Written by Steve Townsend
Think you have your soil fertility mastered? Well-read on about possibly the most misunderstood soil scientist Dr William
Albrecht, skip this article and you could be missing something

 I don’t think there is anybody in agriculture more misunderstood or misquoted than Dr William Albrecht, who was emeritus professor of soils at the University of Missouri from 1919 – 1959. He began his work in medicine but soon switched to agriculture when he realised that medicine focused on symptoms and not the cause. He reasoned that most health issues were the result of poor nutrition and this could be best addressed by focusing on the soil. He coined the phrase ‘healthy soil, healthy crop, healthy animals’, and we could possibly add to that ‘healthy humans’. Many critics dismiss his work entirely but I believe they are missing the point and that is that crop production is an expression of the soil.

The trouble started, as I see it, when Professor Albrecht allegedly said that the ideal ratio in the soil for calcium and magnesium was 68% and 12% respectively. The wider scientific community took umbrage at this as it threatened the status quo and what they had been preaching on soil fertility. This position still exists today with some scientists saying that Albrecht’s work has been peer reviewed and so doesn’t work or is not relevant. The scientists of this persuasion then set out to prove that this statement was wrong and they found soils could yield just as well without the calcium and magnesium being in these proportions.

This is the crux of the matter. I have read many of Professor Albrecht’s works but not once have I found the alleged statement. He refers to it as the average ratio as you could expect across many different soil types. The ratio he did talk about was that the calcium and magnesium should add up to 80% of the base saturation, then a soil could be considered balanced. Balanced soils he believed gave the most consistent yield and quality, not necessarily the greatest yield at one time. Hopefully that has helped to clear up some confusion and that the Albrecht method of soil testing could have some value to your farm business. Albrecht talked about the soil as a complete entity encompassing chemical, physical and biological attributes.

He recognised that correcting some mineral balances took care of the chemical part of the soil which in turn allowed the physical structure to improve which then provides an environment for the correct biology to flourish. It is a selfsustaining cycle. Of course, like the minerals, the biology has to be there in the first place for it to flourish, it could well be argued that decades of intensive agriculture have depleted our soils to the brink of extinction and the biology may well need re-establishing. Conversely though what this also shows is that there will be little response to ‘bugs in jugs’ if the chemical and physical environment is not there to allow them to flourish.

Exploring Albrecht’s research further, he suggested that there is an ideal ratio between the levels of calcium and magnesium in the soil, which should be related to the soils clay content. While Albrecht did not discover cation exchange he did link cation exchange to the colloidal clay particles within the soil. The clay colloids are negatively charged and have the ability to exchange calcium, magnesium and potassium (amongst many others) for hydrogen with the plant.

Albrecht research initially focused on forage production, and he discovered that calcium was essential in increasing protein content within the forage. He then took this a step further and began trying to relate the calcium content of the soil to the forage and then onto the health of the animal. With this work he found that improved animal health was reflected by the improved forage. This led him on to his hypothesis of the ideal cation ratios in the soil. For the soil he was working on he suggested that the calcium saturation percentage should be 65% and the magnesium should be 15%. But the important point to note here is that the calcium and magnesium percentage should total 80%. Further work by Albrecht and others then suggested that there was a range of ratios depending upon soil clay content. These ratios are where we are today with ideally calcium 60-70% and magnesium 10-20%. Albrecht ignored soil pH reasoning that if the cations are in these ratios the pH will look after itself at around pH6.3

So what does this mean to you?

Many consultants will measure the cation exchange and calculate the calcium and magnesium percentages. A typical result, from a calcareous soil, may look something like this; calcium 84% and magnesium 5% to which you would conclude that all is well. The excess calcium can’t be giving me a problem, after all the calcium is the beneficial element isn’t it and I have low magnesium? But if the calcium level is too high that generally means other cations have suffered as a result. Albrecht discovered that as calcium becomes excessive it ‘masks’ magnesium. In the example above the calcium and magnesium percentages totals 89%, which is beyond Albrecht’s ideal of 80%. If you try to ‘strip’ out the calcium the magnesium level will rise by the corresponding amount. Thus if you lowered the calcium to 70% you would increase the magnesium by 14% to the more accurate figure of 19% which is now a soil with excessive magnesium!

Magnesium in excess is a problematic element in the soil. Excessive magnesium causes clay aggregates to disperse. Clay dispersion reduces soil aggregation in turn reducing pore space (the soil has slumped) and consequently reducing water and air movement. Without air and water movement your soil will no longer have beneficial functioning biology which facilitates nutrient cycling, soil carbon building, and help with soil aggregation to produce the crumb structure and tilth that you need. It has long been known that calcium can ameliorate the effects of heavy soils and their tendency to slump and compact. If your soils slump and compact your crop production will suffer. Your soil will no longer have the pore space to facilitate air and water movement.

But simply adding limestone to correct soil pH using a rough formula based around soil type is imprecise. And what happens if the soil pH is at pH 6.5 or above and there is still a calcium deficiency? I will use the example of a client who had a pH of 7.8, but when the cation exchange was measured revealed a calcium percentage of just 46%. That’s just not possible is it? Well, yes it is, if magnesium and potassium have filled the cation exchange sites they will have a stronger basicity than calcium alone, and result in a high pH.

A simple pH test would suggest that calcium is not necessary, in this situation, and would result in poor crop production (as was the experience in this case), through lack of calcium, poor drainage, low air content and low health soils. Making sure you have the correct calcium content in your soil therefore can’t be achieved by pH alone! Why is this important you might ask? It’s not just about calcium, but blackgrass hates correct calcium & magnesium levels and as mentioned before, producing a healthy soil is difficult without a good balance of these and other elements. If soil health, conservation agriculture or reduced tillage establishment systems are your goal don’t overlook the basics and assume your soil will cope without the right chemical balance. You may be spending money in the wrong areas when a simple soil test will put you on the right track or leave you fighting a chemical imbalance with the cards stacked against you, leading to poor future and present crop performance.

Article adapted from a presentation given by Cotswold Seeds MD Ian Wilkinson at this year’s Groundswell event

In 2016, the NFU reported the biggest year-on-year fall in farm profitability since the millennium, as farmers deal with the impact of devastating cuts in the value of their products and the rising prices of nitrogen fertiliser. There are two ways to increase profit: Intensify to produce more, or lower cost of production with self sufficiency. ‘Farmers should have a low cost of production…be a seller not a buyer’ said Roman statesman Cato back in 234 BC. But how to achieve this?

Free Fertilising

After the Second World War, Sir George Stapledon advocated the ‘dual aspects’ of ley farming. In his book ‘The Plough Up Policy and Ley Farming’ he wrote: ‘Considered as an agent for the promotion of soil fertility, the grass sod must be regarded as perhaps the most valuable foundation upon which the farmer can build.’ In his book, ‘Thirty Years Farming on the Clifton Park System,’ William Lamin recounts how he took over poor sandy land near Burton-on-Trent and made it one of the most productive in the district, giving credit to Robert Elliott, of Clifton Park, who demonstrated how ley farming and rotational grasses helped to build fertility.

A clover rich ley will reliably produce the same amount of nitrogen that farmers typically apply in costly artificial fertilisers. Nitrogen accumulates in small nodules found on clover roots, with some of it being released as the clover plant matures. But after the ley is ploughed in, a large amount of nitrogen is released into the soil and is available over many months. Peak nitrogen availability is around four months after termination, making it available to the following crop which is often a cereal or brassica.

Humus Building

Present day farmer Rob Richmond, who farms light land near Cirencester, has shown how effective ley farming can be for humus building. Twelve years ago soil organic matter on his farm was 2-4%. In 2017 it had risen to 8-9%

Soil Enriching

Data collected by McCance and Widdowson shows the mineral content decline in food over a 50 year period (1940-1991). Levels of sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron and copper have all significantly dropped in vegetables, milk and meat. Minerals come from the soil and deep rooting plants (ribgrass, chicory, sheep’s parsley, yarrow, and burnet) extract them.

Drought Resisting

The extreme dry conditions this summer have demonstrated the need for drought resistance. Ryegrass has a fibrous shallow root structure and can’t reach down to moisture, but plants in a deep rooting herbal ley can and many farmers have reported that the only crop that’s remained growing on their land this summer is the herbal ley. The best drought resistant species in mixes this year were chicory, sainfoin and birdsfoot trefoil.

Pan Busting

Chicory, with its deep tap-root, also busts through pans to improve the structure of the soil and help water infiltration.

High Yielding

Charles Darwin first noted how different plants grown together yield 50% more than their average, due to their overlapping growth habits and patterns. With some species providing their yield early season and others maturing later, the grazing season is also extended.

Black-grass Suppressing

Long grass leys kill blackgrass. It’s an annual, and doesn’t survive the grass ley part of a crop rotation.

Carbon Capturing

Plants capture carbon from the atmosphere and transfer it to the soil where it’s utilised by the soil biology to help unlock precious nutrients which would otherwise be unavailable to the growing plants. A small increase in soil carbon content can also have a huge impact on its ability to hold moisture, so vital in times of drought. 

A m a z i n g Grazing

A herbal ley (with 30-50% legume content) is more palatable as forage. Livestock eat 10- 15% more and the live weight gain and milk production is improved. Some plants such as sainfoin and birdsfoot trefoil contain condensed tannins in their leaves and stems, which can reduce worm burdens. Charles Hunter-Smart, who farms 2500 acres on the Bradwell Grove Estate, has not needed to worm ewes for two years and didn’t worm any lambs in 2017. 

Crop Rotating

The key to success with a herbal ley is shallow sowing and good seedbed consolidation. For the best results, herbal leys should be left in the ground for four years, giving optium forage yield, root growth, nitrogen fixation and species diversity. Though they are traditionally grazed, herbal leys can also be tailored for cutting for silage (or AD plant) or they may be cut and mulched with a topper.

Put the Big G back into your farming system. Get back on the grass!

Nutrient stratification is common concern for no-till farmers.
By Laura Barrera, first published on
www.Agfuse.com in August 2018

Without tillage to mix fertilizer into the soil, no-tillers may wonder whether the nutrients applied to the soil surface are reaching the crop roots. According to University of Nebraska Extension engineer Paul Jasa and Ray Ward, plant scientist and founder of Ward Laboratories in Kearney, Neb., the resounding answer is: yes, they are. Even though stratification — the non-uniform distribution of nutrients within a soil’s depth, with higher concentrations of nutrients toward the soil surface — does occur in no-till, it should not be a concern. In fact, they say it’s a natural phenomenon and as long as you’re managing your no-till system properly, you shouldn’t have a problem.

Stratification: A natural effect

When you fertilize your pasture, your rangeland or your lawn, how deep do you till it in? That’s the question Paul asks farmers who worry about nutrient stratification in their no-till systems. He asks, if you can put nutrients on top in a natural growing system, why can’t they be placed on top in a cropland system? Ray also points out in native prairies, nutrients work their way down into the soil naturally, just as it occurs in no-till systems. It’s why he prefers to call it nutrient distribution instead of stratification.

In fact, stratification even occurs in tillage systems. “A lot of people who say there’s stratification in no-till have never measured the stratification of their tilled systems,” Paul says, explaining that in his research plots he saw just as much stratification in the disk and chisel systems as he did in no-till. Even as tillage continued, there was actually more stratification in tillage than in no-till. The reason for this is a stronger soil structure under no-till. “The nutrients can move downward with water through the earthworm channels and root channels that are there,” he says. “In tillage, we destroyed those channels so they can’t move downward.”

Soil moisture key for fertilizer uptake

Another reason stratification is not a concern in no-till is because of higher soil moisture, thanks to undisturbed residue. Paul says that when it comes to nutrient placement, there are three rules:

• You have to have nutrients in the soil, because that’s where the roots are.

• You have to roots where the nutrients are.

• You have to have water where the roots are, because the roots need water to uptake the nutrients.

Because tillage dries the soil, there aren’t roots near the soil surface, which means placing nutrients on top of a tilled soil won’t work because there won’t be roots there. But in no-till, if residue is left on top of the soil, there will be moisture, and if there’s moisture, there will be roots. In fact, studies have found that no-tilled crops tend to have greater uptake of surface-applied fertilizer than conventionally tilled crops.

According to a paper written by University of Kentucky soil scientist John Grove, Ward and University of Maryland soil scientist Ray Weil, research conducted in Kentucky from 1980-81 looked at corn’s uptake of surface-applied potassium under moldboard ploughed and no-tilled plots that were established in 1970. Despite the fact that potassium stratification was “substantial and more pronounced” in the no-till plot — 170 ppm for a 2-inch soil depth vs. 132 ppm in the moldboard plowed plot — potassium uptake of the no-tilled corn was 130% of the moldboard-plowed corn.

When the study looked at the total or composite soil test potassium at a 12-inch depth, they found it was nearly identical between the two — 105 ppm for no-till, 107 ppm for the moldboard plough. Scientists concluded “this strongly suggests that the potassium nutrition of the two corn crops was improved by potassium stratification.” Paul’s research also supports that placing phosphorus higher in the soil for corn performs better than phosphorus placed deeper. In 2004, he compared yields between corn that received:

• No phosphorus

• Phosphorus applied with an anhydrous applicator at 5 inches deep, 15 inches from the row

• Phosphorus applied 5 inches deep, 5 inches away on both sides of the row

• Phosphorus applied in-furrow

The corn that received the 5×5 and infurrow placements both yielded around 10 bushels higher than the other two applications, and Paul notes that the 5×5 and in-furrow were statistically the same yield.

“If phosphorus stratification were a problem, putting it deeper should’ve given you a bigger yield,” he explains. “But it didn’t. In the furrow was no problem.” In 2005, Paul tried a few more placement options, including application through a strip-till bar (5×0 treatment), a grain drill to band phosphorus 2 inches deep on 7.5-inch spacing, and phosphorus dribbled on the surface on 7.5-inch spacing. Noting that it was a dry year, Paul found the phosphorus that was banded and dribbled resulted in the highest corn yields.

“That’s because the residue was not disturbed and the fertilizer was right there, so it ran down into the soil and the roots picked it up,” he says. “It just comes down to where are the roots, and is there moisture there for the roots to take the fertilizer up? If the residue is there, there should be moisture.”

Maintain at least 90% residue coverage

Because the roots need soil moisture to absorb fertilizer, leaving crop residue on the soil is key to maintaining that moisture. Paul says he likes to see 100% residue coverage until the crop canopy takes over, but growers need at least 90% to reduce evaporation from the soil surface, according to irrigation engineer Norman Klocke. Why do you need so much residue? Paul says that Klocke gave him the example of an energy-efficient house. If someone leaves the front door open, it doesn’t matter how well-insulated the house is — the heat is going to escape.

Soil moisture works the same way. Too little residue and the water will find a way to escape from the soil surface. For no-tillers whose soils are so biologically active they have a hard time maintaining residue, Paul isn’t too worried about them losing some residue. “Because that residue is being recycled, the nutrients in that residue are becoming available for the next crop,” he says. “So I’m not too concerned about that. Now, if you need it for erosion control or for moisture conservation, that’s where those carbon cover crops become vital.”

Cover crops bring added benefits

While there is some concern that cover crops can use up moisture, Paul says that it depends on your location. But if a grower selects the proper cover crops, he shouldn’t be losing more moisture than is lost to evaporation. “Bare soil evaporation is much higher than people ever thought.” Cover crops can also slow acidification that occurs from surfaceapplying fertilizer, says Ray.

While the calcium-magnesium in corn stalks will help slow it, broadleaf covers contain a lot more calcium-magnesium than grasses, which can help slow it even more. He adds that growers using legumes as covers normally don’t need to apply as much nitrogen to the following cash crop, which also helps slow acidification. But even if soil moisture and acidification aren’t concerns, no-tillers may still want to add cover crops into their systems for their soil health benefits, which in turn improves nutrient uptake.

Ray says that covers help soils get their mycorrhizae established, which does most of the nutrient feeding for the crop roots. “Their threads and hyphae get out and pull those nutrients into the plant,” he explains. “The plant provides the food for the mycorrhizae, so the mycorrhizae can bring the nutrients to the plant. So if you’ve stopped doing any tillage, that mycorrhizae should be developing, and that would be helping nutrient uptake in that topsoil.” He notes that soil health is critical in how plants uptake nutrients, so if a grower hasn’t developed the soil health yet, then the plants may not be able to uptake those nutrients, regardless of how and where the fertilizer is applied.

One warning both Ray and Paul would like no-tillers to heed is the notion that they can heavily reduce or even eliminate fertilizer as their soil health improves. Ray says that aside from nitrogen and some sulphur, which plants can acquire from the air, most nutrients that are removed from the soil will need to be replaced. “When you take something off the land, you take nutrients off,” he says. “So you need to either put that back with manure or compost, or you need to use fertilizer.” The paper by Grove, Ward and Weil recommends ensuring an adequate or slight surplus of nutrition using shallow subsurface placement or surface applications.

Location and crop exceptions

Paul does note that in drier climates, he prefers to place fertilizer in the soil when possible. But as long as there’s adequate residue left, he’s not too concerned, because the moisture should be there to carry the nutrients into the soil. Ray also mentions that areas like the Palouse region in the Pacific Northwest can have dry topsoil from limited moisture, so growers usually put their fertilizer 4-5 inches deep in the soil where moisture is still available. “Now we’re doing no-till, so that’s changed that dynamic some,” he says.

Farmers growing crops that are sensitive to residue also may need to adjust their fertilizer strategies, Paul says. Canola in particular, he explains, is sensitive to too much residue because the canola seedlings are so small. “Canola tries to get above the residue. It’ll grow real fast, have a long stem there, and the frost can kill it.” His recommendation to farmers growing canola and other residue-sensitive crops is to put some fertilizer down in a starter application during planting. “I’m a firm believer in starter fertilizer being placed down in the soil with the seed to get that crop started,” he says. “Because in those early first couple weeks of growing, roots aren’t out there in the row middles where the residue is protecting the soil or keeping the moisture there.”

So if a no-tiller is running row cleaners on his planter to push the residue away, it’ll provide a bare strip of soil that will warm up and dry out. “When it dries out, the nutrients better be in the soil itself there,” Paul says. Don’t change your soil sampling strategy Despite some suggestions that no-tillers should be soil sampling at shallower depths because of stratification, when it comes to taking soil tests for fertilizer recommendations, Ray does not recommend no-tillers do anything different. The reason for this is due to how the soil tests are calibrated. While in Nebraska the tests are calibrated for an 8-inch depth, in most states it’s a 6-inch depth. If a grower submits a sample that’s at shallower depth, the calibration will be off, Ray explains.

And because the nutrient concentration is higher at the top, he may get a lower fertilizer recommendation than what is needed and end up under-fertilizing his crop. “The roots grow down 4 to 6 feet deep in the soil,” Ray says. “So we’re estimating from the top 6-8 inches of soil what that plant needs, when it’s growing 4 to 6 feet. So if you start sampling different depths, you’re going to get a different reading than if you were to sample 0 to 6 inches or 0 to 8. “I don’t encourage different sampling, if I’m trying to interpret fertilizer recommendations.”

Jamie Stotzka, Consultant Bioagronomist

Healthy soils contain billions of bacteria from thousands of species. A special group of these bacteria, collectively known as Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria or PGPR are known to promote plant health, growth and productivity. PGPR are unlike the nodulating rhizobia only found associating with leguminous plants, as they are free-living in soils residing in the plant root zone whilst also having the ability to enter plant tissue. Nourished by plant exudates, these bacteria provide indispensable services to growing crops.

PGPR’s plant growth promoting effects can be attributed to four main mechanisms: enhanced nutrient delivery, protection of plants from potential pathogens, improved root development and the bioremediation (cleaning) of soils. Probably the most renowned trait of these bacteria is their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. Over 78% of the atmosphere is gaseous N2, which is ordinarily unusable by plants. A unique set of enzymes allows PGPR convert this gas into plant useble NH4+. Above each hectare of land, approximately 74,000 tonnes of N2 are within reach to be converted by this process.

Another macro element phosphorus can be present in soils but is often-times ‘locked up’ – i.e. bound to metal elements. PGPR act to solubilise this element by producing organic acids and inconcert with other soil microbes this community has the capability of increasing available soil P by up to 62%. Other essential nutrients are also chelated by PGPR. Working in tandem with other beneficial soil microbes, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), these nutrients can be efficiently transported to crops in healthy soils. PGPR can further alter the root architecture and promote plant development via the production of phytohormones such as auxins, cytokinins and gibberellic acid. Plant protection is achieved by regulation of plant internal defences against drought and pathogens.

The positive effects of PGPR have in the past been assumed to be fairly generalist and to apply to a broad range of crops. Commercial inoculants have been available for a number of years to improve plant health and development in arable systems. Most of these products operate under a “more is better” policy and fail to discriminate between the particular effects of different bacterial species on particular crop types. In trials over the past three years, researchers at PlantWorks Ltd have found that this one-size-fits-all approach may have drawbacks and hidden pitfalls.

A range of bacterial species produced by the company were tested in isolation on different crop types, with significant results. Yield results indicated that even within the cereals group, plants did not necessarily share the same ideal bacterial partners. Field trials were established based on outcomes from preliminary glasshouse experiments and in 2017 these produced very encouraging results.

A sugar beet trial run in collaboration with Allpress Farms in Cambridgeshire, which utilised a tailored beet inoculum, produced a statistically significant yield increase of 33% with no reduction in quality of the roots. Potato and field vegetable trials showed similarly positive and significant trends with i.e. 43% heavier leeks produced at Allpress. * Average grain weights on Motts Farm in Essex. Measurements were taken from random quadrat readings taken throughout treated and control areas (PlantWorks, 2018). Previous trial work at Mr Cowell’s farm revealed that through no-till and low input farming systems, as well as rotations including mycorrhiza friendly plants such as Lucerne, the soils were highly biologically active. With wheat on the farm showing very high mycorrhizal colonisation levels of up to 80%. This background fungal network was thought to have further enhanced and supported bacterial function to achieve the positive yield noted. This hypothesis was further illustrated by PGPR trials at GH Dean in Kent.

Here, mycorrhizal and bacterial inoculants were applied in isolation and combination, revealing a positive interaction between the two types of microbes. A tailored selection of bacterial inoculants for a range of cereal crops has now become available within the PlantWorks’ Smart Rotations range. Applied in liquid form these tailored PGPR consortia are easy and straightforward to apply using standard sprayers. Further products to enhance mycorrhizal communities in farm soils can be added within crop rotations to build strong fungal communities to support bacterial function.

It is clear that the inclusion of biological inoculants such as PGPR and mycorrhizal fungi has vast potential to allow for more sustainable crop production with possible savings in mineral fertilisers, the use pesticide products as well as building healthy, balanced soils. It is an exciting time within farming, with a growing database of knowledge, ever more sophisticated advice and well tested products becoming available farmers can now, very practically, intervene within rotations to increase beneficial soil biology to enhance arable yields. For further information contact Ms Jamie Stotzka , Consultant Bioagronomist, PlantWorks Ltd. Office: +44(0)1795 411527 e-mail: jamie.stotzka@plantworksuk.co.uk http://smart.plantworksuk.co.uk/

It’s clear that we need to build more resilient soils, both for the future of our farms and for the long-term health of the land. The satellite images of muddy waters spilling out of brown rivers around the UK after a heavy rainfall are hair-raising. We can visibly see the soil gliding off fields, into water streams and off into the sea. At the very least this is quite literally money going down the drain for anyone working from the land, at its worst this is hundreds of years of top-soil formation being lost forever and part of a global disaster. Soil health advisors are quite certain that this scenario is avoidable, it’s all down to how land is managed.

If this is the case then building soil health should be one of the top priorities on every farm. One major difficulty is how do we know if we are building soil health or not at a farm level? Science doesn’t seem to offer a simple answer to this at the moment, which could be considered quite worrying, but we see it another way: This is an opportunity for farmers and growers to lead the way, to become experts on monitoring and building soil health on their own farm.

September and October are the best time to do most of the soil health tests in the UK. So prepare to soak up all the tips and tricks from what we have learned so far, and then get out there learning and observing your own soils in the coming months! This is the first step to becoming an expert on monitoring and building soil health for your soils.

How can Farmers monitor their own soils?

We started working with the PastureFed Livestock Association (PFLA) and Soils Advisor, Niels Corfield, to investigate this very question. The PFLA ran a series of workshops where scientists and farmers came together and identified the most appropriate soil tests, based on all the resources and research available. We took the most popular in-field tests and went out on multiple farms to see how it worked in practice. We didn’t have an easy way of recording the results so we developed a version of our app, Sectormentor for Soils, that allowed us to record the observations and photos as we went for each field.

To understand the health of your soils it’s important to see how things are changing over time and examine trends of different indicators. In order to do this we encourage growers to set goals for each field they are monitoring and then choose four to five tests that monitor the results as they change management practices to meet those goals. For example, one PFLA farmer in Kent, Fidelity Weston wanted to see if grazing her animals differently would improve forage and carrying capacity on the land, without compromising diversity. As she changes her practice, she is monitoring the percentage of grasses/broadleaves and sward stick readings above-ground as well as Slake test, infiltration rate and a visual evaluation of the soil below to see how the change affects her goal.

We have found the most effective tests are very physical measures that are immediately understandable. There are lots of different protocols out there for how to do these tests, but we hope to provide a method with a good balance between being do-able for farmers and providing useful insights, as well as being based on sound science. You can find an equipment list, and clear guidelines for doing each test on our website soils.sectormentor. com. Here are three we have found particularly helpful:

Slake Test (Wet Aggregate Stability)

The Slake test is a simple in field test that allows you to really see how well your soil structure holds up in water. It is also an indicator of biological activity. We have started to work with Soil Health Expert Jenni Dungait (previously soil health Professor at Rothamsted) and have adopted the in-field method she used in her research with farmers on multiple farms in Cornwall and Cotswolds regions.

Well-structured soil is composed of aggregates, so in this slake test you put a few small pieces of soil in a sieve, submerge them in water and then shake them around quite vigorously. Those small pieces that survive without breaking down at all are true aggregates, the water remains totally clear. For non-aggregates there is considerable break down of the pieces and the water can become murky. You score the breakdown on a scale of zero to eight, eight indicates a soil full of microbes and made up almost exclusively of aggregates. All details here An additional benefit of this test was highlighted by Jenni Dungait’s research (soon to be published) which shows that the slake test is an excellent proxy for Soil Organic Carbon.

Earthworms

All growers inherently understand the value of earthworms as we see them physically move nutrients around the soil profile. Earthworms are one of the larger organisms in the soil food web, so many earthworms is a good indicator of plenty of life in your soil.

In the UK, an average of 15-20 worms in a 20x20cm soil pit is considered good. Earthworms counts are best done in late September to early October. This year we are preparing to do slightly more detailed earthworm counts based on the work of soil scientist Jackie Stroud at Rothamsted. There are three main types of earthworm: the litter-feeders which break down organic matter on the surface of the soil; the top-soil worms who work on soil aggregation and nutrient mobilisation; and then the deep-burrowers that keep water flowing from the soil surface to deep pools below, as well as increasing aeration and root development.

Jackie’s research shows that if you identify numbers of each type of worm, it can tell you what the worms are working on and uncover any changes you might need to make in your soil management to encourage all types – ideally you want to have all three types of worm working in harmony. Jackie Stroud is running a #30minworms citizen science project in September where she is asking farmers all around the country to dig 5 pits in a field and do earthworm counts and send her the results. You can find out more in the earthworm test protocol on our site, where you will also find a link to Jackie’s Worm ID Quiz, which is a brilliant way to learn how to identify types of worm for yourself.

Infiltration rate

The Infiltration rate test clearly shows how ready your soil is to soak up water when it comes. To do this test we use a 150mm diameter pipe (actually part of a chimney flue) and hammer the pipe 75mm into the ground. Then we pour in a set amount of water and time how long it takes the water to infiltrate. Originally we used a much smaller diameter baked bean tin to do the infiltration tests but we were finding it took over 20 minutes for the water to infiltrate which made it impractical to do in the field. One thought was forcing such a small diameter cylinder into the ground was causing artificial compaction in itself, which is why we have moved to a larger diameter cylinder.

Our aim is to find a method that takes a maximum of five minutes in most soils. This test is so relevant, imagine if every farmer and grower around the land had a clear idea of the average infiltration rate in each of their fields. We would definitely be better equipped to prevent those muddy rivers and top-soil losses.

The value of the app – soil health trends and patterns on your own farm. You can use all three of these tests, combined with above-ground observations to build up a picture of the health of your soil in each field, and see how it changes over time. This is how you start to become a soil health expert on your farm, go out and look for yourself, observe, document, ask questions and build up a picture over time.

The Sectormentor for Soils app makes it easy to record these observations in the field as you go, and then turn those observations into graphs and insights. Just a few taps and you have everything recorded, alongside photos showing what you saw both above and belowground. Essentially you can build up a visual diary for each field combined with numerical results from the tests. All those results are easily searchable (no more shuffling through piles of papers to try and find those scribbled notes) and quickly show how your soil health is changing over time.

Shared Perspectives and Added Learning

One other important piece of the puzzle for many farmers and growers is the power of discussion and other people’s perspectives. When you are out in the field taking these observations, in order to become an expert and understand better what’s happening we have found that it’s important to share your observations with others and get other perspectives. This is a big part of the learning.

Where possible it’s great if you can go out in a group, or with your agronomist. The digital diary on the app is perfect for this as it’s easy to share photos and results with other farmers, or to discuss things you have seen with an agronomist. That is a summary of our learnings for now. We are excited to support many more farmers and growers to get out there and become confident monitoring their own soils, head to our website soils.sectormentor.com where you will find more info about the app, our free online guide to the different soil tests and a blog filled with resources, case studies from different farmers and more. This is a brilliant opportunity for farmers and growers to move from here-say and anecdotes about what works on their farm into a more structured evidence base, not scientifically rigorous data, but just what is needed to build up the patterns and stories on your farm. This is about becoming a soil health expert for your farm.

A stressful time trying to establish autumn crops is what originally prompted Northamptonshire estate manager, Andrew Mahon, to move away from traditional cultivations. But it’s been a journey that’s paid off.

As manager of the 1,000 ha Bromborough Estate at Glebe Farm, Podington near Wellingborough – with 840 ha of owned land plus 165 ha under a farm business tenancy agreement – Andrew Mahon has overseen some significant changes during his 10 or so years in the post.

Farming on heavy clay soils brings with it problems of blackgrass. But this hasn’t stopped him making a success of moving from a traditional plough/ min-till based system to no-till. And in a fairly short space of time. “The rotation is driven by blackgrass,” Andrew explains. “In our low blackgrass situations, winter wheat is followed by a second wheat, which we then often follow with two years of spring crops. In a high blackgrass situation, winter wheat is followed by one of the spring crops. And in a moderate blackgrass situation, it’s followed by winter barley. “We dropped oilseed rape from the rotation three years ago because of problems with cabbage stem flea beetle, pigeons and slugs. But we are growing some this year after growing some again last year,” he adds.

Initially, the idea of moving to reduced tillage was triggered back in 2012, when the wet harvest meant Andrew not only saw a 30% drop in yields, after struggling to get crops combined, but then also struggled to get crops drilled. “Back then we were using ploughing and min-till,” he continues, “ploughing about a third of the arable land every year. It was a really stressful autumn, so we looked at what we could change. We’re on heavy, predominantly Hanslope series, clay soils so therefore couldn’t really change our cropping. “At the same time, the BASE UK (Biodiversity, Agriculture, Soil and Environment) group was set up and I joined. After researching conservation agriculture and reduced tillage, I thought that was the way forward.”

The following year, 2013, Andrew took his first step by ordering a strip-till drill that only cultivated a four inch to nine-inch band of soil for drilling into. At the same time he sold the plough, a set of discs, a press, and two tractors, the latter being replaced with one tractor that was hired in. “We started using the strip-till drill in autumn 2013 and through 2014 and 2015. It became apparent in the first year that it was working. We saw no drop off in crop performance.

“However, I felt we were still moving quite a bit of soil and still having problems with blackgrass. So the next step was to look at no-till. In March 2016 we ordered a 5-metre Cross Slot No Tillage Systems drill. It’s been brilliant. We had good establishment and good crops again this last year.” Overall, Andrew sees three parts to conservation agriculture – cover cropping, diverse cropping, and no-till. With hindsight, he says moving to the strip-drill first before the no-till unit was the right thing to do. “It was a stepping stone – a gentle introduction. If we’d have gone straight to no-till we’d have struggled.

“Your whole mindset has to change because you’re drilling into trashy conditions and cover crops. Also, the soils need time to adapt. So you’ve got to be patient. And you’ve got to start slowly. “That said, even in our first year of notill the soils travelled better – with better trafficability. Also, our establishment costs are the lowest they’ve ever been – with reduced diesel and machinery expenses.

“We’ve also now got a wider drilling window. We can drill a bit earlier or a bit later. And there’s a lot less stress. “Using no-till, we also conserve soil moisture and reduce soil erosion, but you also get the natural drainage you need through worm channels by minimising soil disturbance. If you plough, the seagulls eat the worms straightaway. In one field we min-tilled and cross-slot drilled, there were about 17 worms per unit area of soil. Where we ploughed we found 5 worms. And where we no-tilled for two years we found 27. “There are still areas that we need to mole drain, but soil structure is definitely better.

Anywhere that we need to subsoil we’ve done that,” he adds. In preparation for the no-till drill, straw is chopped and left on the surface and then drilled-into. Another benefit of the approach is that stubbles are left longer, which increases combine output, Andrew says. Organic matters are reasonable across the farm at 5-6%, he notes. “If you’re serious about conservation agriculture, you also have to encourage the soil mycorrhizae. I’d say the ability to minimise soil disturbance is key for mycorrhizae. They form fungal networks but are very fragile,” he adds. Allied to this, as well as changing tillage practices, 2013 was also the year that Andrew introduced cover crops as part of his move to conservation agriculture, planted directly behind the combine. 

“We started with various mixes. I think they are an integral part. Keeping green cover or living roots in the soil for as long as possible in the calendar year is the name of the game. Cover crops also stop surface compaction as they decay. “We’re going increasingly to diverse cropping anyway because of blackgrass. We started with 60 ha of spring cropping, we’re now at 275 ha.

“In spring 2016, I also noticed that where we had cover crops and sprayed them off with glyphosate four weeks prior to drilling, the material on the surface helped retain soil temperature and moisture because the soil wasn’t exposed to drying winds.” Having transitioned through the experience, Andrew reckons the biggest issue with the move to no-till was the change in mindset that was needed, but he needs no convincing of its benefits. “I feel we are more sustainable for the long term. Brexit will have a huge effect on agriculture, and we are gearing our cost of production per tonne to be lower.

“We’re also starting to see if we can reduce inputs such as nitrogen as we increase soil health, and we’re looking at putting humates on and using seaweed extracts. No-till hasn’t been a magic bullet against blackgrass, but there have been some gains,” he says.

ProCam offers agronomy help and trials

Making the move to conservation farming can be very much a learning process. For a number of years, and during the conversion, Bromborough has been working with leading agronomy firm ProCam. As well as providing strategic agronomy advice and a range of chemical inputs, the company also carries out soil and tissue tests and has been heavily involved with the estate in conducting conservation agriculture-based trials. “I’m pleased to see them involved in conservation agriculture,” Andrew explains. “I’m there as a sounding board,” agrees ProCam agronomist Richard Rawlings, who has a strong, personal interest in the whole approach. “We are another head in the decision-making process when it comes to talking dose rates for various inputs and discussing things like whether to apply fungicides, and we provide a helping hand in crop nutrition. Plus, we’re working closely with the estate in at least three significant areas of trials.

“We’ve done a lot of trial work in a direct drilled situation with herbicides and blackgrass control. We found that we can control blackgrass in direct-drilled crops quite well, but have noticed some issues with brome. So we’re now looking at trials to control this without compromising the blackgrass control. “This season, we’re also about to start a medium-term, two year project looking at planting a companion crop of clover with wheat, spelt and spring wheat at different times – to gauge the response to the nitrogen fixed by the clover and the uptake of nitrogen, as well as the level of crop competition that the clover provides.

“In 2018, working with the company PlantWorks, we have also tried one of their soil-applied bacterial products to see if it would improve nutrient uptake. The theory is that bacteria in the soil interact with the roots to improve initial uptake of nutrients during the early stages of plant development. We’re awaiting the final analysis of the results.”

“We’re finding by adopting even some small changes, we can make a clear difference,” he concludes. Growers wishing to find out more about how ProCam can help with conservation agriculture techniques can contact richardrawlings@procam.co.uk

Report by Chris Fellows, Direct Driller Magazine

Recognising an interest in reducing soil movement, AHDB has picked a new Monitor Farm that predominately uses a system of reduced tillage. The 4th July was the first event held at Rick Davies’ Newton Lodge Farm. It was a great chance for us to get to know Rick and understand how he farms at the moment and how he wants to move forward and change to meet the challenges of the future. The evening started with a brief introduction by Harry Henderson from AHDB. Held in one of Rick’s barns, Harry talked about why they had chosen this new Monitor Farm and why AHDB felt a Monitor Farm with a keen focus on cost control provides an interesting platform for local discussion.

Giving the growing relevance of direct drilling and soil health in the UK and the fact that Defra and Michel Gove himself are keen to promote (and maybe even push) the benefits of no-till practices then it’s interesting that this Monitor Farm joins a long line of Monitor Farms that have abandoned the plough. Therefore, the level of direct drilling representation at a Monitor Farm level is growing all they time just as overall interest in the practice grows. 

The important thing Harry stressed is that a Monitor Farm isn’t a demonstration farm, it is chosen as an example of a typical commercial farming business.

Harry also introduced AHDB’s Farmbench. Farmers can use Farmbench to better understand their cost of production. It allows them to compare their farm figures and performance against other growers in the local area and region. It is a confidential system that allows farmers to anonymously share information and by being able to talk to each other at meetings, learn from each other to find out where different systems can cut overheads. We will be discussing this topic of costings a lot in Direct Driller over the next few issues, as it is often so difficult to compare farms that are using conventional tillage to those using no-till and so often the benefits described have been anecdotal.

Harry presented a summary of Harvest 2017 Winter Wheat Group 4 figures, with a full economic cost of production per ton ranging from an average of £103.60 for the top 25% through to a average of £155.90 for the bottom 25%. The full breakdown of these figures is in Table 1.

Given the average sale price of Group 4 Wheats over the past 5 years, then some farms would be struggling to make a profit based on these figures. Harry then handed over to Rick, who talked about his farm. Rick is 4th generation and the family have been farming in Clifton Reynes since 1926. It’s predominantly an arable enterprise, with 404 ha farmed which is a mixture of owned and FBT. As with all farms, they have also diversified in several ways to help pay the bills. At Newton Farm they also have 14 office units, 4 industrial units, 52 Container Storage units and a Turf Sales and distribution business.

The big battle Rick is fighting is against black-grass. He even uses a plough (there we said it) as the “reset button”, should he think he has lost the battle in any given field. However even that doesn’t solve the problem, it just buries it and allows you to start afresh.

He’s using a different rotation in the fields that have a black-grass problem in conjunction with manual rogueing midseason. However, rogueing, comes a significant labour cost even though he does some of it himself. But it is one of the most effective ways to control black-grass. Rick told us that he is happy with the way he farms, but feels there are significant improvements that can be made to both the way he farms and to the profitability of his business. This was one of the main reasons he wanted to become a Monitor Farm. To open himself up to criticism and bring in ideas from other farmers. It’s a brave thing to do, when you know you aren’t perfect as there are always ways to improve and to put the way you farm on display for the world to see means everyone gets a “warts and all“ view. However, if you want to improve your business, then bringing in outside ideas is the best way to do it. 

Rotations

In the fields that are black-grass free the rotation is: Winter Wheat, Winter Wheat, Spring Barley, OSR. In the fields with black-grass the rotation is: Wheat, Spring Barley, Spring Barley, OSR. These feel too tight for me and in the long term will struggle to be sustainable. I would expect that more beans and oats would need to be used in the future if Rick is to progress in his no-till development. He uses a Claydon 4.8 m drill for his drilling, rake and using a 12m Cambridge rolls to achieve a suitable seedbed.

For first winter wheat he will Dyna-drive, then drill with the Claydon, rake and roll. For second Winter wheat, he drills with the Claydon, rakes and then ring rolls. For the Spring Barley, Rick will Dyna Drive in the autumn, then drill with the Claydon, rake and roll. Oil Seed Rape he just uses the Claydon and then ring rolls. Rick will also Flat-lift where required at OSR and second Winter Wheats. The thing that did surprise me was that Rick wasn’t using cover crops at all and he admitted it was an area where he didn’t have a lot of expertise. It would certainly help with organic matter levels and given he uses the Dyna-drive in the autumn anyway prior to Spring Barley then he could seed at the same time and not involve an additional pass.

Machinery

In terms of the machinery Rick is currently using on the Farm. They are as follows: 4.8m Claydon (2011). Then in no particular order he has: John Deere 7530 – 4250 (2008), John Deere 6620 – 6950 hours (2006), John Deere 6430 – 2100 hours (2012), Massey 3085 – 6900 Hours (1995), Case 1494 – 5700 hours (1984), Massey 7380 25ft – 1100 Hours (2013), Manitou 9m Telehandler – 7100 hours (1998), Amazone 24m Mounter 2800lt (2012), 3m Dynadrive (2015), low-disturbance flat-lift 2.4m (2018), Claydon 7.5m Rake (2012), 12m Twose Rolls (2000), 6 Furrow KV (1998), 8m Spring Tines (1995), 4m SKH Crumbler (1990), Rabe 4m Powerharrow (1985), KV 24m Spinner (2013), JCB 3CX – 5500 Hours (2002), 2 x Baileys 14T and a Warwick 16T. 

Direct drilling is known to have a lower horsepower requirement. The 2006 John Deere has depreciated well. The reality is that this is still a lot of machinery for a no-till farm to have, but given the machine ages you could also say there in no harm in keeping them as they have very low depreciation.

Soil Pit

The first stop on the farm tour was the soil pit with Dr Jackie Stroud or Rothamsted and Ian Robertson of Sustainable Soil Management. The pit had been dug on the edge of a field adjacent to the river on part of the flood plain. As you would expect, even in the dry summer we had, the moisture levels were still good. The crops looked excellent at this location and Rick estimated that this part of the field would yield 12t plus per hectare. However, you could see a line in the field where the crops became drought stressed as the land raised up from the flood plain. So the field average was not going to be this high and he hoped it would yield just under 10 for the whole field. Rick explained that over the wet winter we had, although the land had flooded, it had not done so for extensive periods of time. Jackie explained the importance of worm activity in the soil and found some example for us to see and how reduced levels of tillage encouraged worm activity.  

Ian went on to explain about root structure in reduced tillage situations and how the crops were able to better access moisture in the soils. These crops had roots going down 4ft into the soil and they were still green and growing well. With 6 weeks to go until harvest it is possible that the crops in this location never became drought stressed at all and will have excellent yield potential. Just one of the benefits of farming on a flood plain.

Farm Tour

Rick took us around a number of fields, given some fields were on a flood plain, there were vast differences in the crops. Drought stress had meant that some were really struggling. We stopped at some of the better OSR with Rick saying why he felt this field had done better than the fields by the entrance that we all drove past on the way in. By Rick’s own admission, he certainly isn’t proud of some of his crops this year, but given the weather conditions, it looked like he was still going to get good yields overall, but nothing ground breaking on average.

It will be good to get an update from Rick in the future on what his yields were and how much they were down on 2017. It has been theorised that no-till farms wheat will yield closer to average figures than conventional tillage farms in a year that has had limited rainfall. Hopefully we will have more data on this in the coming issues. This year Rick explained that he was growing 242 Ha of Milling Wheat (Crusoe, Skyfall, Gallant and Zyatt), 55 Ha of Oil Seed Rape (V316, Campus and Elgar), 64 Ha of Spring Barley (Explorer), 17Ha grass and 26 Ha of margins, mid-tier and tracks.

Cost of Establishment

Looking specifically at the cost of establishment, which for many is the key driver to a move to a reduced tillage system, Rick was able to share a number of figures. The figures themselves had come from Labour and Machinery reviews being conducted by Strutt & Parker across the Monitor Farms. What can be seen from these figures is that there is clearly room for Rick to reduce his cost of establishment further. On a no-till farm you could see fuel usage as low as 3-4 litres per hectare. And with this reduced fuel cost, comes reduced repair and labour costs.

Having said this, the review showed that Rick had one of the two lowest wheat operational costs, with the other lowest cost producer also direct drilling. However, in general, they said there wasn’t a significant correlation between establishment strategy and labour/ machinery costs. Some of the cheapest producers were still using the plough in the rotation. The reviews recognized that this is because these producers had lower labour, depreciation and repair costs, and therefore the type of cultivation or increased fuel usage made less of a difference.

Taking into account all farms, when investigating a farm’s machinery costs. The labour and machinery reviews found that on average 26% was fuel, 35% was depreciation and 19% was repairs. Therefore, if a grower was adopting a mixed cultivation strategy and running well-maintained 2nd hand machines and implements it could still be as competitive as a direct drilling farm, despite the higher fuel costs. As always, it is so difficult to compare like for like in these situations, but it doesn’t seem that there was a lot of no-till farm data in the mix here.

The Evening BBQ

The evening ended enjoying the summer whilst having a BBQ and chatting to the other farmers who had turned up from the local area to find out more at the Monitor Farm event. The number of farmers attending is a testament to the Monitor Farm programme and the part it plays in helping farmers learn from each other. My lasting impression was of Rick’s eagerness to keep learning and keep improving the way he farmed. He recognised that he still had his fair share of problems and having made the big leap to massively reduce the amount of ploughing, he now could make further changes to improve his profitability.

Future meeting dates at the Northampton Monitor Farm:

27th November 2018, 18th December 2018, 22nd January 2019 and 13th February 2019. For further information, please visit: cereals.ahdb.org.uk/Northampton or contact Harry Henderson on harry.henderson@ahdb.org.uk.

Written by Harry Henderson of the AHDB, August 2018

Take a look at the European Conservation Agriculture Federation website and you’ll see Finland has the highest percentage of arable cropping in a no-till system in Europe – 13 per cent (the UK stands at 8 per cent). While you can understand dry-land countries, such as Brazil and Argentina, moving almost completely to a no-till system, why would a country where the southern tip is at the same latitude as the Shetland islands (and, presumably, a maritime climate similar to Scotland) have the greatest uptake of no-till cereal production in Europe?

It seemed the only way to find out was to stand in a field with a Finnish farmer and hear for ourselves. So in late May, bags packed, I flew to Helsinki with our strategic director Martin Grantley-Smith. First things first is day length. We landed at midnight. Although the sun had set, it was still reasonably light. By the time we got the hotel at 1am, it was already getting lighter. More on day length later… Some facts on Finland

• There were a total of 48,562 agricultural and horticultural enterprises in Finland in 2017. The number of farms dropped by approximately 1,000 on the year 2016.

• The average utilised agricultural area of the farms was 47 hectares.

• The average age of farmers on privately owned farms was 52 years.

• About 86 per cent of farms were family run farms and nine per cent were farming syndicates, less than three per cent were heirs, and less than two per cent were limited companies.

• Approximately 9 per cent of all farmers on privately owned farms are under the age of 35 and 27 per cent are over the age of 60

• Nearly 70 per cent of farms have plant production as their primary production line, and nearly 30 per cent of farms are classified as livestock farms. The rest of Finnish farms are mixed farms, with no clear primary production line

Look at the yield figures and profitability of Finnish farming and you soon get the sense that things are fairly tough. Yields, in particular, are poor.

The perception is that long summer days, 22 to 23 hours of sunlight at high summer, is good for plant growth and yield. But due to the cold, deep winters – where the sun rises at 9:30am and sets at just after 3pm, giving just under 6 hours daylight at the shortest day – the stress on the plant with the advancing spring is just too much to produce yield. For both winter and spring sown crops. This limits yield and with costs being similar or more than in the UK, income from growing cereals in Finland is hard to come by. Looking at the chart below, costs of growing a cereal crop have hovered around the 1350 to 1400 Euro per hectare mark. Divide this cost by an optimistic yield of 5.5 tons/ha of winter wheat brings a cost per ton of 255 Euros. With reducing EU support in recent years, this has made farming a financially tight business, if not a lossmaking activity.

With this, Finnish farmers have done two things. Cut costs to the bone and gone out and got a second job. A few farmers have taken on neighbouring land but an iron grip on costs still prevail, getting bigger does not mean bigger tractors for all, it means longer hours in the same tractor, double shifting with the wife in the peak time of spring.

After hearing this, it dawns on you that no-till is not a choice, it’s a necessity. Allowing compaction to creep into your soils and going out and correcting it mechanically is just not affordable. Finnish farmers had heard of the British love of recreational cultivations and smiled at us sweetly. Looking at no-till in Finland, they run a finely tuned system – all cost driven. The rotation is long, often containing winter wheat, faba beans, caraway seed, spring barley, oilseed rape and a small amount of set-a-side. Finland is, in fact, the world’s largest exporter of caraway seed, a semi-permanent crop that is combined for seed for several years and is a good addition to the gross margin.

The tractors are, for all field work, fitted with dual wheels all-round and are light high power-to-weight ratio 100hp to 140hp machines, nothing above 200hp at all. Unsurprisingly, the most common make is the home-built Valtra, built 190 miles North of Helsinki at Suolahti. The drills are also supplied domestically, either by Tume or Multiva. They are simple box drills, capable of handling seed and fertiliser and, importantly, able to work in a ploughbased seedbed or no-till. Both are discbased with attention paid to seed-depth control (essential for working in a range of conditions and soil types) supplied by rubber-tired depth wheels running close to the seeding disc. While a six-meter version is available, the vast majority are either three- or four-meter.

The thinking here is that if you limit the size of the drill, you don’t need a big tractor with a high traction requirement and so limit the chance of any compaction getting into you soils. Did I mention that compaction is absolutely avoided? Need more capacity? Have to be gettingon and not messing about with tiny drills? Get your neighbour in with their drill, set up a double shift and just get on with it! Finnish farmers were keen to get across that the hectares can be covered, if you keep the drill running. The drill was simply built to keep costs down, they doubted that air-seeders gave a justifiable improvement in seed placement and, while quite aware of precision farming, Finnish farmers just couldn’t see the cost benefit, preferring to focus on good farming practice. Having said all that, there’s a little twist. The Finnish government financially supports no-till farming.

Yup. I’ve said it now. You may well think; ‘well no wonder they are so keen’ but to be fair there is a good reason. I’ve mentioned the cold winters. After Christmas, temperatures regularly get to -20 Celsius and rarely get above freezing for two to three months. That can freeze the ground to a depth of 50cm. Permanent snow cover starts typically after Christmas in the Southwestern corner, but before mid-November in most of Lapland. The maximum snow depth is usually found around March.

Snowmelt contributes to spring floods. In the north, the peak flow of rivers always happens in spring; in the south 70 to 80 per cent of floods happen in spring. In the south, maximum flow happens in mid-April, in the north, in mid-May. And it’s this high risk in saturated fields with the huge potential of nutrient run-off, especially phosphate and topsoil loss, that leads the Finnish Government to pay farmers not to create a tilth that is more vulnerable to soil loss.

The Finnish farmer receives 30 to 40 euros per hectare each year for every field drilled, and/or left undisturbed. So. Key learnings to take home from Finland:

1. Compaction. Compaction. Learn to avoid it, rather than buy something to remove it. This is going to be tough for UK tractors adorned with ever-increasing sizes on weight boxes up front. 

2. Rotation. Rotation. A long rotation and plenty of spring crops feature here. No time in the Finnish growing season for cover crops. All crop residue is left on the soil surface, as much as possible.

3. Farmer mind-set. If you expect no-till to fail, it will. The key component is the person in the tractor seat. If the attitude is not right, forget it – it’s not for you.

4. Be flexible. Finnish no-till farming is driven by economics, not fashion or religion. Most farms own a plough (they have a low resale value so it’s not worth selling) and will use it if needed. Also, if weather has delayed drilling, they are happy to use a light spring tine cultivator to open up the soil a little and drill.

5. Small machinery. Did I mention compaction? Less weight, more units, more hours in the seat (when the land demands it). So, 24-hour running is not unheard of at peak times. Time is short, summer is coming and while long days help, the season is short.

AHDB

Soil Health

Farmers and growers are concerned about the current health of their soils. Most farmers and growers understand the importance of soil health for the productivity, sustainability and profitability of their business, but many face significant challenges when interpreting results from the laboratory analysis or when choosing suitable methods for assessing the health of their soils beyond the standard pH, phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg) analysis.

To be of value to farmers and growers, methods for soil assessment should not only measure soil health, but should also provide information that can be used to inform decision making in relation to soil management. This AHDB information sheet provides an overview of the various methods currently available. 

Indicators of Soil Health

The functioning of soil depends upon a complex interaction between organisms large and small, chemical reactions in solution and on the surface of clay particles, within a structure determined by natural processes and modified by soil management. A broad range of appropriate indicators of soil health are therefore needed to evaluate the effects and sustainability of agricultural practices. The most commonly agreed and used indicators can be grouped in the three categories of (1) biological, (2) chemical and (3) physical parameters.

Assessment methods

During a series of grower consultations in autumn 2015, regional grower groups in Great Britain discussed different approaches to soil assessment, what methods they found useful and reasons why other are not very commonly used. They were asked to rate a list of categorised soil assessment methods, and the results can be seen here.

Soil assessment tests evaluated and rated by growers

I If you think of soil health, the best place to start is with ecosystem engineers – earthworms. The results from the spring pilot farmland earthworm survey indicated that turning over a spadeful of soil in any field, and you are highly likely to find at least one earthworm.

There are 3 types of worms that make up the earthworm community in farmland soils, the first type are the small (often matchstick sized) red worms ‘surface’ worms that live in the surface of the soil, feeding on surface litter or organic amendments like muck, and are a good source of prey for native wildlife.

The second type are the pale worms that live in the topsoil – ‘ topsoil’ worms, horizontally burrowers that mix and aggregate the soil together, mobilising nutrients for plant uptake. The third group are the large drainage worms or ‘deep burrowing’ type, distinctive by being pigmented and often the size of a pencil, which make deep (up to 2m) vertical burrows, supporting deep crop rooting and water infiltration.

The surface worms and drainage worms are vulnerable to soil management, becoming rare or even locally extinct in over-worked farmland soils. The Spring survey indicated that 48 % of fields had no sightings of at least one of these earthworm types – with implications to soil structure and wider ecosystem services. If there is no evidence for basic earthworm biodiversity infield, this is an early warning sign of potential over-cultivation (intense, frequent tillage) or under-fed (no organic matter return) soils, that may benefit from a change in soil management practices (for example, reducing tillage intensity, cover cropping or application of organic matter).

The pilot worm survey went well (>1300 ha was surveyed by farmers around the country) with farmers recording the quality (types of worms present) and quantity (counting the total number of worms present) of earthworms in their fields. In terms of quantity, the average was 9 worms per 20cm3 soil pit, high numbers of worms (>16 worms per pit) were rare although the top fields could support 27 worms per soil pit.

The feedback from the participants was to shorten the protocol to enable more within and between field comparisons, and the data analysis and statistics indicated this was robust – leading to the new #30minworms survey, which involves digging 5 soil pits across the field. Participants also wanted more support in earthworm identification, so the new survey booklet provides more detailed pictures, and there are online resources including an earthworm identification tutorial quiz and YouTube demonstration. 

When to sample? Autumn or Spring are the best times for earthworm assessments, the #30minworms survey will run between the 15th September to the 30th October, with full details, method support and the survey booklet available at www.wormscience.org.

#30M WORMS METHOD

Equipment 

• Spade & ruler 

• Mat 

• Pot for worms 

• Bottle water 

• Booklet & pen  

Procedure

5 soil pits per field using standard W shape field sampling

1. Dig out a 20 cm x 20 cm x 20 cm soil pit and place soil on mat (30 sec)

2. Hand-sort soil (5-minutes), placing each whole earthworm into the pot. Note if pencil size vertical burrows are present and tick/cross on the results sheet

3. Count the total number (adults and juveniles) of earthworms and write down

4. Separate earthworms into adults (only a few) and return juveniles to soil pit. May need to rinse worms with water to detect if a saddle is present

5. Count the numbers of each type of adult earthworm (key shown) and write down.

6. Return worms to soil pit and back fill with soil

7. Check the soil surface for the presence of middens (key shown)

8. Repeat steps 1 – 7, until 5 soil pits per field have been assessed

9. Please input your data at www. wormscience.org for results analysis

ID Step 1 of 2:

Separate Adult vs Juveniles Only adults have a saddle or belt (worm at top of each picture)

ID Step 2 of 2:

Practice your ID skills on the worm ID quiz at www.wormscience.org

Type 1: Surface worms e.g. Lumbricus castaneus, Lumbricus rubellus Small (matchstick) size <8 cm when not moving Red bodied worm. They breakdown surface litter and good food source for native birds.

Type 2: Topsoil worms e.g. Aporrectodea caliginosa, Allolobophora chlorotica Small – Medium size Pale worms: grey, pink or dark green colour. They mix soil & mobilise nutrients for plant uptake, supporting crop productivity.

Type 3: Deep burrowers e.g. Lumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea longa Large (pencil) size Heavily pigmented (red or black headed earthworms). They are the ‘drainage’ worms – can form 2m vertical burrows, helping with water infiltration and deep plant rooting.

Deep burrowing earthworm presence

Deep burrowers may not be captured in the topsoil so look out for these indicators of their presence and note down on the data table:

1. Pencil size vertical burrow

2. Surface permanent burrows

60M WORMS OUTCOME

FROM THE SPRING 2018 EARTHWORM SURVEY

Written by Jackie Stroud, Rothamsted

Earthworms are primary candidates for national soil health monitoring as they are ecosystem engineers that benefit both food production and ecosystem services associated with soil security. Supporting farmers to monitor soil health could help to achieve the policy aspiration of sustainable soils by 2030 in England; however, little is known about how to overcome participation barriers, appropriate methodologies (practical, cost-effective, usefulness) or training needs. This paper presents the results from a pilot #60minworms study which mobilised farmers to assess over >1300 ha farmland soils in spring 2018.

The results interpretation framework is based on the presence of earthworms from each of the three ecological groups at each observation (20cm3 pit) and spatially across a field (10 soil pits). Results showed that most fields have basic earthworm biodiversity, but 42 % fields may be at risk of over-cultivation as indicated by absence/rarity of epigeic and/or anecic earthworms; and earthworm counting is not a reliable indicator of earthworm biodiversity. Tillage had a negative impact (p < 0.05) on earthworm populations and organic matter management did not mitigate tillage impacts. In terms of farmer participation, Twitter and Farmers Weekly magazine were highly effective channels for recruitment.

Direct feedback from participants included excellent scores in trust, value and satisfaction of the protocol (e.g. 100 % would do the test again) and 57 % would use their worm survey results to change their soil management practices. A key training need in terms of earthworm identification skills was reported. The trade-off between data quality, participation rates and fieldwork costs suggests there is potential to streamline the protocol further to #30minuteworms (5 pits), incurring farmer fieldwork costs of approximately £1.48 ha-1. At national scales, £14 million pounds across 4.7 M ha-1 in fieldwork costs per survey could be saved by farmer participation.