Back Issues

Farmers and agronomists in Canada began exploring the benefits of reduced tillage and direct drilling nearly 50 years
ago. The reasons were simple – the need to reduce soil erosion, retain soil moisture, save on fuel costs and reduce
the time taken to establish their crops. It hasn’t been the answer to everything, and in some years additional tillage is
required, but the technique has helped farmers achieve the goal of maximum yield while managing input costs.

Here in the UK, direct drilling has become widely adopted lately. One of the drivers has been the emergence of a greater understanding of the need to look after the condition of our soil. The benefits of organic matter and its connection with increased water retention, the improvement in soil structure leading to stronger root growth, more earthworms to break down nutrients and less soil erosion are positive benefits ascribed to no-till. Originating from Canada, the Bourgault VOS system is imported into the UK by Martin Lishman. It is helping farmers to achieve the benefits we have already highlighted. Achieving such results with VOS is the product of many years of Research and Development and listening to farmers’ concerns. There are important considerations in coulter design that should be recognised. As Rick Schemenauer of Bourgault Tillage Tools in Canada says, “Not all openers (coulters) are created equal, so it’s very important that farmers educate themselves on the subject and choose an opener that makes a positive difference to the results.

This is especially true when it comes to ‘one pass seeding’ with high rates of nitrogen fertiliser placed at the same time as the seed. A dual or multi-shoot coulter must be capable of placing fertiliser far enough away from the seed so as not to negatively affect germination or impair the young plant. The VOS 4082 multi-shoot tip has integral outlets with precise horizontal and vertical separation of seed and fertiliser. The furrow is kept open until the fertiliser is delivered precisely and accurately and carbide sealer plates under the tip close the furrow and create a firm seed bed. The shallow angle of the 4” wide wings creates minimal disturbance, a gentle soil flow over the tip and a smooth field finish.

VOS stands for Versatile Opener System, and the range offered certainly delivers on versatility with various options of holders and compatible tips available. Tips come in single or double shoot versions to deliver seed only or seed plus fertiliser; pulses such as beans can be delivered with the same tips or there are specific versions for this purpose. The range also delivers on quality of design and durability. The low disturbance and low draft generated by the tips contributes to low wear rates as well as reduced fuel costs. This is complemented by the high chromium content of the tips and the carbide on the wings which self-sharpens as it wears and provides increased penetration with no soil smearing.

Andrew Harker of H.R.Bourn & Sons, Lincs has been one of the first farmers to adopt the Bourgault system. He shared his experience: “Bourgault VOS has improved the performance of our Horsch drills. Drilling late for blackgrass control, we are seeing less smearing of soil and much less soil disturbance. This is giving us less blackgrass to control in the crop, much improved and more even crop establishment with far better rooting plants.” James Porter of Porters Farms (Walpole) Ltd also gives the system the thumbs up: “The Bourgault VOS coulters have greatly enhanced the performance of our Horsch Sprinter drill. They are extremely versatile; we can use them on min-till land and when direct drilling. We have since benefited from even seed depth and less soil movement, which has greatly helped to reduce moisture loss and resulted in an improved crop establishment.” A quick look at @BourgaultVOS on Twitter will reveal pictures and videos of neatly and consistently drilled crops accompanied by claims of ‘improved drill performance’, ‘better germination’, ‘less blackgrass’ and ‘reduced moisture loss’

An automatic question on the tip of every tongue will be: how many acres or hectares will the tips last for? Of course, there is no simple answer since different soil types will create different wear rates that are difficult to compare. However, a farmer test in Alberta, Canada reached at least 7000 acres. Perhaps a more relevant question relates to min-till as a cost-saving concept. As observed by Adrian Joynt of Goulborn Farms and reported in Farmers Weekly, min-till enabled them to farm a bigger area with less labour and establishment costs reduced to £65/ha.

Growers will all have slightly differing views on what they believe is the right approach to cultivation and drilling, and the majority will get it right most of the time. There is no one answer or blanket statement that will suit all. However, Bourgault VOS has proved to be financially beneficial in saving time, fuel and wear; low soil disturbance has meant reduced weeds such as blackgrass and less chemical application; better moisture retention and improved soil structure has contributed to healthier crops, less soil erosion and reduced water quality concerns; and consistent sowing depth and precise fertiliser placement has helped to achieve increased crop yields and less waste. Users seem more than happy with the results, so it looks like a serious choice for not only Horsch drill users but also users of the tine drills from other manufacturers. 

Written by Kristy Wesson of Secanim

KalFos is a slow-release calcium phosphate fertiliser produced from the combustion of animal by-products and
bioliquids. It is produced as part of the UK’s safe and responsible treatment of fallen stock and provides a valuable route for the recycling of nutrients.

Replacing costly mineral-based phosphate fertilisers, the majority of which are produced from nonrenewable phosphate rock, the slow-release, acid soluble phosphate contained in KalFos can be beneficial to all cropping systems. Water soluble phosphates are at risk of lock-up or runoff depending on field conditions, and valuable resources can be lost to the aquatic environment, causing pollution of watercourses. The acid-soluble phosphate in KalFos will instead be broken down slowly in the soil, as it is absorbed through acid exudate from roots and their bacterial and fungal associations. This also means that applications can be made to supply multiple cropping year requirements, as the nutrients will be retained in the soil matrix.

In addition to supplying phosphate, KalFos also contains Calcium, Potash, Sulphur and a range of micro-nutrients. The nutrients are truly following a closed loop, as they are concentrated from livestock fed on crops and grass grown in the UK, and are then returned to be utilised for subsequent growing seasons. The product also has a neutralising value of circa 25%, which can be valuable in counteracting the inevitable soil acidification seen with the addition of nitrogen. KalFos is an incredibly cost-effective solution to build up and maintain soil P indices as part of a long-term integrated farming management system. Available in two grades, delivered prices can start from around £50/tonne, depending on tonnage, grade and location. The product is then easily applied using a conventional lime spreader at rates from 1 tonne/ha upwards.

For the best results, the receiving soil should be acidic, and there should be a healthy soil biota population which will maximise the potential uptake of nutrients. The product should ideally not be applied when the soil will be deep ploughed, as the product is best placed in the top 15cm of the soil matrix, in the rooting zone. If min- or zero-till methods are being followed, the product should be applied prior to any surface disturbance, as this will then aid incorporation. Recent trials have shown positive results when KalFos has been applied using variable rates, based on soil sampling results. Soil P indices have been raised across zones, with application rates tailored to zonal sampling results. In some areas, indices have been raised by 2, or up to 183% increase in Olsen-P measurable phosphate. These results show when KalFos is utilised correctly, taking into account soil indices and type, it is a valuable fertiliser for improving soil P supply and minimising potential damage to the surrounding environment.

Secanim Ltd, part of the Saria Group, is pleased to support UK agriculture by producing and supplying KalFos to the farming community.

Dr. Anna Krzywosznska is a social scientist, and a Research Fellow at the Department of Geography at the University of
Sheffield. Over the last few years she has been studying the uptake of sustainable soil management practices amongst
English farmers. She has found that the experience of adapting soil-friendly farming systems can be difficult for
farmers because it makes them ‘stand out’ from their peer community. As a result, these farmers create ‘communities
of practice’ in which they can both exchange learning and support one another. She has also found that these
communities are reaching out to scientists who become not only sources of information, but also sources validation for
these new ways of being a good farmer

Globally, soil degradation is one of the biggest challenges to food security and environmental sustainability. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, a third of global soils are now degraded. In the United Kingdom, the concerns are also growing that soils are losing their functionality, and will not be able to support agriculture and the wider environment in the future. While everyone has a role to play in preventing soil degradation, farmers and land managers certainly have very good reasons to protect their soils. However, achieving this in practice is not as straight-forward as we would like it to be.

That is because practicing sustainable soil management in many ways goes against mainstream farming practice. Modern farming has developed primarily through a focus on ‘tractors and chemicals’ – better, bigger, faster machinery, and stronger, more effective chemical solutions to both fertility and pest problems. As a result, soils have started to be seen by many farmers not as a resource, but as an obstacle, and a lot of effort is channelled every year into overcoming soil limitations to achieve the best possible yield. Furthermore, mechanical and chemical technology has been so successful in producing high yields that most farmers have started using a very similar ‘toolkit’ to manage their farms. As a result, there has been less local adaptation and innovation, and more reliance on advice from agronomists and input producers.

Sustainable soil management methods are rather different. In contrast to conventional farming, sustainable soil management does not have ‘a blueprint’, which means that local adaptation of general rules is necessary. This is very typical of sustainable farming practices, and it makes them more knowledgeintensive. So how do farmers learn how to shift their farm to a sustainable soil management system? And what is the role for scientists and researchers in supporting the spread of sustainable soil management? Read on…

How do farmers learn?

It is important to remember that taking up innovation such as a new farming system is not just an individual process: humans typically learn in groups. People who are interested in a particular activity which requires a lot of knowledge tend to form ‘communities of practice’. Communities of practice are simply groups of individuals who share certain practices and who seek to learn from one another to become better at what they do. Dog owners, cooks, musicians, gardeners, parents – they all form communities of practice, which can be more of less structured. We all belong to many communities of practice simultaneously in our lives.

In communities of practice we not only learn from one another how to do a certain activity, but also decide and negotiate what is the ‘right’ way to do this activity. Doing things ‘the right way’ means being a good member of a community of practice – a good dog owner, cook, musician, gardener, or parent. Or even – you guessed it – a good farmer. Members in communities of practice are constantly discussing what the right things to do are, and therefore what it means to be a good community member. Sometimes some individuals may have ideas that are so radically different from the majority that they split off and they form their own community of practice (think, for example, of how ‘jazz’ used to be seen as noise and had to form its own community to become recognised as a form of music). And this is what is happening with farmers practicing sustainable soil management right now.

So what is it like for an individual farmer to ‘split off’ the mainstream farming community, and try out a sustainable soil management system? My research suggests that there are three stages to this process: seeking, experimenting, and contributing. I have also seen that as the farmers change their system, they use scientists and scientific sources of information in various ways.

A different way of farming is possible

The seeking stage starts simply with the realisation that a different way of working the soil (for example not ploughing) is possible, that it exists. Farmers I interviewed told me that they first became interested in looking for a different way of managing their soils because of concerns about inefficiency, such as the amount of time and fuel spent on establishing seed beds, or a desire to increase productivity, such as enhancing sub-optimal yields or maximising micronutrients in crops. None of the farmers I interviewed told me that they had been initially motivated by environmental or soil conservation. Once they became aware that changing soil management was a potential way to address these productivity or efficiency related issues, the farmers looked for information about this from other farmers as well as from scientific reports.

Interestingly, the farmers I interviewed told me that being exposed to this new information was not just a process of learning. They often spoke of something we could call ‘a lightbulb moment’. Very often, this inspiration was related to a change in perspective on their soils, from seeing soils as an inert substrate to seeing them as a living system. Farmers described this as a change in perspective or mentality, an inspiration, or even ‘a farming life-changer’. One farmer told me; 

‘I’d always thought the organic matter was better off being mixed into the full soil profile. …at that meeting I learned that the organic matter and most of the life of the soil was in the top sort of two inches of the soil. … So that was a sort of, I wouldn’t say an epiphany, but it was a change of mind-set from that meeting onwards’

For some farmers, particular individuals, such as Elaine Ingham, or Elizabeth Stockdale, were particularly inspirational at this stage. After spending some time in the ‘seeking’ stage, the farmers would move on to experimenting. For some farmers, starting the experimentation meant ‘biting the bullet’ and, for example, investing full-scale into direct drilling machinery. Others did things more gradually, for example adopting only some of the elements of the system, or using contractors to try out new practices on a particular site.

Starting experimentation immediately set these farmers apart from their farming neighbours. A change in practice was easily visible to the neighbours through for example ‘scruffy’ looking fields. The farmers working in the new system would also have different working rhythms (because for example they no longer ploughed), which meant they were not always in the fields at the same time as their neighbours. Their crops could also have different germination and growth rhythms. As a result, the farmers I interviewed were very aware that their fields were essentially telling anyone who know how to look that they were doing something ‘unusual’ – perhaps even ‘abnormal’. As a result, many of these farmers felt themselves branded as ‘mad’ by their neighbours. This could create very real feelings of isolation and even loneliness, especially for those farmers in the early stages who were not yet seeing any benefits from their new methods. One farmer told me that

‘sometimes it does feel very lonely when you see your bad fields and the neighbours good fields’. Another farmer how being ‘different’ was stressful as it was putting his reputation on the line, and even endangering his contracting business:

‘It would be nice to see other people practicing it in the area, and seeing how they get on because, you know I’m sort of sticking my neck out doing what I’m doing …I don’t particularly want to be pushing the boundaries too far really to the extent that, yes I end up getting either egg on my face or losing money … or credibility.

Dealing with being ‘different’

Participating in face-to-face and online groups of ‘like-minded’ farmers helped the farmers feel less alone in the risky process of making changes to their farm. Online activity was very important, and the farmers I interviewed used online fora (such as the Farming Forum), and connected to through Twitter or WhatsApp groups. This allowed them also to connect internationally, particularly with farmers in Australia, New Zealand, and the US who also speak English but who have a longer experience of soil conservation methods. The farmers I interviewed stressed that this increased interaction was crucial to them in taking their first step into sustainable soil management, and to maintaining their practice in a largely unsupportive environment. As one farmer told me, in relation to his and a friend’s participation in their local group:

‘I wouldn’t be able to do this on my own. I think (my friend) has struggled being out there on his own, and farming effectively on his own, because he makes huge leaps in his management, and then falls back because everyone around him is conventional, and that farming community effectively isolates him. And he thinks oh, I might just do it the old-fashioned way.’

This particular farmer told me that interacting with other members of the community of practice helped him retain a sense that sustainable soil management practices are meaningful and not a waste of time and effort. A sense of community was seen as very important in remaining committed to what some may see as a difficult and unnecessary process. A more experienced farmer also commented that: 

‘just being able to talk about what we’re doing with likeminded farmers, I’d never have gotten as far, or even dared to do what I’ve done without knowing that other people are out there with the same ideas and doing the same sort of thing.

What was the role of science?

Most experienced farmers were at the contributing stage, spreading the knowledge and information about sustainable soil management. While all the farmers interviewed used scientific hypotheses to justify taking up sustainable soil management methods, they did not usually use scientific tools and procedures to monitor outcomes systematically and validate these hypotheses in their own fields. For example, a number of the farmers commented on the expected benefits soil conservation would have on the biological activity in their soils, but few sought to verify this through soil testing or systematic earthworm counts. Similarly a number of farmers argued that soil conservation would increase soil organic matter, which would in turn result in higher nutrient density in their crops; however, they did not seek to validate this through, for example, systematic tissue analysis. In fact a number of the farmers interviewed expressed belief that the new system was ‘the right thing to do’ even when they were unable to indicate specific positive effects for their farm business. As one farmer explained:

“What makes me do it, comes back to intuition, I just think for all sorts of reasons and all the things I’ve picked up in the last few years doing it, I think this is right, the right thing to do …in my mind it’s the right thing to do.”

The farm is a complex and openended system, and some of the farmers interviewed pointed out that trying to validate cause-effect relationships in this context may not be practical for them. Interestingly, however, the support for sustainable soil management in the scientific community was important to this community of practice. The support of scientific institutions and individual scientists was especially important as many of the expected effects of conservation agriculture either take a long time to become apparent (e.g. increases in soil organic matter), or are impossible or impractical for farmers to validate in the context of individual farms (e.g. positive impacts on watershed hydrology or carbon capture). While not being able to point to scientifically verifiable outcomes, the farmers referred to scientific studies about the overall positive impacts of conservation agriculture on soil processes. This allowed them to add legitimacy to what other farmers may be seeing as ‘abnormal’ practice.

So what role did the sustainable soil management farmers see for scientists and scientific research? The farmers I interviewed wanted for scientists to become more involved in their on-farm experimentation. The farmers called on scientists and researchers to help them clarify the usefulness of new technologies and techniques in achieving the objectives the farmers had in mind. The farmers interviewed also wished scientists would get more involved in demonstrating the value and validity of sustainable soil management to other land managers and to society more broadly. Science, these farmers felt, was important to convince others – even though, in practice, they themselves had only been convinced by ‘seeing with their own eyes’ and experimenting in their own fields. As one farmer said:

“[the proof of the positive changes I’ve seen] it’s quite physical and quite observational rather than lab, you know, putting numbers on it, and again I know that for some people that’s a problem, I’ve had even the farmers, when they visited you, tell them how much better it’s [the soil] got and they’re like yeah but you can’t prove any of that and they’re dead right, I can’t.”

A farmer-led change in which scientists are welcome

My research showed that the leadership on sustainable soil management as a different form of farming is coming from the farming community of practice. As far as the farmers are concerned, the role for the scientists is to work with this community and help them grow and become better, enhancing their learning and supporting their authority. Working together, they suggested, with the farmers identifying research needs, would both generate valuable learning by validating the hypothesis the farmers have, and create scientifically valid evidence in support of sustainable soil management methods. These farmers placed their own values and mission at the centre, and saw themselves as well placed to generate the research questions and identify areas for work to be performed by the scientists:

“It’s very important that the scientific community are chipping away …backing up all these what are effectively anecdotal reports – that’s the important thing the scientific community and academic community are doing; is looking at all our weird farmer anecdotes and then methodically and studiously showing why those anecdotes are the case.”

There is a great appetite in the sustainable soil management community for interacting with scientists. To be effective, this collaboration should be structured in ways that the farmers see as useful and relevant. The scientists are very welcome, but the farmers are the ones at the wheel.

This article is a shortened and modified version of the paper “Making knowledge and meaning in communities of practice: What role may science play? The case of sustainable soil management in England.” Published in Soil Use and Management, 2019; 35: 160– 168. You can access the full version of this publication by scanning this code

Dr. Krzywoszynska is also the founder of the Soil Care Network, which has a fantastic monthly newsletter on all things soil. You can sign up on the Soil Care Networks website . If you have thoughts about this article (were your experiences similar, or different?), why not tweet to Dr. Krzywoszynska on @Anna_K_speaking. You can find more information on Dr. Krzywoszynska’s research and her publications by scanning this code

PH-value, soil structure (elimination of capillary action, compression, smearing of the soil) and moisture of the soil can
be seen by the growth of different weeds. If the crops in the field show an irregular growth pattern or there is extremely wet harvest and poor soil preparation conditions resulting in silting, acidification, nutrient or oxygen deficiency this will be visible for years in plant growth. Moreover, a lack of nutrients will make weeds discoloured to the human eye. The following graph examines results for having certain weeds.

Crop Rotation

It is important to understand the correlation of crop rotations. Single crops should be selected because of their cultivation and soil advantages instead of an economical advantage. The crop rotation should be designed that the available nitrogen will be used by the selected crop. The crop rotation links should be designed like this: Nitrogen collection – Strong consumption of Nitrogen – Low Consumption of Nitrogen Slight overproduction of nitrogen is important to increase the humus content in the soil. (to increase the humus content by 1 %, 1200 kg/ha nitrogen is necessary)

Principles of good crop rotation: (Year 1)

• percentage of legumes should be between 20 – 25 %

• percentage of grain should be a maximum 50 – 60 %

• percentage of root crops should be a maximum 5 – 25 %

• Alternate between 

• plants with deep roots and shallow roots

• nitrogen collecting – consuming

• winter crops – summer crops

• root crops – grain crops

• cover crops and intercrops

Goals of a balanced crop rotation:

• Preservation of soil fertility

• Maximizing nitrogen collection

• Weed control for example.: clovergrass: regulation of thistle

• prevention against disease and defence against pests

• mobilization of nutrients

• plants covering the soil throughout the year (cover crops)

We are all in need of healthy soils but how can we create that magical organic matter cocktail,
Dr James Holmes from AHDB shares some simple advice on what to look for

Soil organic matter is a mysterious substance with legendary qualities yet practical guidance on how to manage it has been thin on the ground. A series of research projects funded by farmers and growers through the AHDB has shed light on this extraordinary material.

What is soil organic matter?

Soil organic matter (SOM) includes all living and dead plant and animal material. It includes the roots of newly sown and developing crops, stubble, manures and substances made and secreted by roots and soil organisms.

There are three main forms of SOM, at progressive stages of decomposition.  

1. Fresh plant residues and small living organisms

2. Decomposing material, often called active organic matter

3. Humus, often referred to as stable organic matter

All SOM contains carbon but it also contains other plant nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulphur and micronutrients.

Does it really matter?

Applying organic materials, such as farmyard manure or compost is thought to improve soil structure by feeding soil organisms such as earthworms. However, results of historical trials have been ambiguous because materials such as compost supply not only organic matter but also nutrients that crops respond to.

Trials at Rothamsted Research have shown that applying farmyard manure can improve barley grain and straw yields within two years. Penetrometer assessments suggest yield is increased by improving root growth and exploration. It’s thought that organic matter added to soil feeds soil organisms that in turn improve the structure of the soil.

To help farmers improve soil management and benefit from soil organic matter, AHDB set up a series of trials from 2012 to 2016. The trials measured yields in response to fertiliser nitrogen with and without additions of either digestate, compost or farmyard manure. Comparisons were made between conventional tillage and reduced tillage as well as the ways in which different crops and crop rotations were affected by additions of organic matter.

Over the four years of trials, yields were consistently higher when an organic material was applied to a crop, as opposed to only an application of the same amount of nitrogen. This showed that organic matter, be that digestate, compost or farmyard manure, increased the yield of the crop by providing benefits in addition to nitrogen. Measures of the draft force needed to plough the soil suggest that organic materials improved yields by not only supplying nitrogen but by improving soil structure. Interestingly, a set of long-term trials have shown that applying organic materials mitigates the effects of soil borne disease and help maintain yield consistency from year to year. This resilience is important given the increasing fluctuations in weather that we are experiencing.

How do I measure soil organic matter?

Levels of SOM change relatively slowly so should only be measured every 3-5 years alongside routine analysis of soil phosphorus, potash and magnesium levels. A measurement of SOM matter is not normally included in the price of a routine soil analysis so it is important to tell the lab you would like it to be included. A lab will measure the percentage of SOM in your soil sample using either the loss on ignition or Dumas method. It does not matter which lab/method is used but as with all analyses it is important to use the same lab in the future so that you can compare results.

How much soil organic matter should I have?

Levels of SOM are measured as a percentage. Currently there are no agreed targets or ideal levels of SOM for different soil types. However, AHDB is testing a new system and has published preliminary SOM targets for different soil types, across different rainfall areas of England and grass or arable farms. Visit www.ahdb.org.uk/greatsoils where you can read a factsheet on Measuring and Managing Soil Organic Matter with supplementary information on appropriate levels of organic matter in soil.

How can I increase levels of soil organic matter?

Disruption of soil aggregates during tillage usually results in decomposition of SOM and a decrease in the percentage the soil contains. Where levels of SOM are low it can be increased by including cover crops in the rotation or by applying organic materials such as compost or farmyard manure.

Although the benefits of applying organic matter are becoming increasingly clear it is important to consider the cost of organic materials. AHDB research has shown that above the value of the nutrients it contains, it is rarely economic to spend more than a further £30/t/ ha (dry matter) on an organic material, including haulage and spreading.

Further Information

For more information on the topics above, please visit:

• Improvement of soil structure and crop yield by adding organic matter to soil: Search “AHDB Cereals and Oilseeds Project Report No. 576”

• Organic matter and soil management: ahdb.org.uk/greatsoils

• Nutrient management guidance: ahdb.org.uk/rb209

The use of inorganic nitrogen is key to maintaining fertility and yield in conventional arable systems. However, inorganic nitrogen is an energy rich product that is becoming increasingly expensive. With the assistance of The John Oldacre Foundation, research within NIAB TAG is exploring the potential of bi-cropped legume species to be integrated into modern conventional farming systems (e.g. clover grown along with wheat as an inter-crop).

This is being carried out with a view to reducing bagged nitrogen requirements and building yield potential and longer-term fertility on thin Cotswold brash soils. One of the key issues is the reliable establishment of both species and the persistency of clover within the system over the length of the rotation. This study is looking at clover established in year one (from timings ranging from August through to mid September) and wheat establishment (timings from mid September through mid October) in both years one and two as well as examining the interaction with applied nitrogen dose. While data from this ongoing research programme has shown variation, there is an increasing suggestion that positive yield responses to clover intercropping are possible at lower nitrogen doses. This may become increasingly relevant as the price of inorganic nitrogen continues to rise.

We will publish more information when it is available.