Back Issues

Dr Ian Shield, Rothamsted Research, explains how this venerable farming research institution is now working directly
with farmers to increase knowledge transfer

Whilst you’ve probably heard of Rothamsted, the world’s oldest agricultural research centre, it’s possible you won’t have dealt with us directly, or maybe even been aware of what impact we’ve had on the way you farm. However, thanks to a new citizen science initiative, that could all be about to change. Traditionally, the evidence we’ve produced has made its way into the farming community through indirect routes – either by influencing policy; through the best practice advice given out by agronomists and consultants; or via its impact on the wider agricultural industry.

Our founder, Sir John Bennet Lawes, formulated superphosphate, which marked the beginnings of the global chemical fertiliser industry. His LongTerm Field Experiments continue to this day, and at 176 years old, are the oldest, continuous agronomic experiments in the world. This has given us unique insights into soil and crop nutrition and today this expertise continues to manifest itself when our scientists contribute to the fertiliser manual (RB209). Ronald Fisher, the founding father of field experimental design and statistical analysis was a member of staff here, and his legacy can still be seen to this day in how we design and analyse experiments.

Research in recent years

In the 1970s Michael Elliott’s team discovered synthetic pyrethroid insecticides at Rothamsted and these now account for a quarter of all pest control agents used worldwide, whilst our insect survey has been providing regular bulletins on the current state of aphid and moth populations in your area and right across the UK, for more than 50 years. And last year our scientists helped to decode the wheat genome, and our Designing Future Wheat research is developing and screening novel germplasm for the next generation of wheat traits.

All this means we’ve probably influenced at least one aspect of the way you farm – even if you never realised it. Having been around for over 175 years, we’ve witnessed all sorts of changes – to farming and beyond. From how, why, and when we communicate; through upheaval in our national and local institutions; to an increase in the general scientific literacy of the population, society has evolved, and the old barriers that once separated the likes of Rothamsted from farmers up and down the country, are breaking down. Until recently, less than one percent of money spent on agricultural research was farmer led, but such research schemes are now increasing in popularity across the country – take for instance the Innovative Farmers scheme, the Yield Enhancement Network, and other similar initiatives.

The rise of these schemes comes from a growing realisation of the positive impact farmer led research can have. Our recent farmland earthworm surveys are great examples of such collaborative working, which in that case involved co-developing a quick and economical method of using worm numbers to measure soil health. Thanks to the input of participating farmers, we’ve discovered that the pilot sampling method (which involving an hour’s effort across 10 soil pits) could be halved without detriment to the accuracy of worm population estimates. As times change, it makes sense that we also change. But we want to go further than just ask farmers what research they’d like to see done, or even to work with us – we want farmers to actually take the lead in conducting onfarm research.

Supporting Farmers with Smart Research Ideas – FarmInn

As a result, we recently launched FarmInn (in collaboration with AHDB Cereals and Oilseeds), a scheme that offers up to £3000 plus technical support to farmers with smart research ideas that they want to test out on their own farms. Whilst much of modern agricultural research is focused on the long-term improvement of crops, livestock or sustainability, there is a clear gap in the market for quick wins that boost efficiency, productivity, or sustainability at the level of individual farm businesses.

That’s why we decided to offer access to our world class facilities and perhaps even more valuably, the wealth of scientific expertise we have across the institute, to farmers who want to investigate their own theories. This allows us to rigorously test, farmer derived hypotheses by lending our scientific expertise to projects that produce farmer to farmer demonstration opportunities and case studies to inspire improvements on other farms across the UK. Rothamsted’s expertise covers both arable and livestock systems, and spans disciplines from agronomy and ecology to chemistry, genetics, and microbiology, whilst our statisticians will be consulted in the design of experiments and the analysis of data from FarmInn projects, so we have the best chance of getting meaningful results from your idea. Our hope is the FarmInn initiative will support innovative on-farm projects which aim to provide realworld, scientifically-robust solutions to the challenges faced by UK farmers.

Projects have the potential for Peer-Peer learning via on-farm demonstration days that can be held whilst the experiment is running. A recent AHDB report found using active demonstrations of new techniques were key factors in influencing behaviour, which will insure your idea will benefit the wider industry. Despite only being a few weeks in, we’ve been blown away with the quality of innovative ideas already coming in from farmers, and we’re excited to get projects started. As we’ve had a great deal of interest, we thought it would be a good idea to clarify what FarmInn is – and isn’t – about.

Firstly, ideas don’t have to be solely production based, they can be around boosting on-farm biodiversity and production techniques that have environmental benefits. On farm pilot studies aren’t necessarily a prerequisite– it’s the idea that’s important. We want ideas that farmers are passionate about and are in the forefront of farmers thinking. Many people might be reluctant to put time into filling a form to find their idea is not relevant, so we encourage you to get in touch if you’d like to discuss the initial idea before attempting an application.

You can even request a call back via the FarmInn email address (farminn@rothamsted.ac.uk). Sadly, we can’t support applications from non-farming businesses. Whilst we welcome the dialog, this is not in the remit of FarmInn, but we do welcome applications from all farming sectors. Many people still think of us as an arable institute only, but near Okehampton in Devon we have a 350ha livestock farm – and the experts and facilities to go with it. Hopefully that will have answered many of your questions about the scheme – but please do get in touch if you have any others. So far, we’ve had interest from farmers in England and Northern Ireland but welcome applications from all over the UK. The agricultural industry has a significant impact upon the country’s economy and natural environment, but it will need to be innovative going forward – even more so in the face of Brexit. We believe the FarmInn initiative and others like it will enable farmers to rigorously test new ideas whilst de-risking the process of being innovative.

More information on the FarmInn scheme, including how to
apply, can be found at: https://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/farminn

Dr Ian Shield has more than 25 years’ experience of agronomic research in temperate agriculture, largely in the UK. As Senior Scientific Manager – Agronomy, he supports the agronomic research conducted by Rothamsted Research and he is also responsible for the oversight of the use of the Rothamsted Farms as a platform for field experimentation.

Many farmers have commented that the greatest benefit from grazing their winter crops has been the additional pasture grown which can then be used by livestock at a later stage. This deferment requires the additional pasture production and better livestock condition from grazing the crop to be valued.

The GrassGro model was used to calculate the whole farm benefits from grazing crops for a prime lamb/ cropping enterprise in South West Victoria. Ewes were stocked at 9/ ha, lambed on August 1, with lambs sold on March 15. The modelling used 48 years of historic climatic data (from 1961 to 2006) and was able to capture the obvious benefits such as increased pasture production as well as the subtle benefits of increased reproductive performance and better lamb growth in spring because of the extra feed available. The grazing period was 4 weeks. All livestock were ‘grazed’ on crops while the pasture was spelled3. At the end of the crop grazing period, all animals returned to the pasture. It was assumed there was no loss in grain yield due to grazing.

The key findings were:

• Grazing for a month in June resulted in an extra 200 kg/ha of pasture by August 1 compared to no grazing 

• Deferring the start of grazing until July but then grazing for a month resulted in an extra 260 kg/ha of pasture by August 1

• The probability of lambs reaching the target weight of 45 kg liveweight by March 15 increased by 11%

• The economic benefit was $16/ ha for the June deferment and $53/ha for the July deferment.

To enable full deferment for a month in July, it is estimated that half the farm would need to be in crop and be used for grazing. More crop would be required with a June grazing.

Further MIDAS computer modelling the Central Wheatbelt and South Coast of Western Australia showed that grazing crops also has the potential to improve farm profit by providing additional feed in midwinter, but achieving the potential benefits relied on increasing stocking rates and supplementary feeding at times to levels that might be considered extreme by some farmers. The analysis also showed higher levels of crop dry matter substantially increases the profitability of grazing crops, whilst small yield penalties of around 10% as a result of grazing rapidly eroded most of the benefits.

What and how to do it (agronomy at the paddock scale)

Successful grazing of crops requires the production of useful amounts of dry matter soon after sowing, with the ability for the plants to recover dry matter quickly after grazing. To maximise the chances of realising this, the following needs to be considered.

Paddock selection

Choose paddocks that provide early sowing opportunities. These are likely to be paddocks that: 

• Are low in weeds. Paddocks with low weed densities can be sown earlier because there is no need to wait for a germination and kill before sowing. Heavy weed burdens compete with the crop for moisture, reducing early dry matter production and compete against the crops as it recovers from grazing. Furthermore, grazing will open up the crop canopy letting light between rows and favouring weed growth after grazing.

• Wet up sufficiently after early rain to allow for an even germination of the crop and for subsoil moisture to be retained. Stored soil moisture is often vital to maintain crop survival if adequate follow up rains fail to occur.

• Have good soil fertility. Adequate phosphorus and nitrogen will provide opportunity for rapid leaf growth. Paddocks that are likely to have favourable mineralised nitrogen from a previous season are desirable. A crop with adequate nutrition will also recover faster after grazing.

• Low disease status. Early sowing in warmer conditions can often exacerbate underlying disease problems.

What to sow

Dual purpose or winter wheats immediately come to mind when thinking about crops suitable for grazing. Yet both spring and winter type crops can be grazed, it is just their development and therefore management decisions such as when they are sown and grazed need to be slightly different (see side story ). There is a lot of information available about crop varieties. They are commonly grouped into winter or spring types, by the length of growing season and by their maturity pattern (early, mid, late etc). Behind these grouping is the cold period (vernalisation) and day length (photoperiod) requirements of each variety.

Varieties are constantly entering the market and it is recommended you consult with your local agronomist to ensure the variety chosen suits the time of sowing and optimum flowering time. However to help gain a broad understanding of the different classifications, some common wheat and barley varieties have been listed (table 1). While seasonal conditions have a strong influence on the amount of dry matter grown, in general barley will produce feed earlier than winter or spring wheats when sown at the same time. Spring wheats are generally faster growing than winter wheats. The amount of dry matter that triticale crops produce falls between barley and wheat.

Because all crops can be grazed, the choice variety within the broad classification becomes less important. Deciding what to sow should be primarily determined by the existing crop rotation, feed requirements and other paddock considerations rather than the variety.

When to sow (time of sowing)

Cereals crops and canola with strong winter habit can be sown early in the year (March to mid-April) because they need a period of cold and short days before they will run to head. Earlier sowing combined with favourable weather conditions can result in large amounts of dry matter for grazing. Spring varieties sown early, even including long season types, will flower too early leaving the crop vulnerable to frost damage. For these varieties a mid to late April sowing is recommended. Short season spring varieties need to be sown even later, at the more conventional May sowing time.

Moisture for successful establishment Successful early sowing obviously requires good establishment and subsequent growth. A recent study by the CSIRO5 examined the probability of successfully establishing winter habit crops early in the season (1 March to 15 April) and earlier sown spring habit crops (15 April to 15 May) in the higher rainfall zones across Southern and Western Australia. As expected the chances of successful establishment varied considerably across the country and improved with later sowing (table 2).

Growth after establishment

The amount of dry matter produced from early sowing, even with successful establishment, is dependent on adequate stored soil moisture or follow up rain. Figures 1 and 2 present dry matter production from early sown trials over a range of years. Results have been adjusted to indicate the average dry matter  produced at the start of June and the start of July. Additional factors beyond time of sowing and variety selection also need to be considered when deciding on when to sow. These include issues around weed control and potential for increased crop disease.

Options for increasing dry matter production up to growth stage 30

Apart from early sowing, the most common approach to increase dry matter production for grazing is by increasing sowing rate (see side story). Trials from both high and low rainfall zones illustrates the potential benefit from higher sowing rates if seasonal conditions are favourable (table 3). If conditions are unfavourable, higher seeding rates have limited value.

Growing different plants next to each other, in the same field or plot, is alien to many farmers but less so for ‘growers’. Farmers who talk to their neighbours with gardens may well find they have been growing combinations of crops for decades. The world of horticulture knows that marigolds create natural pesticides that keep nematodes and beetles off tomatoes, asparagus and squashes. That growing beans, which fix N, helps maize, brassicas and beet along. Horticulture has tended to be wary of chemical controls, both from the cost and a natural leaning towards organic methods.

Farmers on the other hand have mainly taken the route of a single crop which can be managed through pesticides and fertilisers. With professional agronomic advice the system has been universally adopted and experience and knowledge has been developed which enable there to be calculable costs and predictable effects. Farmers are moving from conventional chemical methods to those based on biology. Effectiveness; cost; product resistance; soil condition; chemical runoff; negative environmental issues are just some of the drivers.

Companion cropping has become one of the ‘go-to’ farming systems favoured by advisors and others as being good for the environment and soils. Yet little has been recently published on the topic – by far the most comprehensive comes from Kentish farmer Andrew Howard whose Nuffield Farming Scholarships Trust Report of July 2016 ‘The potential for companion intercropping on UK arable farms’ takes a global look at it. It provides a substantial introduction to intercropping and guidance for UK arable farmers to help encourage onfarm experimentation. With a rise in the prevalence of weed, insect and disease resistance brought on by monocultures and high-input farming, intercropping can help farmers grow crops with lower inputs. The report makes the case for its potential to regenerate degraded soils and increase productivity for arable systems increasingly reliant on external inputs.

In his report Andrew explains that the impetus to apply for a Nuffield Scholarship came from his friend Tom Sewell who in 2013 was in the middle of doing one. Andrew found the idea of travelling the world and meeting the best farmers on the planet ‘strangely appealing’. The previous year he had been to a meeting where a French farmer, Frederic Thomas, was speaking. He talked about No-till and cover crops and then at the end of his talk he spoke about companion cropping with oilseed rape. This seemed like a crazy idea but got Andrew to experiment on the family farm. It worked so well he became hooked, and realised he had a useful topic for his Nuffield Farming Scholarship.

The study took in five separate trips: the first, May 2015, to France, chosen for their similar climate plus the fact they “ahead of us in terms on companion cropping and intercropping research and on-farm practices.” The second, JuneJuly 2015, was four weeks in the USA and Canada. The third, November 2015, was to Germany, Switzerland and France, and the fourth was 7 days in Kenya and another 10 in South Africa. Finally in June he had three days in Sweden and two in Denmark, with a particular interest in seeing how it works with their strict environmental laws, which Andrew sees as being applied in the UK before too long.

‘Companion Cropping’ has a wide meaning and Andrew needed to work to a closer definition which he describes as:

“The growing of two or more crop species where part or all of their crop cycle overlaps temporally and/or spatially, where one or more of the component species is taken to harvest”

He then found that rather than being new, the technique was a regular part of farming until mono-cropping became the norm.

• In 1923 57% of Ohio’s soya bean acreage was intercropped with maize

• In 1972 98% of cowpeas in Africa were intercropped with maize

• In 1975 90% of beans in Columbia were intercropped.

And the history goes back 5000 years to native Americans who grew maize, beans and squash together, the beans fixing N for the maize and using it as a trellis, and the squash grew low and shaded out the weeds. When different species like each other they over-yield – produce more than they would in monoculture. The figures are considerable: conventional farmers in Canada will experience over-yielding in intercropping in 75% of instances, while over-yielding occurred 47% of the time in organic crops. Inter-cropping performance is measured, often using the following formula:

LER = (Mixed yield 1 / pure yield 1) + (mixed yield 2 / pure yield 2)

where LER is the Land Equivalent Ratio, or the amount of land it would need to grow the two crops separately. When LER is greater than 1, then there’s a yield advantage, but not of course necessarily more profitable. So the calculation is made for the Relative Total Value, the Monetary Equivalence Value or the Income Equivalence Value.

He found farmers experienced both benefits and drawbacks of mixing plant species. The benefits are the way combining species increases the resistance of thee crop as a whole to pests and pathogens Ian Wilkinson was persuaded to use companion cropping after meeting Nim Barnes who ran a charity called Foresight. “You are an agriculturalist,” she said, “have you thought about the minerals in your diet?” We hadn’t. “You analyse plant tissues,” said Nim, “so analyse yourselves!” We did, and we found that we were deficient in many minerals.

Ian found that over 50 year period there has been a falling levels of minerals in milk, meat and vegetables as production has become increasing intensive, and at the same time herbs and deep rooting legumes have been ignored. He bought into the idea of raising mineral availability by using these unfashionable plants to mine minerals through livestock and cover cropping. Ian’s expertise of crops comes through his position as MD of Cotswold Seeds. In 2013 he bought a 107 acre Cotswold farm, mostly made up of brash and which produced an annual crop of spring malting barley. The farm now has deep rooting leys as a break, using nurse crops and inter crops, undersowing clover to wheat, and rye and vetches as winter green manure. Instead of the land being bare for much of the year, the aim now is to keep it covered, and with mixed species.

Sheep are brought in to do some mob grazing which is providing a youngster the opportunity to build a flock, and at the same time make major improvements to soil quality. Ian says the ultimate companion crop is a diverse herbal ley which works well when mob grazed, which makes it more palatable, so intakes are higher. With better protein there’s greater lightweight gain and more milk. Sanfoin is the winner in Ian’s eyes. The diverse deep rooting ley is its drought resistance. Ryegrass, with its shallow roots, stops growing in a drought while thee deep rooting ley keeps going. Companion crapping is as vital as cropping, and Ian has fund the sheep have done wonders on his Cotswold farm. The trick is to integrate livestock with the arable acreage.

Tips from horticulturalists

Sue Sanderson from Thompson-Morgan says that companion planting is all about creating communities which have mutual benefits for each other. The benefits can be pest control, or improved pollination of fruit and vegetables. Intercropping, where fast growing crops like lettuce or radish are sown between wide rows of Sprouts or parsnips makes good use of space and suppresses weeds. Tall plants like peas and sweet corn create shaded conditions which prevent crops like lettuce, coriander and spinach from bolting. Most herbs have scented leaves that help repel insects. Others attract insects and birds and these can be useful in drawing in natural predators which feed on slugs, hover flies and other pests which they like eating. Not all species are good companions, however, and the advice is never grow these plants side by side: Alliums (onions, shallots, leeks, garlic) with legumes (peas, beans, peanuts). Tomorrow’s agronomist will need knowledge not only of chemical products but also of companion cropping. And so the wheel turns full circle!

Mike Donovan

AHDB’s Crop Protection Scientist, Charlotte Rowley, assesses new methods of control against slugs in the face of the
industry losing metaldehyde.

Following the announcement from Defra on the withdrawal of metaldehyde in 2020, thoughts are again turning towards slug management. The good news is that there is an effective alternative: ferric phosphate has been shown to be as effective as metaldehyde in controlling slugs. Unlike metaldehyde, slugs die underground rather than on the surface, meaning it may not be as obvious when an application has been effective. The bigger issue, apart from differences in product cost, is that relying on only one active ingredient leaves the industry in a vulnerable position when it comes to slug management. Now more than ever it is important to use every tool in the armoury to ensure that molluscicide applications are kept to a minimum.

Using cultivation as a control

Cultivation is generally regarded as one of the more effective forms of cultural control, therefore no-till farmers may be more concerned than most. It’s important to remember though that there is no silver bullet for slug management, and a whole system approach is needed. So while cultivation is bad news for slugs, it can also be bad news for predatory ground beetles that help keep slug populations in check. Ground beetles, as the name suggests, forage and hunt for their food on the soil surface and have soil dwelling larvae, and therefore tend to be vulnerable to soil disturbance. Keeping pesticide use to a bare minimum and providing habitat in the form of diverse field margins will also help maintain numbers of these beetles and other natural enemies.

Cover crops have a role to play

Cover crops can provide much needed habitat for beneficial insects, however they have a bad reputation when it comes to slugs. It is often reported that cover crops make slug damage worse, creating a sheltered, moist, food-rich habitat that slugs love. However, research suggests that the type of cover crop can make a huge difference when it comes to slug pressure, with some crops such as ryegrass thought to be less attractive to slugs due to the high silicone content of the leaves. There are other insects too that are benefitted by increasing plant diversity, and while they may not feed on slugs directly, they provide food to support populations of slug-eating birds and carabids.

What can the farmer do to help?

However, as helpful as they are ground beetles cannot do all of the hard work. This is where farmer intervention is needed to get the crop off to a good start. A fine, consolidated seedbed (e.g. through rolling) means that the seed is more inaccessible to slugs and helps get the crop established and able to grow away from damage. Anecdotally, some farmers have had success protecting their wheat from seed hollowing by sowing it directly into the stubble of the previous oilseed rape crop, allowing the volunteers to act as a trap crop until the wheat is no longer vulnerable to attack. Other farmers report that raking of straw and crop debris can reduce the risks of slug damage in minor no-till environments. This might work by exposing slugs and their eggs to the sunlight, drying them out and making them more accessible to predators, as well as reducing the number of damp hiding places on the soil surface.

What we know and what happens next?

As for oilseed rape crops, we know from work on cabbage stem flea beetle that the plants can be extremely resilient to damage and establishment is key. A DEFRA-funded desk study done by ADAS in 2014 suggested that for OSR sown at 60 seeds/m2 a single dose of metaldehyde only became cost effective at moderate slug pressures (where 30- 50% of plants were expected to be lost). Where pellets are more expensive (as with ferric phosphate) or slug pressure is lower, it might make more economic sense to instead increase seed rate to mitigate against slug damage. While this doesn’t take into account further losses from e.g. pigeon damage, it demonstrates the ability of the crop to compensate for losses. Unfortunately for farmers, slugs tend to congregate in patches which can lead to an uneven distribution of damage, making crop compensation less effective.

AHDB PhD student Emily Forbes, at Harper Adams University, has been modelling these patches in the hope that this will lead to the ability to target control options more effectively. “My PhD project has identified and confirmed the potential for patch treatment of slugs” said Emily, “further work is required to refine the methods for locating the patches without the requirement for trapping in order to make the findings commercially viable”. Her report, due this spring, will shed light on some of the slug behaviours leading to patch formation. Other research to look out for this year will be from AHDB’s Nuffield scholar Jenna Ross who has been travelling the world learning about slug and snail management in other countries, in a range of agricultural and horticultural systems. Both of these projects will help push towards improving or increasing the current range of control strategies which will be essential if we are to have effective and sustainable slug management in the future.

For further information, please visit:
cereals.ahdb.org.uk/crop-management/
pest-management.aspx

Or to download our slug control factsheet: ahdb.org.uk/knowledgelibrary/integrated-slug-control

KEY SLUG SPECIES

The grey field slug (Deroceras reticulatum) and other Deroceras spp.

The grey field slug is the most widespread and troublesome species. It is usually light grey or brown, grows to 5 cm in length and produces milky white mucus. Populations tend to have a mixed age structure, so damage occurs whenever conditions are favourable for activity. It continues to be active in damp weather and even when temperatures are close to freezing. Breeding is generally at a peak in April and May and then again from September to October. However, in favourable conditions, it will breed throughout the year. In optimum conditions it can start to lay eggs within 16 weeks of hatching.

The garden slug (Arion hortensis and Arion distinctus)

The garden slug is usually smaller than the grey field slug, growing to 3 cm in length. The body is dark and the foot (underside) ranges from yellow to orange. It produces orange or yellow mucus. Egg hatching reaches its peak in late spring/early summer. Young slugs can develop rapidly to produce a further generation within the year. Arion species are only active at temperatures above 5°C and are less active on the soil surface than the grey field slug. 

The keeled slug (Milax,Tandonia and Boettgerilla spp.)

Keeled slugs are more localised in arable crops than field or garden slugs but they can be important. They vary in size and generally produce a colourless mucus. Keeled slugs have annual life cycles, with eggs hatching from autumn to spring. All keeled species are generally subterranean but can be seen on the surface, especially during the breeding season.

The Spanish slug (Arion vulgaris)

Spanish slugs can be brown, black, fawn or mustard coloured and can grow up to 15 cm long. Unlike other slug species, the Spanish slug is omnivorous, eating dead animals, excrement and plant material. They produce twice as many eggs as native slug species.

LIFE CYCLE

All slug species are hermaphrodite (each individual is both male and female). While some species are self-fertile, most mate before laying eggs in batches of 10 to 50 in soil cavities, between clods, under stones or at the base of plants. Up to 500 eggs per slug may be laid over several weeks. Eggs develop slowly in the winter but will hatch within a few weeks when the temperature starts to rise. The number of active slugs found at any one time and place is dictated by both the slug population density and the suitability of the weather for activity (activity-density). Rapid reproduction and growth is enhanced by mild, moist weather conditions, sufficient food supply and ample shelter. Such conditions prevail in the spring and early autumn, making crops like lettuce and Brassicas more vulnerable at these times of year. Slug movement occurs most frequently at night but they will return to their resting site by dawn if weather conditions are unfavourable. They do not travel far from where they were hatched, often taking only a circular route of a few metres in search of food..

MONITORING FOR SLUGS

To assess the risk of crop damage, it is important to estimate the size of slug populations present. Sampling in the field is best done using refuge traps. Put slug traps out before cultivation, when the soil surface is visibly moist and the weather is mild (5–25°C). When soil conditions are dry and slugs are not actively seeking food, trapping will have little value in determining the threat to the crop. Traps consist of a cover about 25 cm across, such as a plant pot saucer, with a small heap of bait underneath. 

A suitable bait would be two heaped spoonfuls of chicken layers’ mash or a cereal grain-based food (NOT slug pellets). Leave a small gap between the trap and the soil to allow slugs to enter. It may be necessary to put a weight on the trap in windy conditions. In each field, nine traps (13 in fields larger than 20 ha) should be set out in a ‘W’ pattern spread over the entire area of the field. Also, concentrate on areas known to suffer damage. In standing crops, place the traps just to the side of tramlines and mark with canes to allow them to be located.

Leave traps overnight and examine early the following morning while the soil surface is still moist, counting the number of slugs present and noting any slime trails. On warm days, it is important to check the traps early while the temperature is still cool, as slugs will leave the trap as it gets warmer. If no slugs are found, continue to trap until crops have passed their vulnerable stage. The following (Table 1) thresholds indicate a possible risk when soil and weather conditions favour slug activity. 

Dr Jon Knight, AHDB Head of Crop Protection assesses the shifting political emphasis on environmental protection and the future for Integrated Pest Management

What is Integrated Pest management (IPM)?

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations definition is as follows: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) means the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment. IPM emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agroecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms. IPM has been adopted to varying degrees across most crops, cropping systems and regions of the world at different times and with different levels of success. There are now very few farmers, globally and in the UK, that do not practice at least some part of the IPM approach whether it be rotational cropping, monitoring or some other facet.

There are a number of drivers behind the need to drive wider and deeper adoption of IPM, many political but a number resulting from the long-term, widespread use of chemical control. Politically it is clear that UK government policy has shifted towards a greater emphasis on protecting the environment as exemplified by reference to IPM in the Government’s 25-year Environment Plan and reference to IPM in the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS). Michael Gove and George Eustice have both said that there needs to be a greater focus on IPM and that protecting the environment is a primary aim of policy post-Brexit so the business as usual approach is unlikely to be sustainable.

The ever-evolving EU regulatory framework continues to put pressure on the availability of actives through the re-registration process, review of Maximum Residue Limits and the politicisation of what should be a purely scientific and rational process. The increasingly stringent requirement for the approval of new actives and registration of new products has led to a significant decline in new products coming to market due to finding chemicals that can comply with the regulatory requirements and the multi-million pound cost of producing the necessary data to support registration. Coupled with the rise in the number of cases of pesticide resistance in insects, weeds and diseases there is unprecedented pressure on the use of crop protection products.

It appears that one of the drivers behind all the talk around IPM is that there is an expectation that the quantity, frequency and potency of crop protection products needs to be reduced which has driven the banning of 3 neonicotinoid and many other actives. This means that the way that crop protection is delivered will have to change to more targeted, ’softer’ products that impact less on the environment. The key targets appear to be insecticides as their unintended impacts are perhaps easiest to see, although increasingly side effects of fungicides and herbicides are coming under scrutiny. Whilst new solutions need to be found there is a need to see what can be achieved by doing things differently with what we already have e.g. can we safely miss a spray from the fungicide programme? A farmer making this sort of decision requires concrete evidence to persuade them that altering programmes on the basis of better forecasting or diagnostics is a sensible thing to do and will not result in crop or financial loss. Developing new varieties that are better able to withstand the effects of pests and diseases and possibly weeds too is a key tool along with the use of soil management that can help to suppress soil borne pests and diseases.

Soil health and fertility is a fundamental part of IPM as good establishment of healthy and robust plants is key to resisting the impact of various pests. The use of min-till or zero-till can add substantially to soil health and is therefore a key tool for many, though not all, farms. There is much anecdotal evidence that certain practices effect a level of control on pests that needs to be examined closely and either confirmed to work or not. This comes down to having a better understanding of fundamentals such as the biology of the crop, the wider environment and of course the pests. The successful implementation of IPM is very knowledge intensive and farmers and advisers will need to be able to analyse information in order to develop strategies for crops both before and within the season. Any transition will therefore need a robust process of knowledge exchange and continued professional development.

Written by Mark Atkins of Bio Farming Limited

In 2015 a colleague who operates a company supplying various biological based products into the agricultural market
asked if I could make a product from him as his current supplier was increasing costs that would take it beyond what is
viable for the farmer and agricultural applications. After studying the ingredients and coming to a conclusion that there could be some difficulty, due to a cartel of sorts on some of the ingredients, I declined the request but gave him a sample of a product that is supplied and used in the Sports & Amenity Turfgrass markets since 2007.

Having not expecting to hear anything I was somewhat surprised when I was called and asked for a meeting, in which I was informed that the tramline trials, where the product has been applied on various crops has resulted in very significant yields as well as noticeable plant health. That product has now been branded Exalt and instigated the formation of Bio Farming Ltd. Bio Farming Ltd was formed in 2018 that combines the knowledge and experiences of myself, Mark Atkins and Jeremy Hitcham.

Jeremy Hitcham, “I have been in the fertiliser industry all my life. Originally with Bunn Fertiliser for 19 years before the company was sold to Koch Industries, where I stayed on for 6 years eventually leaving to establish my consultancy, Fertiliser Limited. Shortly after I helped with ex colleagues from Bunn to established Payne Crop Nutrition at Fakenham in East Anglia. Later that year Mark and I had the opportunity to create BioFarming Ltd. A concept we had over many years hoped to create into a reality. We believe that many soils have been unknowingly neglected and by utilising a wealth of experience and combinations of our unique products we can make soils perform better”

Mark Atkins, “as a farmer’s son and having spent many long hours working the land and all that comes with the industry, I like to feel that agriculture is in my blood and my feet are in the ground, it certainly feels that way.” My career moved from farming to a spray operator and as an Arable Specialist with Dalgety Agriculture in the south of the country before a shift in to turfgrass production and management, which found me heading to Saudi Arabia for a 3 year stint managing the construction and maintenance of 12 new, one million USD pitches throughout the kingdom, followed by managing a 110 ha turf farm and the first all grass golf course perched in between the wadis and sand dunes 40 miles outside Riyadh with summer temperatures of 45oC plus and winters of -1.

A contract to supply 500,000 m2 (5 hectares) to Dubai, UAE, which was harvested as 20 m2 large rolls and washed with a homemade ‘turf washer’ resulted in the offer to manage the ‘grow-in’ and construction of the Abu Dhabi championship golf course, along with lots of other ‘must do’ items, involved the making a makeshift sprayer from a hydro-seeder tank and pump, a length of scaffolding pipe and irrigation sprinklers to apply some very noxious pesticides and homemade liquid fertilisers! A final move to Dubai in which I introduced an organic granular fertiliser for use on golf & other sports turf facilities before returning to the UK with my family in 2000. A fantastic experience with at times some very difficult growing conditions of brackish saline / sodic soils and questionable recycled irrigation water qualities, extreme temperatures and not to mention all those people I met along the way at work, playing rugby and parties.

Upon my return to the UK I was asked to and undertook the agronomy at various golf course construction projects, which were once again overseas where on making recommendation I was asked if I could supply the ‘specific grades / analysis’ of products as were identified and the fact that none were found in the catalogues of the supply trade companies. One Saturday afternoon at home and alone in the kitchen I blended various powdered mineral fertilisers with zeolites and humic acid. After knocking them about in a drum with some water, screening and then drying the granules in the oven, yes! all windows were wide open, I had produced a granular fertiliser. The then ‘Scotts Company’ based at Howden produced these specific grades on my behalf which were then sold to clients. This was the start of my formulating and trading of bespoke products After many hours of research reading and discussion with others, the vital roles from the myriad of the microbial communities in soils, plants, humans and every living entity was becoming more and more apparent.

With colleagues, a combination of what I call ‘microbial nutriments’ were explored. Initial the product was of individual substances that were tank mixed before application whereas now a days many have been formulation as complexed solutions. The benefits of these was being seen by turfgrass managers on all sports turf surfaces with increased vigour and plant health. In 2007, a Dutch owned UK subsidiary bought my small company as the benefits from their aeration equipment coupled with applications of the ‘microbial nutriments’ were seen as perfect synergy. Research was undertaken at the Royal Holloway College (London University) with a PhD sponsored study on the effects of reducing soil compaction that resulted in the booklet ‘Life Beneath Your Feet’ c/o Charterhouse Turf Machinery Ltd Under the watchful eye of Professor Alan Gange further evaluation was undertaken to quantify the effects of the microbial nutriment on grass plants in as gown on a golf tee.

After what seemed ages of a 6 month period results were issued to great excitement as the applications had increased the root length colonisation (RLC) of ‘mycorrhiza’ from 12.6% to 23.1%. and beneficial bacterial abundance of 71%.

In the words of Professor Gange:- “In mycorrhizal terms, this is a large increase. We would not expect levels to increase to, say, 50% or 60% (i.e. those found in natural grassland) because of the carbon limitation imposed by clipping. Plants fix carbon through the process of photosynthesis and about 20% of the annual fixed C is directed to the roots to feed the mycorrhiza. This is the sole energy source for the fungus. Continuous leaf removal reduces the amount of C fixed and hence limits fungal abundance. Therefore, this product significantly increased the abundance of microbes, both bacterial and fungal, in the soil”.

This product now branded as Concordia has shown that the affect form applications on forage grass product has the ability to increase fresh weight yield by 5.05 tonnes / ha an increase of 33.2% and its dry mater content by 1.49 t/ha or a 45.6% increase. There is now becoming more and more data of the benefits of mycorrhiza for soil and plant health, the sequestration of Carbon Dioxide, efficacies of Nitrogen assimilation and others with subsequent and ongoing benefits. Since then various other substances have been appraised which continue to be applied to some very prestigious sports pitches and other sports turf surfaces (The Emirate Stadium Pitch, Liverpool Anfield Road, Leicester City King Powder Stadium Pitch, Cardiff City Stadium pitch and others).

Plant health and disease In sports turf the number of plant protection products are becoming less available as well as being very costly, where a single application of a fungicide can be between £600 – £1000.00 / hectare ??

With the use of the microbial nutriments, plant health elicitors in combination with precise nutrient applications plant health is improved and the incidence of disease infestation has become almost nonexistent. This means the grass plant, that is constantly under stress from daily mowing, the need to perform, possess high aesthetics and ‘for the game is not compromised from the negatives of disease infection and slow recuperation. The benefits to the clubs are financial, agronomic and environmental as the products are on the whole non-hazardous, being derived from sustainable plant extracts, bespoke and with most being produced in the United Kingdom flexibility, availability and delivery schedules are maintained.

The product range is not large consisting of four categories:

1 Microbial Nutriments and ‘Fertiliser Supplements’

Humic substances, as powder, soluble powder, slow release granular, Liquid Nutrimus and Nutrimus UltraFINE grades These materials are available for direct applications or as supplements to granular and liquid ‘fertilisers’. High values of labile Carbon support microbial communities and help balance Carbon:Nitrogen ratios.

Composition:

Note Table 5 – * Leonardite ranges considerably in humic and fulvic acid content. For example, deposits can have as low as 10% humic acid content and as high as 78%. It’s derived from Lignite based coal and was formed in saltwater deposits. The other 20- 90% of the product that isn’t the active ingredient is made up of ash and heavy metals. The comparison of the two is clearer when you take into consideration the enhanced nutrient quality and properties Nutrimus has over Leonardite shale. Humic substances have been proven to improve the quality of soil, growth of soil organisms, and uptakes of nutrients by plants. The benefits of humic and fulvic substances are well documented.

The direct and compounding benefits where one benefit will lead to the next are:

• mprovement of soil chemistry and structure

• improvement of biological status of soils

• improved utilisation of nutrients supplied and obvious cost savings

• improved water utilisation and possible cost savings

• improved yield – higher income/ha

• improved quality – higher income/ ha

2. Plant and Soil elicitors & enhancers

Exalt

• A complex of 4 Non Hazardous botanical extracts with multifaceted modes of action within the soil, the plant rhizosphere and the growing plant.

• Organic surfactants help to diffuse liquid homogenously into the soil profile

• Microbial nutriments promote a rich biological ‘microbiome’

• Elicitors, promote Systemic Acquired and Induce Resistance, acting similarly as an inoculation, kick starting the plants own immune system

• Naturally occurring synergistic back ground nutrients & amino acids provide nutrition

• Apply Exalt at:

– pre sowing – post germination p

– Exalt can be tank mixed with most liquid nutrients and other compatible products

– Tank mixing with glyphosate and selected herbicides

– Tank mixing with selected fungicides 

N.B. That all and every tank mix product should be first tested with a ‘jar tests’ as some adjuvants can be reactive. Exalt contains naturally occurring surfactants and tackifiers.

Application rates: o Cereals & OSR 1.5 – 2 litres / Ha o Root crop (carrots, potato) 2 l/ha o Legumes 1 l/ha

Protos

A liquid EC FERTILISER – PK Fertiliser solution: containing  

• Potassium Phosphite 50% Liquid contains a high level of Phosphate at 30% w/w in Phosphite form.

• A very good P-source that also increases general plant vitality and resistance to stress.

• Developed to fertigate in soil grown covered crops and hydroponics as well as for foliar application. Also suitable for dipping plant roots prior to transplanting.

• Transparent liquid solution of high purity

• Improves general plant immune system

• Enhances root growth

Product Characteristics

• Production process certified according to ISO 9001:2015
• Highly concentrated solution
• Low on Sodium and Chloride
• Low on heavy metals

Apply at the higher application rate during period of high stress. Tank mix with fungicides to increase efficacies. Apply at 5 – 10 l/Ha

Micronised Mineral Nutrition

• The Parvus product range of micronised mineral nutrients are available as liquids and wettable powders are used extensively for sports turf management, which are now being used in agriculture. 

• By micronising mineral elements their ability to be accessed by microbes and assimilated by the growing plant is very evident with plant response to health and subsequent yield increases, higher dry matter content all of which lead to reduced risk of infection, better shelf life and nutrient contents. 

• It is not uncommon to attain dry matter contents of perennial ryegrass of >30% with metabolisable energy values (M.E) of 12 – 13 kJ/Kg.

Research and Development

R&D is and will be an ever ongoing process in order to better understand these and now materials to determine application rates, timings & frequencies and also most importantly when not to apply. The evolution of Bio Farming is in real terms just beginning with comprehensive trials to be undertaken this year and as on going to quantify the carryover of benefits for subsequent crops and soil health

Soil Health – the new Muck and Magic’

I know that is this publication the awareness of all matter biological, microbial is well appreciated, yet there is still the belief that all these types of products are ‘muck and magic’ well, that is exactly what it is mother nature working her magic as has always been so.

Cause and Effect

Certainly, in sports turf, the client with whom I work, will ask the question ‘what is the cause of a particular issue and plant condition’ as opposed to reaching for the pesticide bottle.