winter wheat, in terms of lower fixed costs, but also lower variable costs.”
“We are going to carry out the same exercise with other break crops and it will be interesting to see what comes out on top.”
“We are very fortunate as Helix farm hosts as we are privy to trialling exciting new tools and technologies to improve farm profitability and the Machinery Tool is the perfect example of this. We have found it straightforward and easy to use and invaluable to managing profitability going forward. It certainly challenges us against taking the approach ‘I’ve always done it this way so why change’.
-
Farmer Focus – Simon Beddows
Trials test the tech – December 2023
On-farm trials have always played a key role in exploring new tech, and helped Simon Beddows develop a new use for John Deere’s Harvest Lab.
For the past30 years I have been a farm manager, firstly in Kent and latterly in South Oxfordshire. For 25 of those years, after successfully completing my BASIS and FACTS courses, I have undertaken all my own agronomy. An inquisitive mind and a desire to find out what works best on my farm led me to get involved with on-farm trials.
Life sometimes throws you a curved ball. In October I took on a new position with a John Deere dealer, Farol, as their in-house agronomist. My role will develop over time, but essentially I am there to help farmers and growers work with current and new technology, using data from machines to make agronomic decisions and improve productivity.
My journey into technology began in the early 2000’s, firstly to replace the unreliable foam blob marker on the sprayer with GPS generated A-B lines. Wanting more from my purchase, I added autosteer and began looking at variable rate fertiliser initially using SOYL to provide variable P and K maps based on soil test results. Farming very variable soil types it seemed a good idea to try adjusting the rate of nitrogen according to crop growth. To prove it worked I set up three years’ worth of trials comparing the technique with standard blanket applications. So began my introduction into creating my own farm trials. In the last few years I have worked with major manufacturers and universities covering a diverse range of topics.
It was my link with Reading University on a three year project looking at the probability of profitability that bought me to John Deere and their development of HarvestLab on combines. The project was investigating which factors, during the crop’s growth cycle, had the greatest influence on final yield. Using this knowledge, growers could attempt to influence crop growth before harvest, or tailor inputs according to predicted yield. Part of the analysis was taking hand samples of the crop at pre-determined GPS marked points just prior to harvest. Protein content was the main grain quality aspect that was of interest, because of its link to nitrogen fertiliser. Finding students to help the research staff was always a challenge, especially at short notice and I had heard that John Deere were looking to develop their Near Infrared sensor, already proven on forage harvesters, to work on combines.
HarvestLab sits on the clean grain elevator and uses an auger to take grain continuously past the sensor. 4000 readings are taken every second. My local dealer, Farol, put me in contact with John Deere who were keen to get a UK grower on board. The first year was spent getting to grips with the system and confirming the calibration curves by collecting samples and sending them for analysis. In my various meetings with John Deere, they were keen to emphasize the value of being able to segregate the grain according to protein content going into the store. At our first harvest wash-up meeting, as we sat looking at the maps generated by the combine, I pointed out that this was a powerful tool for making agronomy decisions particularly around nitrogen fertiliser.
I have always liked John Deere as a manufacturer because they are happy to listen to the customers and look for solutions to the problems they have identified. Still, I knew I had to show them something concrete, so for harvest 2022 I set up a fertiliser trial.
The price per tonne of nitrogen had skyrocketed in the spring and £700/t looked good, so what better time to see how low we could go. The field I chose was milling wheat following a crop of maize and farmyard manure. Two 30m tramlines were selected for each treatment to get over the overlap problem with a spinning disc spreader. The rates were totals of 150kgs/ha and 180kgs/ha of nitrogen. Following on from harvest I had both protein and yield data from the two plots. Every load that went back to the farm passed over a weighbridge, so combine yield data could be checked post-harvest. Grain samples were collected for the trial and sent off for analysis as before, to check on protein.
I used John Deere’s Operation Center for machine integration, data collection, work planning and analysis, which allowed me to view the differences in yield and protein maps side by side. The results showed yield to be statistically the same in each plot at just over 10.5t/ha. However, the protein content was 0.5% lower in the 150kgs/ha of nitrogen plot, much as expected, with grain testing showing that both treatments had been above the 11% protein content necessary to reach maximum yield, all other factors being met. Now I had got John Deere’s attention and they could see the added value of HarvestLab as an agronomy tool. They now have a team of agronomists working for them in their technology department, so expect more exciting developments to come.
As part of my new role, I now get access to Agronomy Analyzer. It is a dealer only tool developed to allow much more detailed analysis of farmers and growers own trials. I have run some of my trials through it including this nitrogen trial.
Hopefully I can work with more of our customers in the future to produce reports for them that can be accessed through Operation Center. With a loss of support systems and more extreme weather events, it becomes even more important that farmers and growers can back up decisions with accurate and relevant data.
-
Making Methane Practical
A new project is set to explore the concept of an energy-independent farm
If you went to Agritechnica, you may have seen New Holland’s T7 Methane Power LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) tractor as an industry first. The latest development in the brand’s Methane Power tractor offering. The tractor itself offers farmers unparalleled performance for an alternative fuel tractor while also boosting overall farm sustainability. It’s as good as the diesel equivalents.
But with its LNG power solution, this tractor more than doubles the autonomy capability of the current methane powered range: using liquefied methane delivers four times as much fuel storage capacity when compared to compressed gas (CNG). With fuel autonomy for a working day and with its 270hp, there’s no difference in performance between the LNG and a diesel tractor.
However to make the tractor truly part of a solution that you can implement on your farm, The LNG tractor can be fueled by fugitive methane, strategically captured from livestock waste slurry lagoons. The methane is converted into fuel-grade liquefied natural gas (LNG) using patented cryogenic processes solving the low boiling point challenge historically seen with this fuel source.
Now Bennamann is undertaking a project that aims to demonstrate a revolutionary new approach to energy-independent sustainable farming. The project has some ambitious aims, including to:
- maximise the use of on-site renewable energy resources in combination with animal waste, such as cow manure, to supply all the energy needed for the farm, taking the site off-grid and reducing operational costs;
- deliver commercially viable net zero carbon energy products (biogas and liquid biofuel) from animal waste for local sale and distribution, providing an additional income to the farm business;
- improve the sustainability of farmland management practice through minimisation of artificial inputs such as manufactured fertiliser, lowering operational costs and reducing pollutants;
- provide site assessment methods and business models that will enable roll-out to scale across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the UK and the rest of the world.
The three local knowledge and innovation partners that have come together to collaboratively deliver this project are Bennamann (lead partner), Chynoweth Farm Partners and the University of Exeter.
If compared to diesel, the high energy density of LNG emits 80% less carbon monoxide emissions, 90% less non-methane hydrocarbons, 98% less particulate matter, and 62% less nitrous oxide. The T7 LNG when fueled by captured and processed bioLNG can reduce C02 emissions by 878 tons per year.
FPT Industrial presents an energy independent farm concept based on their Smart Hybrid Hub and our fugitive methane capture, process and use technologies.
Watch it here: https://vimeo.com/668164673
-
Hitting rock bottom
Written by Dr David Cutress: IBERS, Aberystwyth University.
• Silicate and carbonate reactions could offer a route for long-term carbon storage
• Whilst issues surround carbonate minerals, silicates, like basalt rock, appear more promising
• Applying crushed silicatesto agricultural soils could benefit carbon footprints, nutrient availability, pH, soil water retention and plant growth and yields
• Currently, there is very limited field-based evidence of the possible off-target long-term impacts of this strategy on global ecosystems
• More research is needed before further highlighting the environmental potential of silicate weathering and providing incentives to utilise such practicesRock weathering and agriculture?
The current climate focus along with environmental warnings are making carbon capture and storage activities a higher focus than ever before. Whilst strategies such as increased tree planting, min/no-till, bioenergy crops and legume integration are well noted for their potential in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint there are some other less direct tools to consider. Rock weathering involves the ability of silicate and carbonate materials to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from atmospheric cycles this acts as a natural control for climate change/global warming and has been known for a long time.
It has relatively recently come to the forefront for its potential as a mitigation tool directly for agriculture’s high emission profiles. Articles have noted the potential to include silicate-rich materials such as basalt into agricultural soils so that they can draw down extra CO2. An article in nature in 2020 highlighted the potential of this strategy and received a great deal of interest and further citations (over 150 within 2 years demonstrating a high level of attention).
This draw-down function is a part of the carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle or the ‘Inorganic carbon cycle’. This involves reactions between elements of rocks with atmospheric CO2 and water (H2O).
This diagram shows the route which could be used within agriculture towards carbon storage but it should be noted that this is a cycle (though a long-term cycle) and CO2 is eventually re-released (1000’s years). This re-release occurs via mechanisms such as the volcanic
breakdown of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Weathering processes are also under investigation for “artificial” weathering in reactors for carbon capture and utilisation strategies, though there appears as yet to be no commercially ready solution to achieve this efficiently.What does this mean in practice?
Essentially this strategy would involve the application of fine silicate dust (such as basalt) onto agricultural lands similar to the process of applying lime. In arable studies, a suggested addition of 40 tonnes of basalt per hectare per year was used as it was shown to be within
range for improving crop production in field trials. Whilst other trials have noted figures between 0.5 and 10kg of basalt per m2
(equivalent to 5 – 100 tonnes per hectare). The finer the particles the higher the surface area and CO2 removal from the atmosphere, however, it has been noted that there would need to be a balance between particle size and energy needed to produce finer powders.The process involves basic cations (positively charged particles) being released into the soil/water interface during mineral weathering meaning that this can also act as a tool to reduce soil acidification. Reducing soil acidification could allow silicates to act as a replacement liming material which like lime itself increases soil pH and reduces N2O emissions associated, this is powerful as N2O is roughly 270 times more detrimental than CO2. In systems where there are natural occurring high quantities of silicate minerals (areas with high volcanic ash), it has been noted that, long-term soils are largely neutral or only minorly acidic and that these soils also show interesting potentials for organic carbon (C) storage over time.
Alongside CO2 benefits, silicate weathering also releases other plant nutrients into the soil, for example, basalt (the main rock considered across literature) includes Silica (Si), potassium (K), phosphorous (P) and calcium (Ca) that can be utilised by crops to improve vigour and
yields giving added benefits. Equally, there is an association between this process and the reduction of nitrogen (N) present in runoff as well as reduced acidification of soils (reducing the need for lime addition in intensive systems). This has been understood since the late 1800s with silicon wastes used as fertiliser in US systems, though historically the CO2 reduction implications were not realised. One benefit to consider with this strategy is that there may already be pathways in place that would enable the large-scale application of silicates like basalt to croplands due to similarities to the current liming practices.Whilst the increased need for mining silicates would be a consideration for supplying this resource globally, there is also the possibility of utilising waste resources such as slag from iron and steel manufacturing (2.7% already used for fertiliser nutrients in Europe), demolition waste, cement wastes and by-product silicates from other current mining endeavours.
What CO2 reduction is suggested?
CO2 uptake via this system is influenced by temperature, level of runoff and the available surface area of the rock/mineral in question. Temperature is a key factor with weathering being more efficient at higher temperatures. In natural systems, weathering acts as a partial natural buffer to global warming (as global temperatures rise, more weathering draws down more carbon from the atmosphere). What this means in practice is that countries with higher average temperatures will see increased benefits to the inclusion of weatherable rocks onto
landscapes (as long as they have the high precipitation levels to go along with this).This was noted in one model where Indonesia and Brazil showed high carbon dioxide removal potential due to a combination of their extensive available agricultural land (on which to apply the minerals/rocks for weathering) and their warm/wet climates which are conducive to weathering efficiency. Whilst this might suggest that the temperate climate of the UK might not be the best for this system of CO2 removal a follow-up Nature paper, in 2022, noted that employing this strategy across UK croplands could remove 6 – 30 million tonnes of CO2 a year representing 45% of the C removal required to hit net zero-emissions by 2050.
If this modelling proves correct this offers a substantial opportunity for agriculture as a sector which is already known to be vital for its potential role in carbon sequestration. Other studies have suggested reductions of 2.5 Gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 a year (1 gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes) over 50 years following a single one-off application of basalt dust (In this specific instance assuming the land was not disturbed for arable use). In studies of application on cropland it was noted that applying basalt to around 10% of croplands at 0.039 – 0.84 Gt a year should lead to 0.5 Gt CO2 reductions. Whilst silicate application values can be enlarged to increase the CO2 reductions achieved it has been noted that thresholds exist where higher basalt dust addition had far less impact on CO2 reducing the efficiency of its application.
Of course, the processing and transport of silicate minerals have CO2 emission associated as well as costs. Whilst the emissions have been calculated in many of the models (though production in different countries has different impacts depending on their main source and efficiency of energy production) these along with the costs would need consideration to make this strategy appealing and feasible overall. It is suggested that the direct valuation of C is a current question throughout agriculture concerning the value farmers can see from their climate mitigation actions. The World Bank forecasts $100 – 150 per tonne of CO2 by 2050.
Comparing this to the costs predicted from the 2020 nature paper which found the cost of silicate application to range from $54.3 – $220.3 per tonne CO2 extracted per year depending on country and intensity of applications. This suggests that even in the most expensive scenarios CO2 capture value would mitigate between 1/3 and 2/3rds of the costs incurred.
The costs of rock weathering are therefore equivalent to other strategies being considered from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) strategies being explored such as biochar and direct air capture and storage.
The use of basalt for weathering as noted also provides a source of P and K for the soil with P being noted as an essential nutrient which limits biomass production globally thus adding a co-benefit to basalt dust addition. Increasing biomass production by alleviating P constraints concurrently means more CO2 will be taken from the atmosphere and stored in plant biomass.
This suggests an even higher potential for basalt dust in tropical (warm/wet regions) with depleted P levels in soils. Alongside CO2 reductions, this process should play a role in increasing the alkalinity of oceans with a beneficial impact on the growth of corals and diatoms (key in removing CO2 via photosynthesis and providing nutrients in ocean food chains) thus likely a positive impact on biodiversity. Also increasing the alkalinity of oceans makes them able to store more C providing positive feedback on C sequestration overall.
What are the uncertainties?
As noted in the inorganic carbon diagram the reactions for carbonates and silicates are reversible. There is the suggestion that this action could mean that soil chemistry in certain conditions leads to the promotion of carbonate minerals which acts as a store of C rather than HCO3 – and CO3 2- making their way to the ocean for storage. Whilst this function in itself has been investigated for its potential as a carbon sink it was noted in one paper that this action is only half as efficient in sequestering CO2. The other issue with considering carbonate minerals, rather than silicate, is that in acidic agricultural soils (which are more common in intensive systems) it can lead to negative CO2 fluxes out into the atmosphere increasing carbon footprints, making silicate weathering more promising.
Equally important is the understanding that reactions can occur to slow and inhibit this carbon storage aspect in field conditions, which have not been expansively enough researched. For example, the cations produced by weathering could bind to ion exchange surfaces or react to form other secondary minerals and never reach the ocean where the major sequestration benefits are suggested to occur. What is also a worry are the impacts on eutrophication of aquatic systems, biosphereatmosphere feedback, biodiversity and air, water and soil pollution impacts of long-term silicate dust applications as this is currently under-researched. Such aspects could play a significant role in the functionality of ecosystems so would need further study.
Also, as with many particles of small size the finer the basalt dust used (<10 μm) the more impact it will pose to human/animal health via wind transport and inhalation. This would likely be an issue in management scenarios with increased soil erosion such as high tillage (and other physical soil disturbances like heavy machinery use) and strategies which allowed the presence of repeated bare soil and a lack of substantial root/plant coverage year-round to aggregate soils, which in themselves also have negative impacts environmentally relating to emission profiles.
Whilst basalt is the main silicate mineral considered within this article and many research publications, silicate strategies would likely work most efficiently by utilising nearby locally sourced minerals. Equally, to achieve a suggested 2 mm coverage require 40 tonnes per hectare so to employ across all UK cropland would require >240 million tonnes of silicates. This means a range of silicate minerals would need to come into consideration with different geochemical compositions which could lead to the release of different trace metals and other compounds into environments which may have different positive and negative effects that need researching.
For example, it was noted that antimony and selenium leaching from demolition and construction wastes could lead to concentrations in the environment above the acceptable range for water quality standards. Such by-products and leachates would also have considerations on uptake via crops from soils and food safety which would need to be assessed further.
Summary
Silicate application onto both agricultural landscapes and other conservation/rewilded landscapes and forestry theoretically appears to have a lot of potential as a carbon capture tool. Silicates have suggested benefits to systems which incorporate plants (forests, arable and pastoral) as co-products released during the weathering process should improve plant growth and yields. Despite suggested benefits, there are many unknowns due to a lack of field-level experimentation with such strategies.
As such efforts should be made to research potential off-target ecosystem implications before considering advising and incentivising landowners towards incorporating such strategies into their management considerations.
Despite this, use of silica-based fertilisers in the US (and to a small extent in Europe) and equivalent issues of utilising lime applications on soil may be enough to make silicate application an alternative and alluring strategy.
-
Basics best for hi-tech wine
Knowing basic infrastructural information about fields is a key requirement to unlocking technological progress for an Oxfordshire wine producer. Tech Farmer visits JoJo’s vineyard.
By Mike Abram
Three simple words explain why Ian Beecher Jones, and his partner Tess, started the 2ha JoJo’s vineyard that nestles on the chalky slopes of the Chiltern Hills, not far from Henley on Thames.
“We like wine,” he says.
“It was as simple as that. We had a field, don’t have any kids and thought this would be a jolly good idea to do for the next 20-30 years.
“And it still is, despite the trials, tribulations, traumas and costs.”
It was what Ian considered a simple request post-planting in 2019 that led him down a route of actively seeking projects and partners that could improve the use of technology in vineyards.
“When we planted, the contractors were using a New Holland tractor equipped with an IntelliView IV monitor, they’d set up their RTK base station, so I was thinking this is wonderful,” he explains. “The planter will be connected, and I’ll be able to get a USB stick with data pinpointing where each and every vine had been planted.
“But when I asked for that USB, it was as if I was asking for meteorite from Mars because they had never been asked for vine position data before. No one saw any value in it.”
The simple premise for JoJo’s vineyard is that Ian Beecher Jones likes wine. The value in Ian’s mind is that because a vineyard’s infrastructure – the vines – are in the same place year after year, it lends itself to automation, for example. “But if I want to get a robot, drone or section control working in the vineyard, I need to know my infrastructure, where my rows are to then calculate where my mid-row is.
“Once I have that, I can navigate robots or tractors through that. Or if I’m using drones, I want to know where the mid-row zone is, the non-vine signal.
“In our vineyard, it’s about 1.8m which is just grass or cover crop, and if you are looking at NDVI maps or satellite imagery, you have a huge amount of distortion from non-vine signal information. And that comes back to infrastructure. If you know where the row is, you can draw a polygon around it to give the mid-row area that can be cut out of the imagery being gathered.”
Virtually all providers of precision agricultural services concentrate on the perceived high value data, such as sensing, scanning or agronomic information, he points out. “But first we need the fundamentals of the digital farm set up correctly.
“We need our grower, farm and field information, our rows, which then turn into AB lines and our boundaries. From a viticulture point of view it’s more complex than broad-acre agriculture as we have variety boundaries, root stock boundaries and clone boundaries all of which can be different.
An EU-based i4Trust project helped Ian map all his vines and posts, using an RTK surveying tool to create a hyper-local GPS grid of the vineyard. “If we don’t get this right, precision agriculture won’t work,” he says.
What is desperately needed is a simple mechanism for farmers to store their infrastructure data only, which would save huge amounts of time when setting up with service providers, such as robot or drone companies.
“People will say we have shape or ISO files to do that, but it is only part of the story. There’s lots of other pieces of data that are important – telegraph poles, for example, from a safety point of view, footpaths, where gates are and toilets for contractors. There are not many software providers from an ag point of view record that information as it has no agronomic value.”
Without it, each provider has to scan that information before starting which is a cost to somebody, as well as a time requirement. With it, a provider could deploy a robot in perhaps 15 minutes, he suggests.
“That means farmer engagement will be much higher because they’re seeing deployment and results much faster.”
Robots, such as he Autodiscovery Bunker Mini equipped with a HEAD 360 for autonomous driving, can help take the grunt out of viticulture and are suitable for transporting items around the vineyard, particularly in wet weather when a tractor and trailer would cause more damage to the soil. It will also manage risk when using robots or autonomy on farm. “In the Regulatory Horizons Council white paper, the Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, one of the concerns is manging risk on farm. For me it’s the farmer’s responsibility to help manage that risk, not the tech company. The tech company uses the tools they have to practically reduce that risk.
“But if the robot provider doesn’t know where a telegraph pole is, they always have to be guessing where an obstacle is. If I can digitally pinpoint where my telegraph poles are for example, you can put an exclusion zone around the pole and feed it to the navigation planning software.”
In the vineyard, an EU-based i4Trust project helped Ian map all his vines and posts, using an RTK surveying tool to create a hyper-local GPS grid of the vineyard.
“The attention to detail needed is much greater in this environment because of the consequences of getting it wrong. If you overlap a spray in a broadacre situation, it’s inconvenient and not good practice, but you just lose some crop. Get accuracy wrong here from a steering point of view and I wipe out a row of vines that’s thousands of pounds and at least three years’ production.”
The farm has been involved in a lot of projects (see box) since planting, but it’s logistics where Ian sees, at least initially, the greatest opportunity for technology. “From an immediacy of engagement in tech, logistics in and around a site has a faster win than agronomy.”
Ian reckons robotic harvesting, while being developed for soft fruits and vegetables, is likely to be more difficult with grapes. For example, removing prunings is, as Ian describes it, a nightmare job. These can be flailed and mulched, which is relatively quick, easy and inexpensive, but potentially leaves a disease source; they can baled and removed, or removed by gangs, he says.
Robotics could help with mowing grass between vines, for example. “FJ Dynamics have a self-propelled one which theoretically is able to do it, which we want to have a look at next year, while you could also pull a mower using a robot, such as the AgileX one we’ve got from Autodiscovery.”
Other brands such as Husqvarna and Luba are also options. “Automating or reducing the management time means I can do other more skilled jobs.”
Jobs such as carrying frost candles out, which protect vines against late frosts, are also suitable for transport using robots around the vineyard, particularly in wet weather when a tractor and trailer would cause more damage to the soil.
“It takes some of the grunt work out, and will be half the weight of a tractor and trailer.”
Robotic harvesting, while being developed for soft fruits and vegetables, is likely to be more difficult with grapes, he reckons. “It’s more difficult with bunches.”
Theoretically, depending on system and use, a camera could also be mounted on the robot to gather agronomic data at the same time and not cost anything extra, he suggests.
“In spring we want to count the number of buds on the shoot, and how many burst. From there, we can start to predict yield, or identify whether a vine is underperforming and needs to be managed differently, for example pruned back further so it pushes all its energy through a lower number of shoots.
“But you can only do that with good imagery and by assigning it to an individual vine.”
While getting agronomic data is relatively, acting on it is much more difficult – getting it wrong with the sprayer would have serious consequences. Generally, the issue with agronomic data currently is while it is relatively easy to acquire, acting upon it is much more difficult. “At the moment there aren’t a lot of tools that actually help me do something with the data.”
The main one is the sprayer but the risk-benefit is heavily skewed towards not taking chances because getting it wrong will have serious consequences, but he is looking at whether nutrition can be variably applied after realising this year that he had probably applied too much, increasing plant vigour at the expense of fruit production.
“Unfortunately not too many vine sprayers have controls to variably apply currently from a GPS point of view, so the first step I’m hoping to have is just automatic start and shut off at the start and end of rows. If we can do that, as we have in broadacre crops for 20 years, it will immediately save 10-15% of sprays,” he concludes.
Photocopier technology could pave way for underground insights
A soil project using a mini-rhizotron, which effectively is similar technology to a photocopier scanner, could begin to help unravel some of the mystery of what happens underground, Ian says.
“You basically put a plastic tube in the ground containing the mini-rhizotron into the ground at a 45 degree angle, which the plant roots grow around.
“The rhizotron scans the roots 360 degrees to make a flat image, and because it is in the same place all the time you can compare root growth and mycorrhizal fungi activity around the roots.
“We’re hopefully going to put 32 of these in the vineyard, and hopefully gain a real insight into what’s going on in the soil.”
It also potentially opens up the opportunity to look at various biological or biodynamic products in the soil to see the impact on microbial activity and root growth, or impact of various different cover crops, he says.
Technology being tested at JoJo’s vineyard
• Node and cordon counting and yield forecasting with Bitwise Greenview
• Yield mapping with eVineyard
• Canopy density scanning with TopCon
• Coverage mapping with Trimble
• Vine health with DeepPlanet
• Robots with Autodiscovery and Antobot
• Mowing and logistics with Agile X (Autodiscovery) and Logic equipment
• Steering with New Holland & Trimble
• Weather station with Davis Instruments & Ladybird technology
• Soil moisture and leaf wetness with Davis Instruments
• Soil scanning with SOYL
• Direct drilling and biostimulant application with the home-made S-Rex drill
• Mini rhizotron with Reading University
• Agri-Epi Centre smart farm.
The ups and downs of making English wine
The first batch of wine from JoJo’s was produced from grapes harvested in 2021. Unusually for a vineyard of this size, Ian decided to plant seven different varieties.
“Normally it’s just the three – Pinot Noir, Minot Meunier and Chardonnay – that are used to make traditional sparkling. But we went for a broader selection because we like still wine, and didn’t have the patience to wait an extra three years for the sparkling to come online.”
In addition, the farm grows Pinot Precocé, which is an early ripening red to blend to produce a sparkling rosé wine, a Pinot Blanc that can be both added to sparkling wine blends and used by itself, Bacchus and Seyval Blanc.
“Usually those two, Bacchus and Seyval Blanc, are used on their own to make still white wines, but our winemaker put them together and made something really quite interesting, as people say, in a good way.”
The blend even won a silver medal at the independent English Wine Award, he says. “The thing that’s amazed me was the wine was bottled in June 2022, and we opened the first bottle in August, and it was acidic. It was nice but acidic.
“So we had to keep drinking it every month to see if had changed because it was our own wine. In December it was still quite acidic, but get to February 2023 and oh my god it changed – it totally softened out and the acidity disappeared.”
That was down to something called bottle shock, he suspects. “They’ve been kept as two different varieties in four different vessels, some in a stainless steel tank, some in oak barrels. When they are blended together, you’ve almost got fighting inside the bottle between the different varieties and types and they have to learn to love each other,” he explains.
“Once they’re happy in each other’s space and become friends that’s when the softening out happens and how wine matures. We think this wine can probably stay in a bottle and improve for a couple of years.”
The still white wine retails at around £20/bottle, with a profit margin of around £4/bottle. Taxation at £6.23/bottle is the largest chunk of cost, while growing costs are around £2.50/bottle, and processing £6/bottle.
Around 1700 bottles of that blend were produced from harvest 2021, with a similar amount of sparkling white and sparkling rosé, which will be ready to drink at the beginning of 2025. Last year’s harvest produced similar bottle numbers, but the business is taking a different path with this year’s harvest.
“The one thing we’ve learned is the amount of cash needed in this business is ridiculous, so we’ve had to reassess the way we do things. It’s not until you’re in business do you realise how much cash is tied up that’s sitting in bottles as an asset.”
That means this harvest’s production will be limited to a sparkling white, with the remaining grapes sold to other producers to cover the cost of looking after the bottles for next two to three years.
-
Biochar venture wins equity investment funding
Climate Robotics has brought biochar production and use into focus, winning the AgSharks Pitch Competition in the US.
The first stage of any innovation in farming involves getting your projects funded. That makes them one step closer to commercial reality, although this is still no guarantee a product will make it to market. This is the aim of the AgSharks Pitch Competition, co-ordinated by US-based Western Growers and S2G Ventures. They have revealed Climate Robotics as the winner of the 2023 contest. The victory comes with a substantial equity investment offer of $250,000 from the panel of judges.
Climate Robotics has pioneered mobile biochar production systems for commercial agriculture. Biochar, a carbon-negative soil amendment derived from waste biomass, is credited as having substantial potential to address climate change. When applied to agricultural soils, biochar is claimed not only to enhance crop yield but also improve water and nutrient retention. The potential impact is substantial, with global biochar production capable of durably sequestering up to two billion tons of atmospheric CO2 in agricultural soils annually, alongside the generation of valuable carbon removal credits.
Climate Robotics have developed what they claim is the world’s first automated, in-field biochar production system. The prototype trailed pyrolysis unit can process 10t/ha of grain maize crop residue into biochar, picking it up off the field and incorporating it into the soil in a single pass. What’s more, they signed a deal with Microsoft who have agreed to buy the carbon credits that result.
Jason Aramburu, co-founder and CEO of Climate Robotics, expressed his excitement about winning the prestigious competition. “Biochar offers an immense opportunity to leverage existing resources to sequester billions of tons of CO2 on farms. We are grateful for events like these that help companies such as Climate Robotics scale their tech innovations to decarbonise the atmosphere and improve soil health.”
In addition to the significant investment capital, Climate Robotics will receive mentoring from Western Growers (WG) and S2G, potential access to farm acreage for piloting their technologies, and exposure to WG’s network of leading fresh produce companies.
Audre Kapacinskas, Principal at S2G Ventures, emphasised the importance of addressing real-world challenges through technology partnerships. “By working in partnership with Western Growers, we seek to accelerate the adoption of new technologies that can solve real-world problems and work in tandem with industry to ensure we are directing capital to its highest and best use.”
The AgSharks competition is recognised as a pinnacle event during the Western Growers Annual Meeting, providing a platform for agri-tech innovators like Climate Robotics to showcase their solutions. , commented, “There is nothing like the pressure cooker of telling your story to hundreds of top produce industry leaders to prove you are ready to take your technology to market,” said Walt Duflock, SVP of Innovation at Western Growers.
The two other finalists were:
- Cultiva, who develop plant cuticle health technology and offer products like Parka and Kallur to protect specialty crops from environmental stresses.
- Provision, a company simplifying compliance and data insights for growers through cloud software and streamlining paperwork.
Biochar is a carbon-rich material produced through the process of pyrolysis, which involves heating organic biomass in the absence of oxygen. This results in a highly porous and stable form of charcoal. Biochar can be a valuable tool in farming due to its numerous claimed benefits for soil health, nutrient management, and overall agricultural sustainability. Here are several ways in which biochar can be used in farming:
- Soil amendment:
- Improved soil structure: Biochar’s porous structure is credited to improve soil aeration, water retention, and drainage. It enhances soil structure, making it more conducive to root growth.
- Increased water retention: Biochar’s ability to retain water can be particularly beneficial in arid regions or during dry periods. This can reduce irrigation needs and help plants withstand drought conditions.
- Nutrient retention and availability:
- Nutrient absorption: Biochar has a high cation exchange capacity (CEC), which means it can absorb and retain essential nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. This can prevent nutrient leaching, making these nutrients more available to plants.
- Slow release of nutrients: Biochar can act as a reservoir for nutrients, releasing them slowly over time. This helps provide a sustained supply of nutrients to plants, reducing the need for frequent fertilisation.
- Carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation:
- Carbon storage: Biochar is believed to be a stable form of carbon that can persist in the soil for hundreds to thousands of years. Adding biochar to the soil can contribute to carbon sequestration, helping mitigate climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
- Reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Biochar application may reduce emissions of greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide from the soil, contributing to climate change mitigation.
- Microbial activity and soil health:
- Microbial habitat: Biochar is thought to provide a habitat for beneficial soil microorganisms. It fosters the growth of mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria, which can enhance nutrient cycling and promote plant health.
- Reduction of pathogens: Biochar has been shown to suppress certain soilborne pathogens, helping to protect crops from diseases.
When using biochar in farming, it’s important to consider the type of biochar, its source material, and the specific needs of the crops and soil. Proper application methods, such as incorporation into the soil, should be employed to maximise its benefits. Additionally, biochar application should be part of a comprehensive soil management strategy tailored to the local agricultural conditions.
-
Farmer Focus – Clive Bailye
I last attended the Agritechnica show in Hanover, Germany in 2019. It was my inaugural visit, and the sheer scale of it all was unlike any agricultural machinery show I had ever seen. Some of the major exhibitors boasted stands almost as large as entire UK agricultural shows. After three days of covering several miles walking a day, I realis
zed I had only scratched the surface of the sprawling event, with countless machines and brands previously unknown to me.The immense scale of Agritechnica serves as a stark reminder to a UK farmer like myself of our relatively small and perhaps inconspicuous role in global food production. While wandering through the exhibits, I found myself puzzled by a machine whose purpose I couldn’t fathom (it turned out to be a peanut harvester). It was a humbling experience that highlighted the vastness and complexity of global agriculture, revealing how much there is to learn.
During the 2019 show, one of the standout features for me was at the John Deere stand. They offered a glimpse of what the farm of the future might look like, featuring a “mission control” style operator seated at a “command hub,” surrounded by monitors displaying data from various sources. They were in live communication with drones and other conceptual autonomous machinery carrying out crop-related tasks. Other manufacturers presented similar concept machinery, mostly smaller in size, envisioning a future where numerous compact machines would work 24/7 to revolutioni
zse agriculture.Agritechnica is a biennial event, and I vowed to return in 2021 to witness the progress in autonomous agriculture that I had eagerly anticipated. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the cancellation of two shows, delaying my return by four years. I was eager to see how many of the concepts from my previous visit had become commercial realities and if the sharp-suited salesmen would be ready to take orders.
I scoured the halls of the major manufacturers in search of the production-ready versions of the drones and small robots showcased before, but they were nowhere to be found. However, automation was still very much present and, to my surprise, now commercially available. The big industry players seemed to have chosen to focus on fully automating existing equipment, starting with their largest machines. This evolution, while logical, began when the first basic autosteer systems were added to tractors, raising questions about the future job security of operators. As these systems evolved, incorporating features like auto-turn and headland management, the addition of fail-safe and anti-collision systems made operator-free full automation a commercial reality.
Despite the discreet sensors and cameras that can be found upon close inspection, these smart tractors still closely resembled their non-autonomous counterparts, with cabs designed to accommodate operators still in place. While these machines were smart enough to work in the fields without constant human oversight, we hadn’t reached the point where no human intervention was needed. Operators were still required to transport these tractors to the correct fields, assess field conditions, and “teach” the machine the desired routines across the field. Operators would receive alerts about blockages or obstructions via an app and would have to provide manual assistance in such cases, as well as handle tasks like refuelling and reloading seed and fertilizers. At best, the commercially available automation reduced the need for constant human attention but didn’t entirely replace operators.
So, if operators were still necessary, where did the savings and increased efficiency in agriculture come from? The answer lay in how many machines a single operator could now manage. I met a Canadian farmer who had operated nine of John Deere’s fully autonomous 8RX tractors in one season. A single operator had monitored and serviced these robotic machines, covering a vast area of cultivation work during the autumn. This efficiency significantly lowered the Canadian farmer’s production costs.
While I should have been as excited as I was during my 2019 Agritechnica visit when I saw the smaller “future” machinery that could easily integrate into my UK farm business, this larger-scale automation left me feeling disadvantaged. It seemed that I couldn’t compete profitably against such efficient imported competition.
Despite being a larger-than-average UK arable farm, justifying the use of even a single tractor the size of an 8RX remained challenging. Our average field size and logistical challenges meant that the time spent on calibration, loading, and getting to the field for planting, fertili
zsing, or spraying often equalled the time spent doing the actual work. There simply seemed to be no suitable application for a large fleet of such massive robotic tractors in the UK, as there was in other parts of the world.Even if logistics and topography allowed for it, current UK legislation prohibits machinery from operating untended. Furthermore, even if it were legal, and despite assurances of robust safety mechanisms, one would still question their peace of mind while a 500hp, 30t robot operated near a motorway, housing estate, or school. It became evident to me that the UK was not the primary target market for this type of autonomy by manufacturers.
So, does that mean we’re at a disadvantage and exposed to import competition due to automation? Is our hope now pinned on the smaller robots initially showcased during my first Agritechnica visit? I inquired about them, but none of the major manufacturers were forthcoming with information. This led me to believe that perhaps, as these smaller robots approached commercial viability, secrecy surrounding intellectual property and patents might be the real reason for their conspicuous absence for this year’s event? Maybe, eventually, UK farmers will gain access to the commercial reality of automation available in other countries. Perhaps, we’ll find out at Agritechnica 2025.
-
Trained tillage
Väderstad’s director of tillage product management, Wolfram Hastolz, explains the thinking behind new developments on the company’s TopDown and Opus cultivators.
If autonomy is to become the future of farming, implements will need to match the technology seen on the tractors that will be pulling them.
This is why Väderstad has introduced prescription map tillage and E-Services to the TopDown and Opus range.
The technology brings farmers a new generation of the Väderstad TopDown and Opus cultivators for 2024. In addition to an updated design, it puts the iPad-based control system E-Control on the two implements, as well as the ability to apply prescription map tillage via ISOBUS Task Control.
From model year 2024, the combination cultivator TopDown 400-700 and heavy cultivator Opus 400-700 can be equipped with gateway, sensors and updated electronics. These allow it to be operated via E-Control via an iPad, as well as through the tractor ISOBUS terminal.
The changes mean farmers can optimise the tillage operation by being able to tailor the machine setting to the conditions in the field. This is done through the use of prescription maps, to control the machine setting automatically on the go using a field map.
The farmer, before going to the field, can program how the individual working elements – discs, tines, levellers and packer – should behave at specific spots in the field based on for example soil type, or field characteristics. This prescription map is then inserted to the tractor ISOBUS terminal, which then will connect to the Väderstad E-Control system to take control of the machine.
This approach applies to tillage the same thinking on savings as we’ve seen before with variable rate application of seed and fertiliser – the rule of “as much as necessary, as little as possible”. Some of the benefits come as diesel savings and improved soil health, others by the possibility to increase the working speed as well as reduce the wear. What’s more, it enables an autonomous farming future.
But it’s not just about autonomy. Using the iPad-based control system Väderstad E-Control, the operator will also be able to gain full control of the machine directly from the tractor cab. With a touch of a button, the driver can set the individual working depth or intensity of the discs, tines, levellers, or packer on the go. To assist the field work, four pre-set buttons can be used to store different machine configurations.
The control system is designed to support the driver to optimise the tillage operation, while also increasing the user experience. With the pre-set buttons the farmer can store their own most common machine configurations. For example, using pre-set 1 for standard field work, pre-set 2 for tramlines, pre- set 3 for tough areas, and so on. When one working zone is changed, the others will compensate automatically to keep their individual selected depth.
But field work can become hectic, and unexpected situations occur. When this happens, the TopDown and Opus can be quickly switched back to manual and traditional control, so the operator can take back command.
-
Direct Driller @ Cereals 2024
Direct Driller Magazine is launching a new arena area at Cereals 2024 to help arable farmers and agronomists who want to incorporate regenerative practices in to their day to day farming life. With the theme “Profiting from Regenerative Farming”, this interactive seminar space will be extremely beneficial for all attendees to join and take part in over the two day arable event.
Direct Driller @Cereals will include a new concept direct drill arena, exhibition stands and hub spaces, cover crops and wildflower plots, four speakers / seminars, hospitality areas and more. Tickets will include a VIP parking area, breakfast, lunch and a chance to meet all the speakers on the day (tickets go on sale in January 2024).
“The majority of farms are not regenerative right now but all should be investigating which regenerative processes can help improve their farms profitability over the short and long term” says Chris Fellows, editor of Direct Driller Magazine. “This new and exciting area that we are working on for Cereals ’24 is the perfect opportunity for any one and everyone to come and learn about regenerative farming, to understand how these practices can help them move forward with their own day to day farming life, whilst keep up with the Sustainable Farming Initiative (SFI) demands. We are really pleased to be working with Cereals this year and we look forward to creating a helpful area and environment to support the farming community.”
“There are also wider benefits to networking with other farmers who are interested in similar subject areas” says Clive Bailye. “Regenerative farming is not black and white. Listening to different people will help you reach your own decisions on what’s right for your farm. The landscape is changing because of the way we are now being asked to farm. BPS payments will no longer exist soon and the SFI scheme will be in full flow. If you want to claim for this payment, you’ve got to have the latest knowledge of how to manage your farm in relation to being sustainable with regenerative practices. Direct Driller @Cereals is an exciting new venture to which we are sure will be beneficial to all Cereals attendees wanting to know more about this intricate subject.”
Alli McEntyre, Cereals Event director says “For several years, Cereals’ visitors have requested information on how regen can make sense within their farm budgets. We are so pleased to partner with the team at Direct Driller Magazine to provide a practical, cost-effective approach to what can often be seen as blue-sky thinking. We are sure visitors will take away a great deal of knowledge from these seminars and demonstration programmes, as well as the event being an enjoyable day out for visitors too.”
Direct Driller Magazine has gone from a niche subject matter to one that now appeals to all farmers and agronomists who want to drive profitability. The new SFI rules mean that farms will get paid in the short term for regen practices, the question is really, which options suit which farms. Direct Driller @Cereals aims to help all farms with these questions.
The two-day Direct Driller @Cereals event is being held alongside Cereals at its new site this year – Bygrave Woods at Newnham Farm, Hertfordshire – on 11-12 June 2024.
Trade, Exhibitors and Sponsorship
For information on the drill arena, stand exhibiting, showing off your cover crop and wildflower species, speaking or sponsorships opportunities at Direct Driller @Cereals, please get in touch with Gareth Jones at Agri Web Media – gareth@agriwebmedia.co.uk or call 07541 864894 / 01543 396770.
International Visitors
If you have never been to Cereals in the UK, maybe this is thing that gets you to come in 2024. Here are some stats from what to expect from the main show.
Cereals has 17000 visitors over the 2 days mainly arable farmers and agronomists, there will be over 450 exhibitors in 2024, 200 working demonstrations and acres of crop plots to walk around.
Within easy distance of Stansted airport, Bygrave Woods at Newnham Farm is a great location if you want to fly in to see the show.
-
Direct Driller Issue 23 Contents
Variable Rate Application: The Economic and Agronomic Edge for Modern Spraying
As the pressures on agriculture mount—from climate instability to rising input costs—farmers…
New Standard for On-Farm Autonomy and Laser Weeding
As farms across the UK grapple with mounting labour shortages, rising input…
Drones for Spraying Pesticides—Opportunities and Challenges
Erdal Ozkan; Professor and Extension State Specialist—Pesticide Application Technology; Department of Food,…
Alternative technologies in the crop care sector
With increasing regulations and the development of resistance, alternative technologies are becoming…
More Farmers Are Adopting John Deere’s See & Spray in the USA. Here’s Why…
John Deere See & Spray uses AI machine learning and computer vision…
Introduction – Issue 32
How full was your grain store this harvest and how have your…
Introduction – Mike Donovan 4
Adopting Regenerative Practices 4
Covering Soils Event 6
A Midwest Tour of Innovative Farmers 8
Agritechnica 2023 14
Drill Manufacturer: Kuhn 16
Managing Cover Crops? 18
Farmer Focus: Neil White 20
Have we Underestimated the Importance of Soil Health 24
Drill Manufacturer: Mzuri 28
Trials Show Value of Stonger Varieties 28
Enhanced Weathering Supports Farms 36
Farmer Focus: Tim Parton 40
Drill Manufacturer: Jeff Claydon 44
Combine Harvester Feature 48
Controlling Weed seeds at Harvest 49
Inverted Air Flow Systems 52
Near Infra-Red Spectography at Harvest 54
National Museum of Rural Life in Scotland 56
Unveiling the Underground Treasure 60
Advancing Nitrous Oxide Emission Calculations 62
Securing Sustainability 66
Being in the Black 70
Farmer Focus: Clive Bailye 72
Drill Manufacturer: Horsch 74
Soil Farmer of the Year 76
Farmer Focus: Phil Rowbottom 78
Exploring Soil Biology’s Pivotal Role 80
Drill Manufacturer: Amazone 83
Farmer Focus: Ben Martin 84
A Nuffield in Argentina 86
Generating Revenue from Soil Carbon 90
Making the most of Organic Materials 92
Harnessing the Power of Rainwater 94
Unearthing Insights at the Allerton Project 96
Drill Manufacturer: Horizon 98 -
Direct Driller Issue 23 – Introduction
We all know of farmers who have the knack of getting decisions right, and equally know others who regularly find themselves getting it wrong. Their farms can be outwardly similar, but there’s a huge difference in performance. The successful farm business looks and responds to events they see as beneficial, while the strugglers play catch-up and then get it wrong.
Helping farmers move up the efficiency scale is very much part of our role at Direct Driller. From the first issue in 2018 there has been an emphasis on real farmers’ experiences and how they have responded to weather and other events. Rather than reading academics saying “the science says this”, much of the contents comes from farmers in the field, which is something now much to the fore in the mainstream farming press.
Farmers’ experiences are now beginning to be given credence – they do know what they are talking about, on their own land if not wider. Today farm walks and open discussion is more frequently encouraged. These events could be better pulled together by colleges and universities but his is difficult when these institutions are competing with each other for funding.
Cooperation, which includes bringing in information sources such as the journals I’m involved with, and others, could produce a more structured agricultural research programme that is tailored for farmers rather than academics. The fear of duplication of effort is often overstated.
This thought occurred as I was heading home from the Covering Soils event at Clive Bailye’s on 21st Sept. The event provided
an excellent transfer of info between the all involved.
-
Adopting Regenerative Practices
Written by Chris Fellows
It’s an odd thing to define what a “regenerative farmer” actually is. I generally think, it has more to do with the mindset of change than anything else. Then it becomes a journey and at some point you may meet the criteria of an official definition, if we actually ever get one. But with more information being released about what SFI will (and won’t) pay for, it seems that a lot more farmers will be adopting regenerative practices. This in not to say they will be direct drilling, they might still be ploughing or running power harrow combination drills. But some regen will be added to what they do.
As that is what farmers are going to get paid for and the first step to being sustainable, is to be profitable. Many farms will therefore be trying to work out how they can profit from regen practices. Some of which will be taking their first steps in regen, others adding to their regen credentials. The distance of your journey to date, depends on how short or long term your view of profitability is. Historically moving to regen has been a big financial shift for many farms, but with SFI and more frequent payments, that is changing.
Beyond government “subsidies”, the real shift will come via market access and we are already seeing examples of this with Wildfarmed, M&S and even the new McCains adverts around regen chips (which kind of make me feel odd inside, as I can’t imagine standing in a wet potato field and ever using the word “regen” and potatoes in the same sentence). However, it seems clear that regen farmers are going to be rewarded with improved market access.
Consumers are increasingly seeking sustainably produced, environmentally friendly products. Farmers practicing regenerative agriculture may gain access to premium markets and niche consumer segments willing to pay more for sustainably grown products. Thus, encroaching on the organic market. Profiting from Regen is something we are going to hear a lot about in the future. The result will be that farmers alter their farming methods to go where the money is, which will not necessarily be where the ecology is best benefitted.
-
Covering Soils Event at TWB Farms in Hammerwich
The first in Direct Driller’s series of “Covering Soils” events took place on 21st September, after the remnants of a storm blew through the farm on the 20th when it had originally been planned. But most of the 100 registered farmers where still able to attend and enjoy the content we had on. Full write up will follow in the next magazine and look out for the video content from the day on our YouTube Channel. You can subscribe here to get a notification when the speakers talks are added.
A few pictures of the day to give everyone else an idea of how the day went. Many thanks to RAGT, Poly4, Agrii, Agreena, Horsch, BTT UK, Grange Machinery, Tractair, Farmdeals and speakers Phillip Wright, Wright SolutionsandStephen Lambfor being at the day.
The day was based around the RAGT Cover Crop Trials that Clive Bailye is running on his farm in Hammerwich. The results of which you will be able to follow either in the magazine or at events in the future.
-
A Midwest tour of innovative farmers
In June, Mike Abram visited three US farmers disrupting the norm in the Midwest states of Indiana and Ohio.
Driving through northern and central Indiana there are a couple of things that strike you immediately – one, how flat it is, and two, how most of the cropping is either soybeans or maize.
In a typical year, corn, as the Americans call it, is planted on 5.5m acres (2.2m ha) in Indiana, with soybeans covering a similar area, but it’s a third crop, one much more familiar to us, wheat, which is the reason why I’ve gone to meet Jason Mauck. He’s the first of three farmers I’ll visit in a near 1000-mile round-trip from Chicago covering three US states in three days.
Jason is one of a small group of US and Canadian farmers doing something out of the norm. It’s not just that he grows winter wheat – although only 410,000 acres (164,000 ha) are grown in the state – but how he does it.
Where it is grown, some growers will double-crop wheat and soybeans – planting short-season soybeans immediately following wheat harvest in July. Ag economists suggest this strategy can produce higher returns than full season soybeans or corn.
But it’s not without risk. If the weather turns hot or dry during July and August, the soybeans might not germinate, establish, set seed or grain fill. The system also takes more management – variety choice is important, and some growers don’t like the hassle of harvesting wheat in July, a key time for spraying corn or full-season soybeans.
Jason’s solution is to try to get the best of both worlds by relay cropping wheat with soybeans. The principle is the same as traditional double-cropping in that both crops are grown in the harvest year, but Jason plants his soybeans into the field with the wheat around the traditional soybean planting time in April.
He does that by planting the wheat in strips in the autumn, leaving a gap to plant the soybeans using a modified bean planter. After some trials, he’s settled on planting four rows of wheat on 7.5in spacing in 60in centres, leaving room for two rows of soybeans 20in apart. Seed rates are reduced by as much as 75% depending on whether the field is close enough to his 12,000 wean-to-finish indoor hog unit to apply manure.
The bigger gap between wheat strips encourages the crop to tiller more and grow out laterally to fill the space, Jason told me. “If you give a volunteer wheat plant space it can produce a lot of heads from a single seed, so I’m looking to exploit that to get maybe five to seven wheat heads per seed versus 1.5 heads in a mono crop scenario and create more value per seed.”
During spring the centre wheat rows typically grow taller through competition effects, while the side rows grow laterally to create a half circle crop architecture, not dissimilar to what you see in commercial lavender fields. By harvest the wheat can nearly meet across the gap above the soybeans.
“It’s all about managing sunlight and water,” he said.
Part of the value of the wheat is it removes excess soil moisture allowing Jason to plant soybeans earlier in April, with the wheat crop also creating a microclimate that protects the beans from late frosts.
In theory, that gains extra days for soybean reproductive bud set and pollination, increasing yields. The danger at planting is if it goes too dry, the wheat can remove too much moisture hurting the development of the bean.
To safely harvest the wheat without damaging the soybeans, he uses Flexxifinger pads that snap onto the combine header to compress the soybean crop below the header. Post-harvest the soybeans take advantage of the extra light and space to maximise growth.
“Historically we gain four nodes on the main stem versus narrower row mono crops, but with lots more branches, branch nodes and longer pod development on each pod site.”
At the time of my visit, wheat harvest was a couple of weeks away in his two relay-cropped fields but catching up with him after harvest one field reached 100 bu/ac (6.7 t/ha) – above the 80 bu/ac (5.4 t/ha) average for Indiana, with the other around 70 bu/ac (4.7 t/ha).
The higher yield, especially, could impact on his soybean yields – every 3-5 bushels of wheat uses around one inch of water, so growing higher yielding wheat can reduce water availability for the soybeans.
But he was hopeful the soybeans, which had grown well post wheat harvest would yield 70 bu/ac (4.7 t/ha) to provide a combined income of around $1630/ac (£530/ha) on the better yielding wheat field. With growing costs of around $250/ac (£80/ha) that would provide a gross margin of £450/ha compared with £300/ha for mono crop soy beans yielding 80 bu/ac, he says.
So is there a similar opportunity for relay cropping work in the UK, I wondered? Talking to various growers on my return my initial thoughts that it would be difficult was borne out. It might not seem obvious, but Indiana is on about the same latitude as Madrid, and that makes a huge difference in finding a crop that will mature in time after wheat harvest.
While a couple of growers have or are planning to try something similar with wheat and buckwheat or linseed, in reality the more popular bi-crop or poly-crop systems that are harvested at the same time are more likely to be successful in the UK.
The following day I was on a farm around 180 miles further east in Carroll, Ohio. This was a visit I was somewhat nervous about: I’d contacted this farmer in May to arrange a visit and had a very immediate positive response.
The farmer was David Brandt – commonly known as the “Godfather of soil health” in US regenerative farmer circles, and a man who had a viral social media meme made from his comment that farming “ain’t much, but it’s honest work”.
Those of you reading who have heard of David will probably know he sadly passed away following a road traffic accident. That was less than two weeks after I’d emailed to arrange the visit, and obviously I wasn’t sure whether his family would still be open to a visit.
But here I was meeting with David’s grandson Chris Brandt, who after working closely with David on the farm since 2017, was taking over the day-to-day running of the 400ha farm.
Chris was a joy to interview, mixing a bit of history with very clear explanations about why they were doing various practices. Like Jason the farm is a little out of the ordinary for the Midwest. David had taken over the farm in 1971, practiced no-till almost from the beginning and introduced cover crops in 1976 – a man well ahead of his time.
Those core soil health improving practices had helped increase soil organic matter levels from just 0.75% in 1971 to 8% on the farm, which grows 40% corn, 40% soybeans and 20% wheat. Soil samples taken in 2009 and 2022 from the same spot in some fields are proudly displayed in the farm office to highlight the improvement.
High biomass multi-species cover crops are grown after wheat ahead of the following season’s corn. High biomass multi-species cover crops grown after wheat in the rotation ahead of corn are the crops that make the difference to organic matters, Chris told me. While David had grown cover crops since 1976, it wasn’t until meeting cover crop advocate Steve Groff and North Dakotan farmer Gabe Brown in the early 2000s that he started experimenting with 6-10 species cover crop mixes.
“Fields that are now 8% organic matter were only sitting at 3-4% back then,” Chris said. “If you use monocrop covers, whether it’s buckwheat, rye, or clover you won’t see a strong increase in organic matter.”
The core components of cover crops before corn are now cereal rye, hairy vetch and crimson clover, which have two main purposes – to generate large amounts of biomass to suppress weed growth and shade the soil from the sun, and to fix nitrogen to reduce fertiliser inputs.
Added to those Chris adds species such as sunflowers, pearl millet and flax to promote mycorrhizal fungo development and increase micronutrient content in the topsoil. He’s also using some more specialised mixes with Sudan grass, oats and forage radishes and grasses, where the covers are being grazed with sheep – something which was trialled for the first-time last winter.
He reeled off some of the benefits – improvements in soil structure and water holding capacity, reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss and allowing quicker access to fields with machinery after rain and increased biological activity, including mycorrhizal fungi helping to bring nutrients to the crop and better utilisation of applied nutrients.
“Generally, in the US, it’s said one pound per acre of nitrogen in a corn field will lead to one bushel per acre of corn. What we see is that one sixth of a pound of nitrogen becomes one bushel of corn, so we’re more effective at getting those nutrients to the plant,” Chris said.
Between corn and soybeans, a simpler cover crop is grown, usually cereal rye. The later harvest of corn precluded much other than cereal species, Chris explained.
Growing a cereal rye cover crop typically generated an increase in soybean yield of 3-5 bu/ac (0.2-0.33 t/ha), while also providing an allelopathic or competition effect against mare’s tail – a difficult weed to control in soybeans.
“Soybeans require 2-4 units of nitrogen for every bushel they produce, and usually it nodulates to generate two to three of those.
“So the more nitrogen you have in the ground, the lazier the soybeans are, and they won’t nodulate as much, which reduces yield. The theory is the rye takes away nitrogen from the soil and forces the soybeans to nodulate more, increasing the base yield.”
Cereal rye was also an important part of Rick Clark’s approach, back in Indiana. Around two hours south of Chicago, Rick’s system is the most radical of the three farms – in fact probably the most radical of any farm I have set foot on, as he combines no-till and organic systems at scale.
It’s been an 18-year journey to get to this point, he explained. “I have to be careful not to paint a nice rosy picture because going organic with no tillage is extremely difficult. You need patience and a financial position that’s strong because you will have yield setbacks. I’ve experienced all of that.”
A natural storyteller – listen to his podcast FarmGreen for a taste – for 90 minutes almost without drawing breath he told me how he used to cultivate fields until they were black, until one day an unexpected rain event highlighted how that approach could cause soil erosion; how he cut fertilisers after discovering how much nutrients cereal rye cover crops held after not being able to terminate them after drilling corn; and how a researcher named Erin Silva was the inspiration in removing post-emergence herbicides in soybean by crimper-rolling cereal rye covers 45 days after drilling the beans.
But it was how he described his attitude to change that really stayed with me. “I’ve been blessed my whole life with everything,” he began. “I’ve had forefathers that understood the value of buying land. I’ve had forefathers that understood the value of building infrastructure.”
At this point I was wondering where he was going, but then he said: “And I’ve had forefathers that taught me lessons of how to think and be a thinker. It is way more important to be a thinker than it is a farmer, because you’ve got to be able to think about how to get out of situations or to create new situations.”
In telling his story, whether it was rain preventing him from spraying off a cover crop after drilling corn for six weeks or deciding to go completely organic when he was already maximising the return on investment on the farm by being 100% no-till, 100% cover crops, 100% non-GMO with a 70% reduction in inputs, it was his ability to see the potential in change that seemed a key to his success.
Driving around the farm it was possible to see both the success and some of the weaknesses of his no-till organic approach which relies on high biomass cover crops for around 70% of weed suppression and crop competition for the remainder.
In many areas weed control is good enough, but in some cereal fields, especially, some concerning areas of both chicory and thistles were evident. That’s where Rick’s ability to think through potential solutions should come into its own again.
“My first swing will be to come in with a milo grain sorghum crop after harvest if we get some rain,” he answered in response to my question about a plan.
“That should help smother the thistles out during the off season, but if we still have them next year I’ll go to alfalfa. Two years of alfalfa, cut five times a year and this will be gone,” he suggested.
So how achievable is no-till organic production in UK conditions? In talking to Rick, my impression was that understandably he, like me and US farming, wasn’t that knowledgeable about the challenges we face in the UK with grassweeds, diseases and pests and our weather, which is no doubt why he stressed than context is important when I asked about replicating his system elsewhere.
“One of the soil health principles is context. Where are you in the world? Our inherent soil here is 3.5-4% organic matter, so we have a lot of fuel in the tank. If you are in an environment that has less than 1% organic matter I doubt if you can take away all inputs and survive. So we have to understand where we are in the world and how far we can push the system. But I think anywhere in the world we could easily achieve a 30% reduction,” he suggested.
He also stressed that going the whole hog and being organic wouldn’t be for everyone. “You do not have to go organic,” he said. “You can still do non-GMO with a massive reduction in inputs, be regenerative and make a good profit on your farm.
“But I truly believe that if we want to maximise biology and maximise what the principles of soil health say, you have to take everything away. I understand not everyone can do that, and you have to be comfortable. If you’re only comfortable with a 40% reduction, then let’s figure out how to maximise your farm on 40% reduction of inputs.”
Understanding your own mentality and attitudes were also fundamental, he stressed. “Can you take one of your neighbours talking about you? I assume you have the same in England, in the gas station there’s a table off to one side. I call that the liar’s table. That’s where all the lies are talked about, and when you walk in and the table goes quiet and there’s no conversation, they are talking about you. So you have to be willing to take on that negativity because there will be a lot.”
It made me wonder on the drive back to Chicago on a very straight road, looking at field after field of corn and soybeans produced in a very conventional manner, about change and what drives it? Is fear the major reason that holds back change in the US and other parts of the world? Or is it government policy, crop insurance, big ag or something completely different?
On the face of the savings Rick claimed he was making – over $2m/year in fuel, fertiliser and pesticides – you can’t help but wonder why more in his region weren’t banging down his door asking him for advice and how he did it. Or why Jason wasn’t relay cropping across a bigger area, and why more growers weren’t double-cropping that way?
But a common thread I’ve discovered in meeting over the past few years some of the leading lights in North American regenerative agriculture from Rick Clark to Gabe Brown to Blake Vince in Canada and Chris Brandt is that their neighbours aren’t in a rush to copy them.
Is that the same here? It doesn’t feel like perhaps it is. In Norfolk, where I live, there’s a group of farmers applying regenerative approaches in north and west Norfolk, for example, or down in Kent there’s another cluster who farm not so far away from each other. There will be other similar clusters across the country I’m less familiar with.
But does that mean we are more supportive as a community through organisations such as BASE-UK, the Farming Forum’s direct drilling section and indeed this publication, or is there more to it? Or perhaps I’m wrong and on a smaller scale, we’re just like the Midwest, where those practicing regen ag seem like relatively small fish in a big pond? What do you think? I’d be interested in your thoughts – abramcommunications@gmail.com
-
Agritechnica 2023
Agritechnica, the world’s leading agricultural machinery exhibition, takes place in Hanover, Germany, 12-18 November 2023. Agritechnica is the largest venue for arable farmers, anticipating over 400,000 visitors.
UK farmers busy preparing trip to Agritechnica
Now that the bulk of the harvest has been completed, many UK farmers are preparing their trip to Agritechnica taking place in Hanover, Germany, 12-18 November 2023.
Over 6,000 visitors from the UK are expected this year at the world’s largest show for farm equipment. UK farmers take advantage of Agritechnica to make investment decisions for agricultural machinery for the farm.
As all the leading farm equipment manufacturers have already registered as exhibitors – among 2,600 expected companies – farmers from the UK can be sure to see the full range of machinery solutions on display.
From tractors to autonomous equipment systems as well as crop protection sprayers to drones, and from combine harvesters to digital assistance systems, Agritechnica presents both the depth and breadth of agricultural machinery.
UK farmers plan two full days at Agritechnica
DLG (German Agricultural Society), organiser of Agritechnica, recommends that farmers from the UK plan in three nights in Germany to visit the show for two full days.
Online tickets, which can be booked already now, are the optimal way to avoid queues at the door, leaving more time to inspect farm equipment close-up.
Many farming groups fly into Frankfurt from the UK and then take the fast train to Hanover.
Martin Williams, arable farmer in Hereford and frequent Agritechnica-goer, is planning to take that route.
Martin Williams “Agritechnica is a global event that offers farmers an opportunity to see things outside your own zone. At the last Agritechnica, I discovered robotics and automation for the field that I had not seen presented that way before,” says Martin Williams.
“Agritechnica shows me where agriculture is going and also what machinery we can use to gain an edge when margins are tight, like right now. My biggest challenge at the moment is staffing. In November, I will therefore be looking for anything that can help solve that problem. Spraying technology is also on top of my shopping list, such as machinery that can identify weed. This is a hot topic right now in my neck of the wood,” adds Williams.
Download app for efficient planning
The Agritechnica App offers farmers efficient prior planning. The downloadable app allows users to save their entry ticket – for easy presentation at the gates – and to bookmark pre-identified exhibitors as well as meetings and events that are presented visually on the exhibition ground map. Appointments can be exported to a personal calendar and the app can be used during the entire Agritechnica.
The app stores technical information electronically from the stands for later viewing.
The “DLG Mixie Points” on each stand contain the exhibitors’ equipment specifications, and product information. Scanning the DLG Mixie point QR code using the QR scanner within the app, visitors can retrieve at any time, during and after the trade fair. This eliminates the need to carry brochures and flyers while touring the halls.
Downloadable in Apple App Store and Google Play, the app is also offered as a web version at www.agritechnica.de
Agritechnica innovations presented on 100 acres indoors
Exhibitors are located across 24 halls, each with logical product categories, on over 100 acres of indoor space. The seven-day exhibition expects 400,000 visitors.
With the theme “Green Productivity” denoting how new pioneering concepts ensure agricultural productivity while protecting nature, climate and the environment, Agritechnica’s technical programme offers hundreds of interactive presentations, many relevant to no-till farming.
Over 250 candidates in the prestigious Agritechnica Innovation Award scheme will be presenting market-ready world premieres, of which some will be selected for a gold or silver award.
The gold medal at the last Agritechnica, announced online in 2022, was presented to Nexat‘s “all-in-one system tractor” that handles all work steps, from soil cultivation to sowing, crop protection and harvesting. This innovation, which offers a range of no-till benefits, can be seen at this year’s exhibition.
Nexat Instead of conventional hauling, the implements for tillage and cultivation are carried by the Nexat tractor, leading to increased efficiency compared to tractor and towed implement combinations.
The 14 meter version is designed such that 95 percent of the total field area is never driven on in the envisaged bed mode, resulting in high yield potential with soil and environmental protection.
Silver awards included solutions in all areas of crop cultivation, from systems for automatic dust extraction, compaction prevention and direct injection crop protection to adjustment control technology for auger cutter bar and automatic machine guidance and regulation of tractor’s speed and the baler settings. Most of these innovations are presented in November.
Roboveg
Farmers from the UK can find futuristic concepts among the entries for the DLG Agrifuture Concept Award, which honours innovative concepts that though not yet market-ready offer a glimpse into the far future.
An example is the “Controlled Row Farming”, a new arable farming method, in which every crop-cultivation step is taken in fixed rows, offering yield optimization despite lower use of fertilizers and pesticides. Uniform row spacing of 50 cm – grain in double rows – and a row offset of 25 cm for positive crop rotation effects achieve both yield optimization and maximum efficiency of farms inputs.
The UK’s Department for International Trade (DIT) and UK TAG are organising a country pavilion at Agritechnica 2023 and over 60 exhibitors from the UK are expected in Hanover.
Farmers can explore the current exhibitor list at https://www.agritechnica.com/en/exhibitors-products, which features exhibiting companies from over 50 countries.
In addition to exhibitors’ offerings, Agritechnica will be exploring practical topics in depth, including:
- Smart farming
Automation enabling technologies for efficient work in the field - NEW: DLG.Prototype.Club
Teams of software engineers will solve technical challenges set by exhibitors - agrifood start-ups
Exhibition and networking area for agricultural start-ups. - Workshop live
Technicians demonstrate maintenance and repair work live. - Systems & Components
Suppliers will present components, including engines, drive trains and spare parts. - NEW: Inhouse Farming: Feed & Food
Self-contained food production systems, like vertical farming
- Smart farming
-
Diverse range of KUHN machinery at Tillage Live 2023
KUHN Farm Machinery has announced its product line-up for Tillage Live at WH Corbett in Atherstone, Warwickshire.
Working machines will include the Venta 3030 drill combined with the CD 3020 disc cultivator, the Espro 6000R drill, Striger 600R strip till machine, Prolander 6000 with TF 1512 distribution head, Optimer L12000 stubble cultivator, Performer 4000 Select cultivator and the VML Smart Plough.
The working machines will be joined by further products on the KUHN stand including the Megant 602R drill, Maxima RXE maize drill, Cultimer L300T stubble tine cultivator, and the Aero 32.1 pneumatic fertiliser spreader.
Product specialist Edd Fanshawe says:
“Tillage Live is a unique opportunity to see a wide range of KUHN products working, and our team will be on hand to answer questions and provide product information.”
The product selection represents KUHN’s breadth of machinery featuring both min-till and conventional tillage machinery choices. Mr Fanshawe suggests that the popularity of shallow cultivators reflects the desire to reduce soil disturbance. However, he says many systems still rely heavily on conventional ploughing methods.
“KUHN has expanded the min-till range in recent years, with wider widths for the Optimer and Prolander. However, we are also focussed on providing new solutions for those seeking to plough more efficiently. The VML Smart Plough is an example of how ploughing precision can be enhanced using GPS and ISOBUS to adjust working width, offset, working depth and levelling.”
The drills on show include the lightweight Megant 602R that can be operated by tractors with as little as 150 horsepower. The latest Maxima RXE has electric drive and offers precision maize sowing at 10km/h. The 6 metre Espro 6000R will be working at the event to demonstrate how the versatile drill can work after the plough, min-till or directly in residues.
“The KUHN drill range is one of the most comprehensive available, offering diversity for varying farming systems. We will also be demonstrating the 6 metre Prolander with a TF 1512 distribution head, which is suitable for the shallow incorporation of stubble and mixing in a break crop whilst also seeding the following crop in the same pass,” he adds.
Product Focus
KUHN Megant 602R
KUHN’s lightweight Megant drill features new tine coulters, an updated terminal, and the option to add a second hopper. The Megant 602R shares functionality with the previous 600 model, but features half width shut off and can be specified with an additional SH 1120, 110- litre hopper to drill two crops in the same pass.
Due to its lightweight design, the Megant can be operated by tractors with as little as 150 horsepower. Three types of tines can be specified on the Megant, including reversible forward action, straight, and a new narrow 12mm straight tine coulter which reduces soil displacement through improved penetration and also reduces wear on the tine thanks to the addition of carbide plated points.
The 602R has inherited some features from the larger Espro drill, including spring loaded nonstop track eradicators and side markers that are better suited to dry conditions. A new welded 1800 litre hopper capable of holding 1200 kilos of wheat and drilling 60 hectares a day replaces a riveted hopper on the previous model. The new hopper also includes internal steps to improve access to the distribution head.
The Megant has been fitted with KUHN’s VISTAFLOW valves which can be configured and controlled from the terminal. This enables operators to program the flow of seed with the option to save settings for future use. VISTAFLOW also records tramlining configurations such as the working width and wheel track to enable more accurate use of sprayers and fertiliser spreaders which will help to reduce input costs.
Caption: The lightweight KUHN Megant 602R will demonstrate precision can be achieved without high horsepower.
Caption: The KUHN Megant 602R can be specified with an additional tank to sow multiple products in one pass.
KUHN Aero 32.1 mounted pneumatic fertiliser spreader
The KUHN Aero 32.1 pneumatic fertiliser spreader is equipped with a 24-nozzle boom and is available in working widths of 27, 28 or 30 metres. The mounted machine application rate is precise and modular over four sections, and it has an integrated weighing system.
The 3,200 litre hopper (1,900 litres without the extension) and working width of up to 30 metres make the Aero suitable for heavy use operators. It is also easy to operate, with hydraulic booms that are easy to control from the tractor cab and fold to the rear for safety on the road.
Each metering unit is connected to six nozzles which can be switched on or off and be adjusted individually. It is therefore possible to modulate up to four spreading rates and to shut off individual sections, in a single pass.
The Aero 32.1 provides precision application up to the field border. This includes fine, light, or compound fertilisers, such as urea, and bulk mixtures that are usually more difficult to spread over large widths with centrifugal spreaders.
Caption: The mounted KUHN Aero 32.1 is available in 27, 28 and 30 metre working widths, but folds to a compact load on the rear of the tractor.
Caption: The KUHN Aero 32.1 features a 24 nozzle boom and can be specified with a 3200 litre hopper.
KUHN Prolander with TF 1512 distribution head
KUHN’s Prolander has the versatility to perform multiple cultivation operations, working at speeds of 12km/hour and with a power requirement of just 25–35 horsepower per working width metre. It features five rows of staggered vibrating S tines with progressively increasing spacings to ensure unimpeded trash flow. The robust frame strength allows work in stubble or seedbed and tines can be fitted with 60mm shares (seedbed preparation) or 180mm duck-foot shares (shallow cultivation).
The Prolander comes with a choice of rollers, with the double-U being suited to stubble and general tillage work whilst the tube roller (with the option of levelling harrows) is ideal for fine tilth work on light soils for root crops.
Coupled with KUHN’s TF 1512 distribution head, the Prolander can also plant crops, cover crops and apply fertiliser. The front mounted hopper is available with 1500 or 2000 litre capacities and can be controlled with KUHN’s ISOBUS CCI terminal or a tractor ISOBUS terminal.
Caption: KUHN’s Prolander is now available with a distribution head and TF1512 front tank to enable the cultivator to plant crops and cover crops and apply fertiliser.
Caption: The distribution unit can be controlled with KUHN’s ISOBUS CCI terminal or a tractor ISOBUS terminal.
-
Managing Cover Crops?
Written by James Warne from Soil First Farming
As we look around at the landscape in the early autumn we can see that some early drilled cover crops are now coming into flower. Those planted in late July after the first harvests of OSR or Barley will now have been in the ground for 6-8 wks in some parts of the country. Those planted after wholecrop silage or over-winter stubble stewardship options may have had another 4 weeks of good growing conditions. With the wet and warm summer we have had biomass production will have been large. The soil biology will have been working overtime mineralising organic compounds in the soil providing the cover crop with nitrogen, phosphorus & sulphur.
While the multiple benefits cover crops provide are undisputed, dealing with them can become also pose multiple problems for the physical activity of drilling and the establishment and early growth of the following cash crop.
Let’s take a quick look a some of the benefits cover crops can bring to the soil and wider environment. The principle benefit to the farmer is having a living root in the soil. Do not underestimate the importance of this. Soil fertility is all about carbon, in simple terms living roots are at worst maintaining the soil carbon stock, and at best increasing the carbon content. Bare soil is the opposite of this, at best it is maintaining the carbon stock, but most likely the biology will be feeding upon the organic matter it as there is little other food source, releasing carbon as CO2.
Roots are also providing stability, structure and drainage, important functions which would otherwise have been achieved through cultivation, while the biomass above ground provides protection, mulch and insulation.
While these all sound like a panacea, it’s not so straightforward when it comes to dealing with the cover crop prior to drilling the following cash crop.
The basic option is to flail off the cover crop then plough/combi drill the following crop. Simple, straightforward and fulfils our desires of seed into a clean seedbed having buried the trash. If carbon building, soil fertility and soil biology are your primary aims this option is a failure. Any gain in soil carbon will be lost by the action of cultivation and the introduction of large amounts of oxygen into the soil, oxidising organic matter and carbon. While the bacteria in the soil may recover from having been turned upside down and buried to 8 inches quickly, the fungi most certainly will not. Fungi are relatively slow growing and their filaments are very sensitive to be chopped up and disturbed. It can take years for the them to re-inhabit cultivated soil. And finally the cultivated soil is very susceptible to slumping and erosion by heavy rainfall.
The other option is the drill into the soil unmoved through the cover crop which is every no-tillers desire. The thought of which can be daunting to a beginner, and the risks can be high. When do I destroy the cover crop? Do I have a drill that will cope with large amounts of biomass? Will it look a mess? Will the pre-emergence herbicide still work. And most importantly, yet underestimated, what will all the decaying biomass contribute to the carbon:nitrogen ratio in the soil.
Destroy the cover crop too early and risk it becoming a mulch which stops the soil from drying should the weather turns wet. Allow the drill to get to farm ahead of the sprayer and risk the crop emerging before the cover crop is destroyed. Flail the biomass too close to drilling and it balls up around the drill. The decaying cover crop, along with possible chopped straw and residues from the previous crop, will have locked up a large proportion of the soil’s plant available nutrition, slowing the establishment of the cash crop, and in extreme circumstances preventing emergence all together. The fertilisation of the cover crop needs to be taken seriously to prevent this from happening. It doesn’t take much cover crop growth to remove most of the available nutrition, right now there is plenty of stripy cover crop & OSR showing exactly where all the volunteers dropped behind the combine has sucked the nutrition from the soil, combined with lots of chaff and possibly chopped straw.
Above: The effect of low plant available nutrition Get it right however and the benefits can be great, simple cheap crop establishment into a friable soil with good aggregate stability and porosity. The carbon has been captured which improves the functionality and fertility of the soil and can be an ideal medium to drill into.
-
Farmer Focus: Neil White
Written September 2023
As I write this the sun shines, almost ironically as the cereals are all cut and only the beans remain to be harvested. It has been a very stop start affair from the very start, but not impossible, and easier and more rewarding than many around the UK have experienced.
This is the first harvest where all my crops were sown after only a pass with the straw rake, stubbles sprayed, then drilled with the Mzuri. In the past I have ploughed around 60% of the ground planned for winter and spring barley after wheat. This season I left the plough in the shed and direct drilled my winter and spring barley which all went into Simpsons Malt. I decided to cover all stubbles with the rake last autumn and it helped get a chit in what was a very dry autumn. I still believe that each pass with the rake halves the slug numbers which reduces my pellet use. Usually, 1 application of slug pellets with the drill for osr and wheat following osr. I don’t know if any research has been done to prove the reduction with the rake, but it is something I have found over the years. All crops looked well all winter but once again the winter barley seemed to drop a tiller in the wet cool spring here. This led to a thinner crop and an average yield at best, but that did seem to be common across all establishment types in the area. This year I will go at least a week to 10 days earlier sowing my winter barley, Sep. 5th , and again use variable seed rate as it is making the crops noticeably more even. There has been some very flat wheat this year and I had some myself. Rolling direct drilled ground does require some stone picking, my ground isn’t very stoney, but I did end up picking a lot of stones from the centre belt stone trap on my convio header this year, reminding me to be more vigilant in future. The flat wheat was sown at variable rate and the light ground receiving the lowest rate but still went down first. I think that tiller numbers in the Dawsum, even at the lower rate were still so high that on a relatively low 188kg of N it still managed to go very flat very early. The head count in some areas was almost 1000/sqm from 150kg/Ha or 330ssqm. The question now is do I go to 140kg/Ha for my low rate when I sow this week? Seems low.
The Diablo spring malting barley was all direct drilled. Most was drilled into overwintered stubble, but some went in after a poor crop of stubble turnips and some after the spring bean, phacelia, radish and buckwheat winter cove. The cover worked well, I was concerned that it would hold too much moisture in the topsoil for spring sowing, so beans and buckwheat were included as they die off with frost, leaving the radish and phacelia. A friends sheep grazed the remaining cover which paid for the seed. This did offer a great reminder to my family of our livestock days; we were out on boxing day chasing sheep around next doors osr. After that, what remained was sprayed off and it finally dried enough to sow on the 8th April pushed on by a poor forecast (a reason used a lot this year). The seedbed was mostly in good order, but some heavier areas were definitely compromised, remaining wet and sticky, and looked like they would struggle to establish. Wet weather followed then extreme dry. 5 weeks with no rain, mid-May to mid-June. The crop however, after some spot slug pelleting, came away not too badly, then survived the dry spell amazingly well and better than the ploughed combi drilled barley in the area. Dry topsoil with moisture retained at depth is a massive benefit with my system and that was obvious this spring. I did however think the field would out yield my other barleys as it had always looked stronger and thicker. The final yield was very similar to the other Diablo but the straw crop was easily double the size. This turned out to be a disadvantage as 45mm of rain after cutting meant I had to turn the straw twice before baling. I will try winter cover to spring barley again this year and see if the results differ. I have sown a similar mix again this year, beans down the front leg, phacelia and radish out the coulter. This was sown on Aug. 15th into wheat stubble and will be sprayed off before drilling Diablo spring barley for Simpsons malt. I have some cover crop seed coming from Simpsons for a trial 5 Ha plot to gather some info on effects of winter cover crops on soils and the following spring barley.
Due to a low price, I chopped more than half of my straw this year, that is more than ever, and it has saved a lot of running back over the ground, so helping to keep it level and hopefully putting some OM back. Last years wheat straw was completely gone come spring which is a sign of a worm activity and a healthy soil.
The harvest was a good one with WB just below average, OSR on the 3-year average, wheat above average, variable with some very big yields, spring barley below last year’s high but unfortunately nitrogen’s are high so some deductions may follow and finally the spring beans which are well podded but a good 2 feet shorter than usual. Beans are sprayed off but a good 10 days until cutting as I write. Everything has required drying, not unusual for here but costly all the same. Some OSR was cut at similar moisture to the wheat (which also needed dried, that’s a clue) but it is in the shed!
This years OSR is rowed up and has received its first spray, no insecticide added as the damage was below threshold numbers. I don’t sow osr at variable rate, so I was able to use the map to vary the slug pellets rate instead. I started at full rate on the heavier soil and then worked back from there. I ended up using less than the flat rate and it seems to be sufficient, IPM in action. Around 80% had chicken muck spread on the stubble prior to sowing and the dry conditions meant very little compaction. I am always very conscious that spreading muck in anything but perfect conditions isn’t really a good thing. I am direct drilling my winter barley into wheat stubbles again but this year I have managed to get a reasonable chit of volunteer’s and some grass weeds. It was a bad year for brome in this area and I know I will have to plan my spray program to avoid allowing it to become a bigger problem. Raking, chitting and planning spray programs on known areas are now a priority.
I was nominated and entered the FW arable farmer of the year awards and made the final 3 with the winner announced on October the 5th at the dinner. The judges visit in July was very interesting and made me look again at what I do and the many benefits the system has over my old one. One thing that concerned me was I don’t really have a lot of machinery to look at. I pointed this out because I obviously see it as a positive and the judges noted that in the past machinery was the first thing they looked at, now the soil and the system were the key things. The whole discussion felt like real recognition, that what the farmers in this magazine practice is slowly becoming, as the magazine joked in its title change, ‘Normal Farming’. The judges did also agree it was strange that if I farmed 6 miles south of here (England) I would have qualified over the years, for around 60K of funding for my drill, rake and newly laid concrete. Being in Scotland I can’t access any scheme. Arable farming is mostly ignored unless its red tape, EFA or greening. Being honest I don’t really want government interference, but that’s a lot of money!
The Profitability and Sustainability group, which I am part of, has received another raft of funding (for facilitators not participants) which is good, but it makes me realise that there is money out there and we as farmers must have access to it. It is already being used in our name, so we best get out there!
