If you would like a printed copy of any of our back issues, then they can be purchased on Farm Marketplace. You can also download the PDFs or read online from links below.
-
How To Start Drilling For £8K
Clive Bailye’s seed drill of choice is his 6m John Deere 750A , which has been used exclusively for 3-4 seasons. Last year, with an increased acreage, the founder and publisher of this Direct Driller magazine thought a second seed drill was necessary. Having just the one machine was a risk and in a difficult season would mean drilling was delayed. He looked around and found a good condition Horsch CO6 tine drill advertised in Germany.
Words and pictures by Mike Donovan
After delivery he rebuilt the coulters to a narrow profile so as to reduce soil disturbance. He says the tine drill is very useful driling after straw crops such as osr and also through the straw on second crop cereals.
Buying the drill from a German farmer was not particularly complicated, and provided him with a higher spec machine than Horsh sell in the UK. The seed dart tyres are much wider, and the machine is fitted with blockage monitors as well as full width front packers and also a liquid fert application system.
A sheaf of photos were taken, and Clive then asked for some of specific parts to show wear. The deal was done at under £5,000 which Clive says is the market value of these machines which are too large for small farmers to buy. Original owners like to buy new and sell when the machine is still in good condition.
Narrow tines with wear tiles
@Clive knew he wanted to make changes, substituting the Horsch tines and coulters for something far narrower, and has ended up getting his own design of tine made, which has a wear tile made from Ferobide, far harder than tungsten. The drill is on the farm primarily for osr and 2nd crop cereals drilled into chopped straw and the 25cm spacing is okay for these crops.
Comments on Clive’s on-line forum, TFF, said the drill many not be so good with beans, as the slot is a mere 12mm wide. And in barley the spacing may well be too wide as it needs to be thick. Clive points out that the seed pipe can actually be a bit wider than 12mm as it is in the shadow of the point. It would be good to have the option of using it for beans.
Above left: The cheap CO6 is being calibrated ready for its first outing
Above right: The adapted Horsch is being filled by the home built drill logistics trailer with seed and liquid starter fert.
Getting around the German instructions
The Horsch came, of course, with a control box and instructions in German. More on-line discussion revealed that English instructions were available on the Horsch website, and another explained that Horsch was sourcing some of these parts from Agton in Canada anyway. Zealman from New Zealand explained that the button marked with callipers should be held down for around 5 seconds. The menu is where you adjust the tramline sequence, valve layout and row numbers.
Ball hitch is a continental standard and provides a positive connection between tractor and drill
The Stocks Wizard has a rotor modified for Avadex which otherwise leaks everywhere
A Stocks Wizard is on the back of the drill and used for Avadex. Here again the knowledge of actual farmers is helpful. Alistair Nelson warned that the rotor and the surrounding shroud need to be changed, and he got good advice “from Rick at Stocks”. Clive has the same setup on the 750A and says that the Avadex leaks everywhere unless the modification is made. The drill was acquired and modified in 2016 and the results have been excellent.
The machine went through the residue without many problems and having the second drill has meant more timely planting. Clive has shown that moving into No-Till is not the expensive exercise so many farmers think it might be. The total cost, after modifications which included replacing all tines and coulters, was under £8,000.
Author Mike Donovan writes: we have featured a number of home made direct drills in @Practical Farm Ideas, and are always interested in seeing more. Please contact mike editor@farmideas.co.uk or 07778877514.
-
BASE UK at Cereals 2024
We are the premier organisation, dedicated to promoting independent, farmer led, regenerative agricultural knowledge across the UK.
Our mission is to enhance soil health, increase biodiversity, and support businesses by embracing sustainable farming practices that benefit both farmers and the environment.
After many months of preparation, the Direct Driller @Cereals event was a great success due to the knowledge and expertise shared by the speakers provided by BASE-UK. These speakers comprised mainly of our own members, and we are immensely grateful to them for their time and effort. It gave visitors the opportunity to meet and network with those who have experience in the field – literally!
Left to right: Edwin Taylor, Chairman of BASE-UK with panellists: Elliot Taylor; Martin Lines, and Georgina Bray discussing SFI. At the time of writing, our next event will be Groundswell where, once again, several of our members will be involved in panel discussions and talks in and around the event.
It is such a pleasure to see them doing what they joined BASE-UK to do – exchange knowledge on regenerative agriculture!
We still have some BASE-UK farm walks coming up before harvest and a visit to Agrovista’s Project Lamport on 1st July.
Frederic Thomas joins us for member meetings in Scotland and the north of England – 1st and 3rd July. We will also be attending the Arable Scotland show hosted by the James Hutton Institute on 2nd July.
On 17th and 18th July, we will be at GO Falkland where once again, our members will be involved in talks and on our stand. Look out for our gazebo and the butterfly!
The Committee are working hard to arrange various events, webinars and farm walks for the autumn calendar as well as the agenda for our annual conference.
Save the date – 12th and 13th February 2025 – Annual Conference will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Newcastle.
The benefits associated with being a BASE-UK member, include access to exclusive events, networking opportunities, educational resources, and updates on the latest in conservation/regenerative agriculture.
For more information about how to join visit our website www.base-uk.co.uk or scan the QR code.
-
Farmer Focus – Elle Seville
Registered Animal Medicines Advisor & Agricultural Sales Specialist at StowAg
I’m not from an agricultural background, but I’ve always lived in the countryside and I grew up with a small holding. My sister and I started breeding bantams and we had a small herd of goats which got me hooked! I spent years helping everywhere that I could, gaining experience and decided agriculture was where I wanted to be. Since then, I’ve worked in the Dairy industry; milking, young stock rearing and as a general herdswoman. I have extensive experience lambing flocks across a variety of sheep systems, both intensive commercial systems and more specialised pedigree systems. Nowadays, I help with our sheep and arable farm at home. I think having come into the agricultural industry through choice, rather than through birthright, it has allowed me to see from a multitude of perspectives and be able to now advise clients on both successful and less successful farming methods from outsiders perspective.
The phasing out of the RPA BPS payments has left a bitter taste amongst a lot of farming families. This is because, when the industries markets were so volatile, the payments were often relied upon heavily to help them to see a way through. The delinked payments and the removal of BPS has certainly made these businesses tighten their belts and really focus on minimising waste on farm. The future of subsidies on farm looks to be heading in a direction that focuses on sustainability, rather than safeguarding traditional agricultural practices. Whilst this may not necessarily be a bad thing; I think it needs to be done in a realistic and achievable way that doesn’t push already struggling businesses to the brink.
I believe that the SFI scheme has the potential to bring a lot of good to farming businesses that perhaps have land that they previously struggled to make pay for one reason or another, however I do worry that it may be seen as a more attractive option to farmers that are already struggling and drive livestock numbers even lower, meaning the small independent family farms may struggle to remain afloat from a livestock only perspective.
Information needs to be readily accessible and in a clear and understandable format for any agricultural business that is interested in the SFI scheme to allow them to make informed and correct choices that will be beneficial to them. Over the years, there has been a wide variety of schemes and grants available, but a lot of farmers that I’ve spoken to have struggled to understand the routes that they need to take, so they just avoid them altogether. It’s about making sure everybody is able to access the support they need in making the decisions to push their businesses forward in a sustainable and profitable way for them as an individual business.
I am an Farming Community Network (FCN) volunteer in Leicestershire which often provides an insight into what is going on behind the farm gates and allows me to gain a more empathetic perspective towards the industries workforce. The past few years have been particularly difficult on farming families with a much heavier emphasis being put on mental health within agriculture, than ever before. I’ve really noticed across the past 18 months that the focus point within the industry has changed. People are no longer struggling in silence and the often-standard practise of ‘just muddling on’ is coming to an end. Certain television shows (I wont be specific but we can all take a guess) are helping with this attitude shift from the general public towards farmers, with a new focus being placed on breaking down the stigma around the red tape, rules and sheer amount of push back that farmers face within the agricultural industry. I think this shift is definitely bringing about a much-needed change in the way that we support each other within the industry, but also it is shining more light on the often-misunderstood grants and payments made to farmers; something that the general public do struggle to understand.
I feel that the most important take home from the SFI is that if it fits and supplements your business in a positive way and allows your business to continue to grow alongside the farming practices that you currently do, fantastic! It is just important, as it is with any business decision, to look at every angle and outcome.
-
Water Focus – Affinity Water
Planting the seeds of tomorrow: Agroforestry project
Affinity Water has been working with local farmer, Tom Janaway, to explore how agroforestry can enhance soil health, crop productivity and the water environment. Direct Driller, delves into the project and what this means for the farm’s future.
In the UK, catchment areas are predominantly agricultural land, making partnerships between water companies like Affinity Water and farmers crucial for preserving vital resources such as water and soil.
Agroforestry is a solution for enhancing soil health and Affinity Water is exploring this more as a way of increasing catchment resilience, reducing soil erosion and fixing excess nitrate in soils which can potentially impact groundwater quality.
To take this further, Tom Janaway of Anne Janaway & Sons at Ford Farm received grant funding through Affinity Water’s Soil and Water Innovation Fund to plant an agroforestry system across 30 hectares.
Agroforestry projectMr Janaway manages the family farm with his brother and mother. The 350-hectare arable farm is in the Loddon catchment, near Basingstoke, Hampshire.
The farm’s crop rotation includes wheat, oilseed rape (OSR), spring barley and more recently intercropping oats and winter beans. Despite their extensive farming experience, the farm has faced increasing challenges related to climate change, prompting them to explore agroforestry.
Mr Janaway explains how agroforestry, the integration of trees and shrubs into crop and livestock systems, offers multiple benefits, such as improving soil health, enhancing biodiversity and providing additional income streams.
He says: “My primary motivation for implementing this project was to ensure the farm’s productivity for my children’s future.”
The project involves planting trees in a 30-hectare field with relatively light chalky soil.
“The field chosen is perfect for agroforestry because it’s vulnerable to variable weather conditions because it doesn’t hold moisture well. The field also runs north-south, ensuring optimal sunlight exposure for the trees,” he says.
“We planted walnut trees at 39-meter intervals, matching our sprayer’s width and to minimise land losses, have included three-meter-wide nectar strips underneath the trees to act as buffer strips. This helps maximise productivity and increases biodiversity at the same time.”
To select the varieties and ensure they were the best for the farm, Mr Janaway worked with professionals.
“By reaching out to horticulture professionals to understand different walnut varieties, I was able to get a better idea as to which ones would work better on the farm.
“I attended a course on growing English walnuts for profit, which also helped me choose the right varieties.”
Walnut trees were chosen for their commercial potential and suitability for the soil and the varieties selected were: Lara, Chandler and Fernette.
Lara is an ancient French variety known for its high-quality nuts, Chandler is a high-yielding California variety and Fernette has good pollination compatibility.
The walnuts are currently being grown alongside spring barley and to ensure the trees do not negatively impact the yield and quality of the crop, root pruning is a critical aspect of the project.
“By using a deep-leg cultivator, we ensure that the tree roots grow downward before spreading out, preventing competition with the crops for nutrients and moisture,” he says.
Although still in the early stages of the project, Mr Janaway remains committed to its success. The next steps involve monitoring tree growth, managing the crops and trees, and exploring markets for the walnuts when matured.
Mr Janaway adds: “I look forward to learning more about tree care, harvesting techniques, and potential markets. For example, I’m looking at if we can make walnut oil or supplying wholesalers with walnuts. “It’s a long-term investment, but I believe it’s worth it.”
Funding the project
Affinity Water is collaborating with farm businesses, like Anne Janaway & Sons, through their Soil and Water Innovation Fund, offering grants of up to £15,000 per business.This initiative provides financial support for farmers who wish to implement innovative ideas that improve soil health and resilience, which in turn has benefits for water quality and crop productivity.
Brandon Mayuga, Catchment Advisor at Affinity Water, explains why Affinity Water were interested in funding this project.
“As a catchment advisor, I believe we have an opportunity to provide farmers with support and advice on sustainable practices that can benefit their farm resilience and the environment,” he says.
“Agroforestry is estimated to have an output 20% higher than standard monocropped fields through ‘3D farming’, which involves layered farming with crops underneath and nut trees above.
“By farming this system, a significant range of benefits can be achieved.
“A key factor is a greater diversity of rooting behaviours, which not only improves soil structure at different depths, but also helps build soil organic matter which in turn aids carbon sequestration and greater water regulation.
“The trees can also act as windbreaks, protecting crops from wind erosion and reducing runoff, whilst their roots can also reduce waterlogging and flooding,” says Mr Mayuga.
Additionally, agroforestry can enhance crop quality and yields by improving microclimatic conditions and increase biodiversity by introducing multiple species to a monoculture.
Implementing agroforestry requires careful planning and investment, and by receiving a grant from Affinity Water, Mr Janaway explains how this has significantly eased the financial burden to implement the project quicker.
Mr Janaway says: “It was always a long-term plan to implement an agroforestry system on the farm due to the significant benefits it can bring. But by having the grant from Affinity Water it definitely helped with cash flow.”
The broader impact
Mr Mayuga adds: “This agroforestry project is a perfect example of how we want to work with farmers to implement ideas that are of mutual benefit.
“We are very excited to support Tom and look forward to hearing about his experience as the system matures.”
Affinity Water has been proactive in organising workshops and providing resources to farmers about their catchment schemes which are firmly focused on soil health. These workshops bring together experts from various fields to discuss grants, farming techniques and the science behind these practices.
“We recently had a successful agroforestry workshop in the River Loddon catchment in Hampshire, which saw significant attendance and interest.
“The inclusion of agroforestry in SFI is a positive step forward and we encourage farmers to explore the viability of this option,” he says.
Affinity Water at Groundswell
Affinity Water is the largest ‘water only’ company in the UK, serving over 3.8 million customers in the south-east of England.
Affinity Water will be the headline sponsor of Groundswell for seven years in a row, demonstrating their passion to achieve healthier soils and cleaner on farms to create a more resilient future.
They will be showcasing the results of their recent companion and cover cropping trials, innovation projects and wider agricultural schemes.
Delegates are encouraged to visit Affinity Water’s stand and speak to the team.
Farm Facts
Ford Farm, Basingstoke, England
- Name: Anne Janaway & Sons
- Farming: 350 ha arable farm
- Primarily producing wheat, oilseed rape (OSR), spring barley, spring oats and beans.
Affinity Water at Groundswell
- Next to the big top tent
- Rainfall simulator demonstrations – next to Affinity Water stand at 11am each day
- Soil scanner demonstrations to be held on the stand each day
- Free souvenir Groundswell re-usable water bottlesHosting Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust on stand
-
Embracing Agroforestry for Climate Resilience and Sustainability
As reflected upon in my last piece, climate change will inevitably drive adaptation in the farmed landscape. This will range from an appreciation that heavily tilled, late drilled arable crops pose an unacceptable risk of being caught out by a wet autumn/winter season in almost any region and circumstance, to farms in certain catchments taking the view that the system as a whole which they have successfully operated for generations is no longer viable with increasingly unstable meteorology. Indeed, it’s land at both ends of the soil texture spectrum – both heavier clays and lighter sands – which equally pose challenges for management going forward.
As any farmer knows (and despite the current cultural and academic zeitgeist that we need to see less of it because ‘ruminants’) pasture is, alongside forestry, the safest land use in terms of generalised climate resilience but also, importantly, soil health and protection – one of the key elements of regenerative agriculture. We also know that pasture has the potential to be the greatest land carbon sink in a temperate climate (with the exception of the now rare, wet peatland).
So when we’re looking to maintain agricultural production on land which is becoming increasingly marginal for intensive arable or horticultural cropping, whilst potentially making the most contribution to the economy’s net zero commitments, agroforestry – farming with trees and shrubs – is going to receive a lot more attention in the coming years. It’s worth noting, for example, that the recent SFI24 drop includes two new agroforestry maintenance options, while there are varied (though patchy) options currently available to help establish such a system via schemes such as the England Woodland Creation Offer (EWCO), the Woodland Trust and the National Forest.
Back in 2016, we established our own 5ha field-scale silvopasture (grazing with trees) experimental plot at the Allerton Project in partnership with the Woodland Trust. This was on the site of a field of permanent pasture, and we established some 2,800 trees in a range of densities from 100/ha to 1600/ha in a natural planting scheme with trees individually guarded. These trees were a mixture of native hardwood species:
- Aspen
- Bird cherry
- Wild cherry
- Crab apple
- Wild privet
- Field maple
- Hornbeam
- Small leaved lime
- Oak
- Silver birch
- Sweet chestnut
- Walnut
The aim has been to measure a range of datapoints across the field to identify (if possible) the sweet spot between agricultural production (in this case, of grass growth and sheep) and the natural capital benefits that are expected to accrue from such a land use. These include:
- Increased biodiversity & integrated pest management
- Carbon sequestration (in soil and biomass)
- Nutrient retention
- Water infiltration and retention
- Higher welfare from shelter
When we first planted this field up in 2016, the policy landscape was very different to that of today. In the brave new world of SFI/ELM, carbon crediting, nutrient neutrality, biodiversity net gain, natural flood management and green ‘ESG’ money, I am always at pains to point out to our farming visitors that there’s the potential for such land use to be amongst the most profitable on any farm in the coming years thanks to stacking. What’s more, there’s obviously the potential – in both silvopasture and silvoarable (arable with trees) systems – for fruit and nut trees to be utilised to add an additional income stream to the farm business (as is increasingly being seen on estates across the country). There’s even a greater potential for such things as agritourism.
However, we have learned many lessons from our experience. An initial aim was for the field to be maximised for agricultural production from day one, and we therefore grazed it with commercial mules from the start. Unfortunately, in combination with a series of hard droughts, tree grazing has been a significant challenge during establishment, while individually guarded trees are obviously completely unsuited to the grazing of cattle for many years. Personally, I would advocate (on higher density projects) for alley-cropping and fencing of the trees, even in silvopastoral schemes to avoid a lot of maintenance and replacement of trees, posts and guards – even if that does mean a larger percentage of the field area being taken out of production during the establishment period. (Indeed, we have a smaller 1ac silvopastoral orchard elsewhere on the estate which has thrived with each tree individually guarded with post and rail). We also later discovered that smaller, native breeds were less trouble for the trees.
However, this trial has been the instigation for other fascinating research opportunities which also point the way toward more sustainable production. Given the sheep’s proclivity for grazing our poor trees despite an abundance of grass, we wondered what the implications might be of integrating tannin-rich trees such as willow into the system. We coppiced willow from the estate and then fed it from the branch to test groups of fattening lambs versus a control. As has been demonstrated elsewhere, the tannins in the willow (even at low inclusion rates) were highly effective (up to 100%) for intestinal worm control. This clearly has implications for a reduction in the use of anthelmintics such as ivermectin, which have been shown to have a negative impact on dung beetle populations, and the subsequent nutrient cycling within grazed pasture systems.
But perhaps less well appreciated, we also measured the impact of willow inclusion for greenhouse gas emissions from our sheep, specifically nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions from their urine (alongside ammonia, an aerial pollutant). We can demonstrate that, over the two-week observation period, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by up to 20%, ammonia by up to 40% and nitrous oxide by up to 65%. (Other research would also suggest a significant reduction in belched methane emissions, but we don’t have the equipment to measure this). Our measured reductions stem from a more efficient uptake of protein in the digestion process and therefore reduced emissions from the urine.
Imagine a silvopastoral system (or grazed rotational options in a silvoarable system) where not only are there demonstrable and enhanced ecosystem services and carbon sequestration being carried out by the farmed landscape itself, but the environmental impact of the livestock themselves is also much reduced, simply by the expedient of judicious tree selection. At the same time, the welfare of the livestock would be better catered for by the shelter offered in a climate of increasing extremes.
We also found that the deep-rooted willow was capable of accessing micronutrients which were lacking in the more shallow-rooted ryegrass, in particular cobalt – a vital element of vitamin B12 production. In fact, we discovered that the lambs fed willow far and away outperformed those which received a cobalt drench when it came to B12 concentration in their blood!
Of course, those farms who can also find the bandwidth to market the produce from such ‘sustainable/regenerative’ systems direct to the consumer stand to gain the most from any such investment; as the market currently stands, there is little premium to had by taking our sheep down the local market. It also must be admitted that agroforestry is likely to be of little interest to a tenant on a 3-year FBT, while landowners might be justifiably nervous about permanent land use change and its impact on land values.
Yet agroforestry is a common land use type elsewhere in the world, for example around the Mediterranean where extremes of heat, especially, have been the norm throughout human history. Even here in the UK, it has been estimated that we have between 390,000 -550,000ha (99% of it silvopasture). Much of this is sparse parkland grazing, which is perhaps not formally associated by farmers with the term ‘agroforestry’, which in my experience can elicit an amount of suspicion if not hostility. In reality, agroforestry is a very broad concept, from grazed orchards to formal alley cropping, linear hedgerows to shelterbelts and riparian buffers. Although it may not suit every farm – and certainly not every field – there is doubtless an increasing place for it in a wide range of farm businesses.
-
Nitrogen and agriculture
Where do we stand?
• The development of synthetic nitrogen production allowed a boom in agricultural yields and population growth worldwide
• Whilst N is growth limiting it is regularly applied at levels where less than half is used by the plants, wasting input costs and causing the
excess to harm the environment
• Whilst N efficiency losses are damaging they conversely offer significant potential for improvements that could reduce agricultures costs
and overall emissions significantly
• Many technologies and practices exist that could work, on their own or in combination, to reduce N fertiliser need or improve use efficiency if used correctlyNitrogen (N) is an ever-present requirement and topic of discussion within agriculture. The availability of synthetic N, due to industrial production, shifted the feasibility and scale of agriculture worldwide and arguably enabled the dramatic boost in the global population following WWII. N is essential for plant production as it is required to make both amino acids (for proteins), nucleic acids (for DNA) and is used in the correct development and functioning of chlorophyll, thus being vital for photosynthesis. All this means that if N is lacking plants will grow slower have lower product yields and be more susceptible to attack, disease and death. Because of this, in most systems, we amend our agricultural soils to ensure plants can survive and thrive. However, despite innovation surrounding synthetic N use, we are becoming increasingly more aware of the problems of their inaccurate and excessive usage in the face of their commercial growth and yield benefits.
Costs of N
When we talk about the costs of N we don’t just mean sales of the fertiliser themselves, though this is a big factor for farmers, we also mean the broader implications such as the environmental and social ‘costs’. In the UK the costs for all major sources of N (including ammonium nitrate [AN], granular urea and liquid nitrogen [UAN]) have increased on average by around £486 per tonne over the last 4+ years, equating to an average 213% inflation.
This huge increase has put massive strains on farmers’ businesses towards balancing production and input costs. Worldwide figures have shown similarly increasing trends over the same periods (though figures here are inclusive of nonnitrogen-based fertilisers) with inflation of around 185%. On balance, the relative changes in the sales prices of the major grain crops wheat and maize have only seen an average 127% increase in value whilst crops like rice have seen 5-year reductions in value.
This suggests a significant imbalance between input costs to ensure yields and the output value of the food produced. Furthermore, as the production of N fertiliser is reliant on and closely related to fossil fuel processing, recent events, such as the conflict with Russia and Ukraine, have added to the uncertainty and inflated the costs of N. As noted there are also significant costs to the environment due to the use of synthetic N amendments, with these fertilisers accounting for more than 10% of all the direct agricultural emissions worldwide or around 2.5% of the total global emissions. Figures suggest that just over a third of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with N fertiliser come from their production and transport whilst the remaining 2/3rds come from their application on agricultural lands.
These combined equated to 1,244.9 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2018, the same as the average emissions of around 76 million cars (using a conservative average mileage calculation of 7,800 miles per car per year).
These emissions come from direct and indirect sources including;
• Excess N in soils causes the N cycle to shift leading to excess conversion to N2O via nitrification and denitrification
• The volatilisation of ammonium to ammonia gas causes downstream emissions through leaching/runoff, eutrophication and acidification and can convert to N2O
• High N in soils discourages mycorrhizal interaction leading to more free N for conversion to N2O and volatilising
Based on literature estimated crop uptake figures, volatilisation figures and leaching runoff figures – using a conservative
estimate of 1 million tonnes of N being applied per year in the UK and averages of AHDB N fertiliser costs for June 2022Alongside emission-related impacts, there are other unfavourable ecosystem impacts associated with synthetic N intensive practices. For example, synthetic N uses have interrupted normal ecosystem biological N fixation pathways, making these less efficient. Equally, pollutant N, in the forms of mostly N oxides (NOx), acidifies soils and water sources from runoff and causes eutrophication of water sources, all of which have detrimental impacts on biodiversity. Harmful particulates in the air associated with the volatilisation of N have also been linked with increased health risks for both humans and animals and contribute to toxic fogs.
The efficiency of N use
With current methods of cultivation, we require masses of N to feed the 7.8 billion strong human population (as well as extra crops for livestock production). Whilst unlike other nutrients there is no lack of supply of N, as it is the most abundant element in our atmosphere, the problems with N instead lie largely with the efficiency of its use.
Excessive applications of N, above crop requirements, result in significant environmental leakages and mean that in many instances farmers are ‘throwing money down the drain’ or in reality into the air/rivers. Previous global average estimations have suggested that only around 40 – 50% of N being applied to crops are taken up efficiently.
This equates to UK losses of a minimum of 411,000 – 500,000 metric tonnes of N fertilisers or £293 – £357 million a year due to plants not taking up N (based on UK total agricultural nitrogen figures from 2019). What’s worse still is that more recent analyses of N efficiency have suggested this range is likely far broader, with only between 18 – 49% of N being used efficiently, suggesting many systems are operating well below previously suggested averages.
Considering that slightly under 2/3rds of all emissions from synthetic N come from agricultural land use, for each 10% increase in crop uptake efficiency that could be achieved worldwide we could see potential decreases of 2.2% of agriculture’s total global GHG emissions [1]. This means that if we had the optimum situation where crops had 100% nitrogen use efficiency, agriculture would become emission neutral, or close to it, despite livestock methane emissions, largely because N2O is a much more powerful GHG.
Furthermore, if each 10% increase in use efficiency could be directly related to a 10% reduction in N fertiliser industrial production this would further reduce the overall impact of agriculture’s global GHG emissions by another 0.7% each time [2]. Flipping this situation around it should be possible to achieve similar results by more selectively targeting N where it is needed to reduce excess waste being available for pollution and indirect GHG production whilst also saving costs of purchasing N in the first place. But there are also other improvement strategies to consider.
Improvements and altenative
The KE hub has highlighted many strategies which can mitigate the impacts of, reduce the need for or increase the efficiency of N in previous articles. However, these have often been discussed in isolation. Here we will bring together the options and improvements under consideration as a whole and the articles with more in-depth information will be linked for your further consideration.
Natural N in systems
Other ways exist of shifting the concentration of N in our soils which do not require synthetic N application. Legumes can actively fix the abundantly available atmospheric N, as such they require little to no N fertilisation and improve N levels in Based on literature estimated crop uptake figures, volatilisation figures and leaching runoff figures – using a conservative estimate of 1 million tonnes of N being applied per year in the UK and averages of AHDB N fertiliser costs for the soils around them.
Incorporating Legumes into land management practices via periodic cover cropping, intercropping, species-rich grasslands and other strategies have all shown varying benefits though most effective impacts are demonstrated on longerterm permanent incorporation. Mycorrhizal fungi also play a role in improving plants’ abilities to scavenge more N from the soil and lead to better crop yields when low or no fertiliser is added to systems.
Mixed systems where crops and livestock interact allow more natural recycling of N from livestock back into soils (either via crops and livestock at the same time or periodic grazing at set times) and have the added benefit of encouraging increased presence of dung beetles, important players in the N cycle and biodiversity as a whole. Riparian buffers have a strong role in reducing the downstream detrimental impacts of N further into the environment by effectively acting as a barrier to any excess waste N moving into watercourses.
Add different N to soils
We can consider adding more sustainable N sources to our systems some of which are better developed than other. Manure/slurry addition to fields is common and a traditional method of adding nutrients back into soils, whilst it doesn’t require industrial production, like synthetic N, it does have emission considerations surrounding its storage and the linked livestock production emissions.
Unlike synthetic N, manure/slurry composition of nutrients is more variable and unless it is accurately tested it is difficult to know how well its use will supply crop/pasture needs and how much will be wasted. The time of year and method of application can also have a big impact on how well the N is used. Thinking more circularly, systems could consider recycling their nutrients in other ways, such as composting or anaerobic digestion (AD) of waste materials.
These methods can often produce products with more stable and analysable nutrient levels than say direct manure use and add value to products that might otherwise be wasted. AD particularly can also provide cobenefits of producing other forms of energy for use or sale. Development is ongoing towards making N fertilisers themselves better and improving the overall efficiency of their use. There are already commercially available slow-releasing N fertilisers which claim to improve plant uptake but there are also strategies under study that include the smart coating of N fertilisers to target their release to plants only when they need it (reducing waste/improving efficiency), many of which are using nanotechnology to investigate this.
Improve the efficiency of N use
The final approach to improve the situation of N is improving the efficiency of its uptake and application. Regular soil testing is important to know what plants need and should not be underestimated when considering annual pasture and crop considerations. Technologies are readily available that allow soils to be more accurately mapped for nutrient levels and equally increase the ease with which nutrients can be applied at correct levels.
Variable rate application technologies and other site-specific nutrient management technologies are key amongst these and have demonstrated some of the best performances in maintaining or improving yields whilst reducing N fertiliser application (typically by 30-40%) across all technologies considered. As an alternative, considering the route of improving the plant rather than the fertiliser is an option.
Targeted breeding has been ongoing for years towards improving yields of crops, with modern crop species often having been bred to require huge amounts of N input but giving large outputs in return. But breeding can also focus on plant nitrogen use efficiency towards reducing the need for N. This could be accelerated by the use of gene editing as we learn more about the specific genes in plants which regulate how they use N. Or in the case of legumes looking at boosting the amount of N they fix from the atmosphere, or giving nitrogen fixing abilities to species (like cereals) which were previously unable to do this.
Summary
N is and always will be one of the single most important considerations within agricultural crop and pasture systems as it is so vital to plant functionality. We have seen massive shifts in the way that N has been used in agriculture but the current focus on environmental considerations mean that we need to look at this more carefully than ever before. N use in agriculture is relatively inefficient overall, but this does give a lot of scope towards making changes which can improve the efficiency of use massively. Not only should this help farmers shift the balance of their inputs and outputs to their benefit, reducing costs and improving profits, but it should also lead to overall reductions in agricultures carbon footprint and role in environmental pollution.
-
The good, the bad and the ugly
Farmers should be congratulated for continuing to produce food at low prices by constantly fine-tuning their businesses and keeping updated with the latest machinery, plant breeding developments and precision management techniques, says Jeff Claydon. The inventor of the Opti-Till® direct seeding system contemplates the challenges for UK farming and provides an update on the Claydon family’s arable farm in Suffolk.
May 2024
Many of you will remember the widely acclaimed spaghetti western from 1966 ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ starring Clint Eastwood. Its title neatly sums up the state of crops on many farms, including the Claydon Farm, this season. Some are good, some are bad, and some are downright ugly, to the point where no amount of lipstick will improve the look of the pig.
In the ‘good’ category our spring oats and oilseed rape are doing well. The ‘bad’ include wheats drilled in areas where the drainage was starting to falter just before the monsoon hit during October, while wheats drilled after then in sub-par conditions had ‘wet feet’ for far too long and are just plain ‘ugly’. I see little difference where cover crops were used, so at a time when margins are under severe pressure and input costs are under the microscope they may fall by the wayside.
This field of Skyscraper winter wheat was drilled on 15 October, just before the relentless rains set in. By February the crop was significantly more advanced than where the farm experimented with slightly deeper drilling to avoid the emerging crop potentially being affected by pre-emergence herbicides. The first ears were just about to emerge when this photograph was taken during the third week of May. Since last harvest our weather station has recorded more than a metre of rain, almost double our annual average, making it hard to believe that we farm in one of the driest parts of the country. The appalling weather will doubtless have a significant adverse impact on farm income this year.
While researching data for various presentations made recently I noticed that only in 2022 did UK farm income climb back to its 1995 level, circa 8 Billion. In 1995, a new 145hp Case 1455XL listed at £51,000, agricultural land averaged £4788/ha and May London wheat futures averaged £127.90/t. Subsequently they declined steadily to a sub-£60/t low in October 2000, an unsustainable level which prompted me to develop the Claydon Opti-Till® System. In the interim, machinery prices have increased by multiples and arable land is just short of its 2016 peak, around £25,000/ha.
In a world where the average measure of inflation, the government’s Retail Price Index (based on its long run series from 1800 to 2024, with a base line of 100 in January 1974) has risen from 645 in January 1999 to 1510 in March 2024, an increase of almost 250%. The mere fact that any farmers are still in business shows just how efficient our industry has had to become to cope with those rises in input costs.
The foreword to the Andersons Outlook 2024 report (www.theandersonscentre.co.uk) states: “The coming year seems likely to be the one when the reality of post-CAP farm support hits home on many farms. After record farming profits in 2022, returns are set to fall to more normal levels in 2023 and the coming year is likely to see this situation persist as high costs continue to bear down on UK agriculture”.
According to Defra figures, Total Income From Farming (TIFF) in the UK from 2017 to 2022 averaged £6.0 billion, the lowest value being £4.9 billion in 2018. From a high of £7.9 billion in 2022, £1.1 billion (16.6%) above 2021, Andersons estimate a significant drop to under £5 billion and 40% lower profits for 2023, with little change during 2024 in the face of challenging market conditions.
To put that into context the UK’s largest supermarket chain, Tesco, which has 27.3% of the UK grocery market, reported a pre-tax profit of £2.289 Billion in the year to 24 February, almost three times the previous year’s figure.
Elsoms Lion spring oats looked well during the third week of May and with a price of £240/t being quoted could perform well. LOOKING FOR EFFICIENCIES
For decades farmers have been pushed and pulled from every angle so it’s understandable that many are confused about what lies ahead. Currently there appears to be no clear direction from our politicians, a lot of confusion amongst farmers over the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), and uncertainty over output prices. At a time when there’s no financial margin for error that’s not a good situation.
Confidence in farming may be at an all-time low, but as burying our heads in the sand won’t work we must retain the enthusiasm to farm well and consider ways to operate even more efficiently. Looking on the bright side, they’re not making more land so what there is will need to be farmed more efficiently by fine-tuning our approach to get the best from it. After all the rain over the last few months many farms are running like a V8 engine on only four cylinders, so that must be corrected.
In small areas on the Claydon Farm where existing drains were reaching the end of their life or had insufficient capacity to take water away over the last few months new laterals were laid through standing crops this spring. Another positive is that Defra has released details of SOH1: No-till farming, an action in the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme to incentivise the use of no-tillage farming techniques to minimise soil disturbance. Its stated purpose is ‘to improve soil health, fertility, structure, soil water storage and reduce runoff, help to keep organic matter and nutrients in the soil, provide benefits for carbon, water quality and biodiversity, and protect historic environment features’.
To qualify, crops entered in to this three-year scheme, which pays £73/ha annually, must be established using broadcast equipment or a ‘no-till’ direct drill, a term which includes tine drills, disc drills and precision seed drills. You must not use conventional or shallow min-till machinery but a stubble rake/Straw Harrow with rearward facing tines can be used to prepare land prior to drilling.
This is great news for Claydon users because our Opti-Till® System has been proven in all soils, conditions and crops over 21 years, with Claydon straw harrows and drills approved for the SFI Revenue grant and eligible for Farming Equipment Technology Fund (FETF) grants.
Because of the lead time involved in applying for and receiving grants, which may also be capped due to limitations on funding, my advice is to do so as early as possible. The other thing to consider is that because of increasing costs, higher interest rates and ongoing supply chain disruptions, manufacturers and dealers are no longer able to carry copious stocks, so even if awarded a grant it is unlikely that you will be able to obtain the machine you want immediately.
Water flowing from one of the new drains at the end of May. FOCUSING ON DRAINAGE
This season has highlighted the substantial impact of drainage on crop performance. Where drainage is good the soil will have the optimum air to water balance and support machinery without rutting, worms and biota thrive and crops achieve optimum performance. Where drainage is substandard crops are visibly worse and will perform poorly.
In the corner of one field where the old drainage system failed we had 3ha of wheat which took ‘ugly’ to a whole new level. We drilled it in the autumn just prior to the monsoon and it emerged poorly with lots of grassweeds, so we sprayed it off in mid-November and redrilled on a frost in December. Given the prolonged wet weather it emerged alongside a flush of grassweeds, so we sprayed it off again and redrilled with millet. Talk about throwing good money after bad!
Being a realist I consider everything we do in detail to identify where improvements can be made. To avoid a repeat of what happened on that thankfully small area, we have just invested £30,000 on installing new plastic drains in areas highlighted by the extreme wet weather. Even at the end of May they are still running, so I can say confidently there’s zero likelihood of crops facing a Soil Moisture Deficit this season.
We also mole drained 40ha to ensure that water reaches the new laterals. Moles can last up to 30 years if formed under the right conditions, as we have had this spring, so it’s worth doing the job well. Over the years we have owned several mole drainers which have never been quite what we wanted, so this year we designed our own. The key feature of the new Claydon single-leg mole plough is its long beam which allows the bullet to run parallel, resulting in a uniform, stable mole that stays at the correct depth and enables water to drain away. It can be precisely adjusted and is user friendly.
A prototype of the new Claydon mole drainer on a trial area used for evaluation purposes. When evaluating the new machine we went through standing crops at GS 30/31 at a 2.7m spacing. Our 345hp John Deere 8345R recorded just five per cent wheel slip and damage to the crop was so slight that it’s hard to see where it ran. Doing the job in the spring allows the roots to grow down and stabilise the soil so autumn-sown crops will benefit. It also gives the new moles time to cure over the summer months, ensuring that they remain efficient for many years to come.
Wear on the mole leg after 40ha shows no levels at which compaction was present. After all the rain this season many will assume that land will need to be subsoiled after harvest and factor that operation into their plans, but unless you or a soil expert dig down to check whether a pan is impeding water flow I suspect that time and money will be wasted doing a job which isn’t necessary. In the short-term subsoiling might allow water to drain away from the surface but more likely it’s the drainage system which is at fault. Due to the lack of grants many systems are approaching or past their sell-by date, so it is well worth checking that first.
SPRING DRILLING WENT WELL
Spring drilling using our 6m Claydon Evolution M6 went well, any surface compaction caused by the extended wet weather being removed by the leading tines, so those crops fall into my ‘good’ category.
We grow a significant area of spring oats to help keep the land clean, but with no chemicals available to control it in spring oats blackgrass has made an appearance, as it has on many other farms this season. Our 6m Claydon TerraBlade inter-row hoe has been invaluable in a season where cold, wet conditions have reduced the effectiveness of agchems. This low-cost machine is very effective at taking out weeds growing between the rows, protecting yields, increasing returns and preventing seeds from being carried over to the following crop. Independent research shows that it reduces headcounts by 60%, which, in the trial, resulted in an increase in gross margin by £257/ha (wheat @£200/t).
Effectiveness of the Claydon TerraBlade is evident from these before and after photographs. Weeds between the rows were quickly and efficiently removed by blades running just below the surface. Making best use of agchems at a time when many are being legislated out of existence and little new chemistry is coming along we are happy to participate in field trials to make the most of what is available. Currently, we are hosting Agrii trials to identify which treatments are most effective against grassweeds and monitoring the results closely.
With farming incomes way below where they should be on an inflation-adjusted basis farmers are having to work harder and take on more risk just to stay in business. Unless a business makes a profit it isn’t a business so, whether you farm on a small or a large scale, when margins are under severe pressure it’s essential to assess how to make the transitional changes needed to be in the top 25%.
Visit https://claydondrill.com/our-customers/ to hear from farmers across the UK and further afield who are achieving great results with Opti-Till on a range of crops on varying soils in all climates. You can also keep up with the latest posts, photographs, and videos from Claydon and its customers through the Claydon Facebook page www.facebook.com/Claydondrill
-
Agronomist in Focus: Ron Granger
LG Beowulf – the highest yielding wheat on the 2024-25 AHDB Recommended List offering a complete agronomic package for securing high yield potential on-farm.
Ron Granger, arable technical manager for breeders Limagrain UK, shares his views on what the variety offers and where it fits on farm.
As breeders, when we make a cross between two varieties, we have in our heads what we want to accomplish with regards to the complimentary attributes both parent varieties offer – genetically and agronomically – in the progeny. LG Beowulf reflects this approach as a cross between two very successful commercial varieties (Costello x Gleam).
In the last couple of years, we have seen several very high yielding wheats added to the AHDB Recommended List but unfortunately although gaining commercial market share, they have not offered the all-round desirable agronomic package that many growers wish for in a perfect world.
LG Beowulf bucks the trend offering the highest UK treated yield potential sitting at 106.2% and one of the best agronomic packages available, combined with great flexibility within the rotation – it’s a fantastic package.
High yields are important for maximising profit, but more than this, a grower needs to know that these yields will be delivered season in and out; and this is exactly what LG Beowulf does –consistently producing high yields across regions and seasons.
The variety performs extremely well both as a first wheat and in the more testing second wheat situation and is suitable for all soil types. However, LG Beowulf should be grown on more moisture retentive soils to achieve maximum yield potential, as there are better variety ideotypes for the more testing, lighter, drought prone soil situations.
LG Beowulf offers a very good disease resistance profile, especially for the key disease challenges of yellow rust (9) and Septoria tritici (6.7).
The variety also delivers a very high untreated yield (91%) a consequence of its superb disease resistance in combination with its straw strength. Although a slightly taller variety, LG Beowulf offers very good straw strength – combining a rating of 8 untreated, with an 8 rating with PGR treatments applied.
The inclusion of Orange Wheat Blossom Midge in the package is an important benefit, especially for growers in southern and the South East regions, where the pest can inflict economical damage to crops, depending on the season. It’s a genetic IPM offering that should not be underestimated.
Another important attribute of LG Beowulf is its flexibility in drilling date – it is a variety that can be drilled early and onwards through into the very late drilling slot, if the season dictates, giving growers a security and flexibility of drilling date, that not all varieties exhibit.
The variety does have a slightly later maturity, but as we have seen over the last few seasons, widening the harvest date is useful as an insurance against erratic weather patterns. Spread your risk on farm by having early maturing varieties alongside later maturing ones, providing a reassurance that at least part of the crop will have the desirable grain quality in a difficult season.
LG Beowulf has the benefit of a high specific weight combined with a high Hagberg. This is a great attribute to have in any feed wheat, and as we know, a high specific weight is one of the best characteristics to ensure high yield potential is maintained in erratic seasons of either drought or indeed wet harvest seasons, as seen in 2023.
There is no such thing as a perfect variety, however, LG Beowulf comes close. Offering a comprehensive agronomy package along with very high yield potential in the hard feed wheat sector; desirable characteristics both on-farm and for the market.
-
The Future of Soil Health Measurement
As discussions around sustainable farming practices and environmental stewardship continue to gain momentum, the spotlight on soil health has never been brighter. Recognising the critical need for effective soil monitoring solutions, PES Technologies has emerged as a pioneering force, offering a fast, accurate, and hassle-free method to measure soil health right in the field.
Founded in 2017 by CTO Dr. Jim Bailey and CEO Andrej Porovic, PES Technologies was born out of the need for quality, cost-effective soil testing solutions. Armed with Dr. Bailey’s expertise in solid-state physics and a collaborative effort with NIAB EMR, the team embarked on a mission to develop a sensor capable of conducting in-situ soil health assessments. The result? The innovative PES tool, now revolutionizing the way we monitor soil health.
The PES testing process is easy to do and can be carried out by anyone, with no specialist training necessary. With just a teaspoon of soil, users can initiate the testing process by inserting the sample into the compartment and activating the test through the PES mobile app. Within minutes, the sensors within the tool react to the volatile organic compounds emitted by the microbial community within the soil, generating an electronic fingerprint unique to each soil sample. This data is then transmitted to the cloud, where sophisticated algorithms correlate it with a range of soil health indicators. The indicator data is then seamlessly delivered to the user’s smartphone via the app interface.
Because the data is delivered through a Machine Learning Algorithm, when the PES system is updated with, for example, new indicators available, users will be able to re-analyse existing sample data to get the latest insights, as well as having the indicators available for new tests by simply updating their PES app. With this ability PES can continue to evolve with the industry and the users needs without any hardware changes.
From biological to physical and chemical indicators, the system offers data from crucial indicators of soil health such as microbial biomass, organic matter content, and nutrient levels including phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and magnesium (Mg) to name a few. Additionally, its ability to operate directly in the field provides unparalleled flexibility in terms of location and scheduling. With each cassette housing 100 sensors, users can sample multiple fields multiple times without the need for extensive equipment or laboratory analysis. The cassette, the only consumable component of the system, effortlessly winds on a fresh sensor for each new test, ensuring reliability and convenience.
The integration of GPS technology adds an extra layer of utility to the PES system. By recording the precise location of each test, users can track changes in soil health over time and evaluate the effectiveness of their management practices. This makes the PES tool perfect for establishing baselines and trend data, making the information collected suitable for SFI and other reporting schemes to verify soil health improvement. These features empower users to make informed decisions, guiding them towards strategies that promote long-term soil sustainability and crop productivity.
By democratizing access to advanced soil assessment technologies, PES Technologies is empowering users and fostering a sustainable future for generations to come. As the agricultural landscape continues to evolve, PES Technologies stands at the forefront, driving innovation and excellence in soil health measurement.
PES Technologies will be launching their product this Spring, and will be exhibiting at both Cereals and Groundswell. To book a demo, please get in touch via enquiries@pestechnologies.com and to secure a unit and put your name on the pre-order list for delivery in September please use sales@pestechnologies.com.
To see the unit in action check out this video:
-
The role of nitrogen and innovative biological solutions
Written by Steve Holloway from Soil Fertility Services
Like many other crops, wheat requires various nutrients for optimal growth and development. Nitrogen is one of the most critical nutrients for wheat, as a key component of proteins essential for the plant’s structure and function.
When Nitrogen is applied to wheat, it directly influences the plant’s ability to produce proteins, including the gluten proteins that give wheat dough its elasticity and ability to rise. However, the primary reason for applying Nitrogen to wheat isn’t just to improve grain protein content and increase overall yield. Nitrogen is a major component of chlorophyll, the green pigment that enables plants to carry out photosynthesis.
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants convert light energy into chemical energy, which they use to fuel their growth and development; therefore, adequate Nitrogen supply ensures that wheat plants can produce enough chlorophyll to maximise photosynthesis, leading to increased biomass production, including grain yield.
Steve Holloway from Soil Fertility Services While focusing on grain protein content is crucial, especially for wheat used in bread-making, balancing Nitrogen applications with other nutrients like Phosphorus and Potassium is essential to ensure overall plant health and productivity. Excessive application can also lead to environmental issues such as groundwater contamination and greenhouse gas emissions.
The flag leaf, often acclaimed as the powerhouse of photosynthesis in cereal crops, plays a pivotal role in the plant’s reproductive success. With its specialised biological formulations, SFS ensures this critical leaf receives the nourishment it merits. The biological products not only enhance Nitrogen levels precisely where they’re most needed, but also bolster flag leaf vitality, improve photosynthetic efficiency, and maximise carbohydrate production; offering a promising future for wheat cultivation.
Beneficial biological applications can increase chlorophyll content and enhance enzymatic activity. Consequently, due to their biological symbiotic workforce, winter wheat plants display lush, greener flag leaves ready to harness sunlight with unparalleled vigour.
However, the benefits of foliar Nitrogen combined with microbes, extend well beyond foliage, penetrating the core of profitability – the grain itself. Optimising nutrient uptake and distribution facilitates sturdy grain development and increased yields with superior quality, enhanced plumpness, density and uniformity. Furthermore, the qualitative attributes of the harvested grain are equally remarkable, with heightened protein content and superior milling characteristics.
SFS champions sustainability on multiple fronts, harnessing cutting-edge formulation technologies. Their biological fertilisers not only minimise Nitrogen losses through volatilisation and leaching but also mitigate the environmental impact while optimising resource utilisation.
As the global agricultural landscape grapples with its own sustainability, this technology emerges as a beacon of responsible stewardship. It gives you confidence that your farming methods are environmentally friendly, leading to greater fertiliser efficiency and lower reliance on chemistry for disease and insect control.
Soil Fertility Services’ Complex Foli-N is the perfect solution for your crop’s late Nitrogen requirements. It supplies stabilised amino Nitrogen, complexed with a beneficial microbial consortium in a rich base of humic and fulvic compounds.
-
Prioritise conditions over cultivations when making variety choices
Latest Agrii trials suggest while clear differences can be seen between varieties in various production scenarios, there is little to separate them when it comes to their performance in direct drilling or conventional cultivation systems.
Varieties and how they perform across a range of production scenarios is a key element of Agrii’s integrated crop management (ICM) programme, says the company’s head of integrated crop technologies Dr Ruth Mann.
“All trials work at Agrii is designed to provide growers with vital information on how to manage the ever changing range of crop production systems with varieties right at the heart of this,” she points out.
“The aim of all our R&D output is to deliver on every farmer’s triple bottom line and ensure yields and profitability are optimised without detriment to the environment.
“Identifying the optimal variety for sustainable cereal production is an essential part of any ICM programme, but it has not always been clear whether varieties perform the same in all situations.
“In particular, one of the big questions of recent years has been around varietal performance in direct drilling versus conventional ploughing systems and our current work is providing vital insight into this.”
According to Agrii seed technical manager John Miles, latest indications are that
growers should choose varieties that are likely to deliver the best performance in their individual locality and growing conditions rather than trying to identify which ones suit their cultivation system best.
“Two years of trials across two different locations with both direct drill and conventional cultivation systems have shown no statistical proof that some varieties suit one approach better than the other,” he explains.
Agrii trials looking at direct drill and conventional cultivation systems suggest individual varieties are not more suited to one approach over the other. “The theory was that because there is potentially low mineralisation in direct drill soils as they are not being disturbed, a nitrogen poor scenario creating slow growing crops could result, with some varieties coping better with this than others.
“Equally, some direct drillers may choose to sow a bit earlier as they are not being held up by cultivations, so that too could affect what type of variety would do best.
“Many producers looking to switch to direct drilling from ploughing, therefore, ask the question which varieties are likely to deliver the best performance in the new system and there has been a lot of debate about this over the years.”
The Agrii trials took place at sites in Huntingdon and Braintree, with both locations deliberately featuring hanslope series clay soils representative of 35% of the UK’s arable area, John Miles explains.
“Heavy clays tend to be more of a challenge when moving on to direct drilling, but they are representative of many of the soils found in the East of the country. For both sites and years the same range of 18 popular RL wheat varieties was used.
“The Huntingdon location was on a farm where direct drilling has been practiced for the last ten years alongside integrating cover crops, whilst at Braintree continuous wheat has been the approach for 40 years, but direct drilling is now being looked at to save costs.
Direct drilled plots at Huntingdon in 2023 (pictured) produced 0.7t/ha more compared to their ploughed counterparts in Agrii trials. In contrast, the direct drilled plots at the Braintree trials site in 2023 delivered 0.6t/ha less than the cultivated ones. “Because of the expected higher losses at establishment from direct drilling, it was decided to up the seed rate from the 350 seeds/m2 of the conventional approach to 425 seeds/m2 for the direct drilled plots, to ensure even plants stands.
“In both years across both sites, plant and ear counts were roughly the same for direct drilled and ploughed plots, showing the extra 75 seed/m2 had helped create the level playing field across all plots that we had hoped for.
Direct drilling challenges
Results from the Braintree site for 2022 showed average yield of the plots that were direct drilled was 8.9t/ha compared to 9.5t/ha for the ploughed ones – a 0.6t/ha difference.
“KWS Zyatt, KWS Extase, LG Skyscraper, KWS Dawsum, Gleam and DSV Theodore all did well in the direct drill situation with 9.0t/ha and above yields, but these are the same varieties that did well in the ploughed situation too, with some topping 10.0t/ha.”
Highlighting some of the issues with direct drilling, the overwhelming reason the ploughed situation yielded higher was because the actual area of crop harvested was less in the direct drill plots, John Miles explains.
“Although all the straw was removed from the trial field, there was regrowth out of the back of the combine and all it took was drilling on a wet, foggy morning to result in poor establishment which was not helped by the significant slug pressure created by the by the level of residue even in a wheat only rotation.
“You can see similar areas in the farm’s other fields, with crop density getting noticeably thinner in those areas, but a trial drill goes slower than a normal drill and doesn’t have the same weight to it, so the problem is more evident.
Red section in lower left of trials plots shows land ploughed for blackgrass at the Huntingdon trials site in November 2022. While establishment was relatively even across the trials, ploughed plots started losing biomass following heavy rain in the new year which resulted in lower yields than with direct drilling. (Picture courtesy of Bayer CropScience UK) “That said, it is indicative of what can happen when you are drilling into residue. It’s often the case that you end up with a sub optimal plan stand which in this case was seen as a bare stripes across all the replicates.
“The yield difference between the different approaches was, therefor, largely because the direct drilled area had some bare patches in it rather than actual differences in the crop.”
In 2023, establishment was even in both crops and the final yield results closer too, he explains.
“Conditions were too challenging to plough, so the the cultivated plots were heavily disced a couple of times instead, but throughout the growing season it was difficult to see a difference between the plots.
“In the end, average yield difference was only 0.4t/ha between the different approaches, but again those varieties that did well with direct drilling, also performed well in the cultivated scenario.
“There was marked difference in performance between the different varieties at the site, but nothing that would suggest a better result for one variety over another between the two approaches.”
Ploughing problems
At Huntingdon, in 2022 all plots established relatively evenly, but the ploughed ones started losing biomass because of the high rainfall in January that year, John Miles explains.
“In contrast, it was probably the kindest start possible for the direct drilled plots as it was after oilseed rape, without much trash and a cover crop that was sown with a drill featuring large tines that helped break up the surface.
“Unsurprisingly, direct drilling outyielded ploughing in this case to the tune of 0.6t/ha, but in view of what we saw in February with the biomass, that is probably not too much of a surprise.
“Similar conditions were seen in 2023 where once the ploughed areas got wet in the winter they stayed that way with a correspondingly lower biomass seen in February. But we didn’t get the subsequent prolonged drought seen the previous year, so the ploughed plots did recover somewhat.
“But the direct drilled plots still yielded on average 0.7t/ha more than their ploughed counterparts. Again, the varieties that performed well in the RL that year – KWS Extase, KWS Dawsum, Gleam and Graham – were the ones that delivered the highest yields across both approaches.”
Basically, at one site the plough won the day and at the other site direct drilling worked better and this was consistent across both years, he points out.
“Subsequent analysis shows that while differences between varietal performance at each site are significant, there is no correlation between any variety and its ability to do better or worse in direct drilled or plough-based production systems.”
“While there is some truth that in some circumstances, such as when drilling into cover crops, incorporated straw or in challenging weather, a more vigorous variety could help with establishment, our results suggest this is much more to do with conditions than cultivations.
“A high vigour variety could well compensate later for poor early establishment, grow through slug attack better in adverse conditions or simply thrive better in cold, wet soils, but this would be the case regardless of farming system.”
No difference
By and large, a variety that does well in a ploughed situation will do well in a direct-drilled scenario, John Miles concludes.
“Even if we had been able to identify a difference in performance in varieties between ploughed or direct drilled systems, it is likely it would be so small as to make it barely worth considering. It would certainly lie outside the top five considerations.
“In other words, all the current reasons why you choose a variety for your particular situation – yield potential, disease resistance, standing power etc. – would outweigh any suitability to cultivation system.
“Ultimately, the ability of a variety to perform in any farming situation is down to conditions encountered at establishment and throughout the growing year and not its suitability to any one production system over another.”
-
Agronomist in Focus: Lisa Hambly
Lisa Hambly – Head of Grassland & Forage Agronomy at Mole Valley Farmers
Having started my career at Dalgety Agriculture too many years ago, I was hooked. Farming is so diverse, and there are many opportunities available from a nutritionist to an agronomist. I tried on a few different hats and was lucky enough to have support from some great people along the way. When I realised that I loved growing things and helping people do the best job possible, I decided to focus on agronomy.
Working within the sector based in the West Country helped me understand the benefits of organic manures and how they seemed to help crops grow quickly and require fewer inputs. However, when the crop grows well, so do the weeds. Feeling the need to develop my understanding of this, I was lucky enough to get a chance to work in the arable sector as an agronomist.
Seeing many soils struggling to support a crop was a revelation for me. This spurred my interest in soil health and what it means for not only the environment but also crop, animal, and human health. Challenging conventional practices has been an ongoing theme because doing things the same way and expecting different results is not an option. This comes with its challenges.
With SFI’s now encouraging new (or old?) farming practices focused on soil health, we are all learning something new. Could forage crops become a bigger part of arable farming? This would lead to integration with livestock management becoming another sought-after skill because there would be multiple species both in and above ground level.
Rotation of both crops and animals is key, and thinking outside the box will help us become more resilient to climate change being more efficient with our soil resources by reducing reliance on purchased materials for crop production as well as animal production. Working smarter with what we already have by increasing soil health and biology will bring improvements in both crop yield/productivity as well as profitability.
With cuts in BPS payments challenging low input farming systems, choosing multi-species mixtures wisely can enhance yields especially where regular reseeding programs have not been implemented before introducing new species that are more tolerant during dry periods when traditional rye grass producing dry matter yield.
In light of challenging weather conditions and economic factors’ increase, laying down good foundations becomes essential which means taking care of soils by avoiding compaction whenever possible or alleviating it if it occurs; feeding crops appropriately without under or overfeeding; matching soil available nutrition with crop requirements including micronutrients; ensuring longevity for maximum yield.
Using technology aids decision making since there’s so much daily work involved that making informed decisions becomes critical for success – from predicting weather conditions up until testing plant tissues at laboratories – all these contribute towards increasing success while saving valuable labour hours.
With all these changes happening within farming systems nowadays, getting help advice becomes vital because everyone is constantly learning something new! So don’t hesitate to go out there talk with others about their successes or even “experiments that maybe did not work out as expected”. Every farm is unique which makes UK agriculture fantastic – no two days or hours are ever alike! But when we communicate share knowledge, we can truly make a difference!
-
Farmer Focus – George Sly
Year 5 into my farming career, is it getting easier…?
Simple answer is no; however, I feel a lot more relaxed about the annual cycle of ups and downs, and after 5 years at it, with countless droughts and floods I’m definitely battle hardened and most importantly the farm is building diversity and resilience.
Financially half our farm is mortgaged, and its variable rate (ouch!), so it’s been tight! My mother and father live off the farm income and I draw mine from other businesses. I genuinely take my hat off to every farmer the past few years as I have learnt just how hard it all is especially when debt/interest climb, every £1 spend has to count and we’ve slashed costs to death.
As I write this, I couldn’t be happier generally with how the farm looks given the circumstances. Autumn 2023 we drilled 90 ha of WW and 35ha Winter Triticale. Within 24 hours of finishing drilling we have just over 110mm of rain in 4 days. The wheat was not good enough to keep and given a rare opportunity to re-drill on the frost in February we sprayed off and re-drilled, which proved to be the right decision. Our Triticale (some destined for AD and some grain) survived and prospered, I love the stuff! Its resilient, more aggressive, likes our heavy clay/silt, and you can sell it as feed wheat (oops). Its around 15% cheaper to grow than WW but also generally yields less by a similar factor, but it’s a safe bet for me and I want to grow more of it, the issue is the market/demand, I can confirm triticale bread isn’t great, but blended in its fine!
We decided to grow 60 hectares of spring wheat blend for Wildfarmed with a buckwheat/clover companion crop, this was mainly in our agroforestry area. So far so good, we have grown for Wildfarmed for now 3 years and although it’s no silver bullet financially, I’m growing more and more fond of the brand and the system. Our spring crop was a 4-way blend, currently it’s holding up well to Rust (a big worry), its had 80KG of N and just doing first SAP tests. We have a stack of SFI payments on this amounting to £485/ha including the agroforestry, but I hope next year this can be up to £885/ha when we add the low input cereal option and convert to the strip system. I think in the long term we will need a multi-use interrow management tool if we grow more and more crops like this. Which has my brain spinning to give the Horizon engineers their next headache! Overall, we hope for an output including SFI of around £1850-2000/ha from a very low input.
A quick agroforestry update, I have shown many farmers around it, and I love doing so. A few have then planted up themselves so that’s very rewarding. The walnuts are finally waking up and hazels I hope will be waist high by the end of the summer (they should be 1.5X this size by now but establishing trees in open areas is always hard, my advice is as others say, plant less and look after fewer trees better! I listened to Sarah Singla speak in Sweden this week and she said studies show the perfect field size is 3-4hectreas from a biodiversity standpoint, this fits well with my alleys!
Our maize all went in well, we grow 40 hectares and I decided to roll the dice and drill companion crops at the same time as planting with some modifications we made at Horizon. I have some maize with faba beans 25cm from the crop, and some with clover, millet, buckwheat. We can claim the SFI, direct drilling, pre maize cover crop and in future the sustainable maize growing options which could accumulate to circa £350/ha. The idea being that we try to be between £1750-£2000/ha.
I am not yet sure how the companions will affect the maize; we have some without a companion to compare. I want to find out if drilling a companion (or ryegrass like some do) at time of drilling, either 25 or 37.5cm from the crop restricts it. Or if you do have to wait till later in the season to under sow. Some of this research is for me as a farmer and some with my Horizon hat on. Herbicides and weeds and how we manage that Is the challenge also, it will be interesting how certain clovers etc. stand up if we need a herbicide. Generally, we have far less weed pressure in strip till.
-
New Partnership Between Bourgault Tillage Tools and Grange Machinery
Bourgault Tillage Tools UK are pleased to announce that after many months of discussions and development with Grange Machinery that we have been chosen to supply our globally renown VOS (Versatile Opener System) Seeding Coulter System to the new Tine Drill Toolbar’ (TDT) from Grange Machinery.
Rhun Jones, Managing Director of Grange Machinery says ‘When we decided to manufacture a tine drill to add to our growing range we started with a blank sheet of paper and an open mind. We spoke to many customers and all areas of the design were up for grabs. Regarding the seeding coulter, we looked at what was already available in the market and potentially what we would want if we were to develop our own. It soon became clear that if we were to develop our ideal that it would be like the Bourgault VOS System and therefore partnering with such a renowned global leader like Bourgault Tillage Tools in this market made complete sense.
Grange Machinery would not only have the continuity of supply but with Bourgault Tillage Tools being ISO registered we would have a complete quality audit trail to rely on.
All of this managed by Ian and Stuart who head up the BTT UK Team makes for the ideal scenario and extensive product support and invaluable experience with our new model being used in varying soil types and ground conditions.
The Grange Tine Drill Toolbar’ (TDT) is being supplied with the Bourgault 688-HLD-2000 holder and the 610-TIP-4030, 4 inch paired row tip as standard. This high chromium tip with a strategically placed ¾ inch carbide nose tile which not only does most of the work of the coulter, but also creates a drainage channel below where the seed is placed. The wings leading edges also have carbide tiles which are mounted on the underside of the wing, this gives the ability to sharpen as it wears, thus creating less disturbance which then leads to more consistent seed placement. Two further small underside rear tungsten tile pads give a firming area for the seed and stops wear from soil pressure on the rear of the tip. The design of the seed flow plenum means that the 4030 Tip can deliver high seed rates accurately and consistently with exceptional wear rates.
688-HLD-2000 Holder and 610-TIP-4030 TIP
610-TIP-4030
With the 688-HLD-2000 Holder, there is also the option to quickly and easily change from the 4030 paired row tip using the unique and proven Stainless Steel Square Nut / Round Bolt securing system to a narrower single shoot seeding system the 610-TIP-0802 (19mm option) which are often used to sow oilseeds and pulses.
Stainless Steel Square Nut / Round Bolt securing system Ian Clayton-Bailey (Managing Director of Bourgault Tillage Tools UK) explains that getting another UK OEM on board is part of our company’s vision for the future. Globally Bourgault Tillage Tools supply many OEMs with their wearing parts – It is what we specialise in, and working with likeminded companies like Grange Machinery enables both companies to deliver high-quality, cost-effective machines that will deliver what the end users want.
For more information visit both Bourgault Tillage Tools UK OR Grange Machinery stands at both Cereals or Groundswell.
-
Decisions, decisions, decisions…
Slender Foxtail has put in its annual appearance with great vengeance this year. It’s that time of year where we all can see the results of each other labour’s. With wheat now out in ear, fields that are normally clean are showing the effects of the long & wet winter. Grass weeds are out in force, particularly Slender Foxtail AKA Blackgrass. The lack of herbicide activity and lack of conditions to get the applications on in a timely manner are showing. No doubt the mild wet autumn also played a part in reducing the longevity of herbicides.
What are the options now when looking at crops with significant weed burden? An integrated or wholistic approach of many differing techniques is required to stay on top of grass weeds. Below are some of the options:
Limit the seed return
Spray the crop and the grassweeds off before they set viable seed. For many this maybe the go to option. The first loss is always the cheapest, particularly if spring cropping or ploughing doesn’t appeal. By the time this article is published spraying off will be too late, certainly for blackgrass control.
Cultural controls
Ploughing is a definite option if it has not been done for a number of years. A minimum of 3 years seems to be the minimum required for any significant effect. Research shows that the longer the seed is buried the greater the decay in seed numbers. If blackgrass seed has been recently ploughed down, some of it will be brought back to a germination depth again. In my experience ploughing for weed control requires the correct plough and skilled operator to achieve the best results. Simply turning the field brown is not enough. The plough and the skims have to be correctly set in order to put the trash at the bottom of the furrow and the furrow slice completely inverted to cover the trash. Simply standing the furrow slice on its edge, or ploughing too fast and throwing the soil onto the top of the preceding furrow slice, is an expensive recipe for disappointment.
Rotation change and spring cropping
Double spring breaks are the ‘nuclear option’ as my splendid colleague has been heard to say, many times! If you want to upset blackgrass take it out of its comfort zone. Change its environment. We have allowed the weed to become attuned to autumn cultivations and spring nitrogen. An environment it has clearly made the most of. Turn to spring cropping to start with. Preferably with a non-cereal crop, if you can find one which has reliance on different herbicide chemistry and make a margin. Options are limited though. And drill it as late in the spring as you dare without moving the soil too much.
The same is true for autumn sown crops. With the push for later drilling we are clearly selecting seed which wants to germinate later. However a move to earlier drilling is unlikely to help here.
Change the environment further
We find catch and cover crops particular good for smothering, mulching and shading the seed, which seem to deter the blackgrass from germinating. Mulching is a technique used by good effect by gardeners and by drilling through cover we are effectively replicating that technique.
Taking it a step further…
Blackgrass clearly has an affinity for heavier textured soils. Maybe because heavier textured soils are more moisture retentive. Blackgrass seems to be able to germinate in low oxygen situations. Consider looking at the calcium and magnesium balance within the soil which may help to increase the porosity of the soil and consequently improve drainage and gas exchange. By using techniques that increase the carbon content of the soil will also help improve the structure and porosity.
Within no-tillage systems combining all these elements, with the obvious exception of the ploughing, leads to a decline in blackgrass levels. However, the wet autumn and winter has challenged us, and the system. Certainly, blackgrass levels are higher in some areas than we’d like to see, but we are confident this is just a blip.
-
AHDB outlines biostimulants basics
Worth billions of dollars annually and continuing to expand, the global biostimulants market offers potential for growers. AHDB Environment Scientist Joanna McBurnie explores the product types, evidence of their benefits and usage considerations.
With rising input costs, fertiliser restriction pressures and extreme weather events becoming the ‘norm’, interest in biostimulants has piqued. Marketing material (for an expanding array of products) suggests that those who invest in biostimulants will see crop health, quality and, ultimately, yield increase. Potential benefits cited are often backed up with scientific-sounding words and claims, but can they be trusted and rise to the on-farm challenge?
Biostimulants basics
Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 defines plant biostimulants as any product that stimulates plant nutrition processes, independent of nutrient content. Their sole aim is to improve nutrient use efficiency, tolerance to environmental stress, quality traits or availability of confined nutrients in the soil or rooting zone (rhizosphere).
There are two broad groups of plant biostimulants: those based on non-living materials (non-microbial) and those containing living organisms (microbial or biological).
Non-microbial plant biostimulants include:
- Seaweed extracts
- Humic substances (extracted from decayed plants or animals, such as humic or fulvic acids)
- Phosphite and other inorganic salts
- Antitranspirants (such as abscisic acid and waxes)
- Chitin and chitosan derivatives (obtained from crustaceans)
- Protein hydrolysates (produced from animal and plant residues)
- Free amino acids (obtained through enzymatic breakdown of agro-industrial by-products)
Microbial biostimulants
This article focuses on microbial biostimulants. Based on organisms with a natural role in plant–soil interactions, these biological options may not be as unfamiliar as you might initially think.
Plant-growth-promoting bacteria and rhizobacteria
These bacteria are either found naturally on aerial parts of the plant or residing in plant roots and the rooting zone (rhizobacteria). They can foster mutually beneficial (symbiotic) relationships. For example, rhizobacteria, such as Rhizobium, are commonly found on the root nodules of legumes. Another example are free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria, such as Azotobacter and Azospirillium.
Cited benefits include the stimulation of plant growth, through hormone interaction, improved assimilation of nutrients, including nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and micronutrients, and reduced damage from plant diseases. These benefits have been shown in principle on cereal crop species, although more UK field tests are needed to understand their full potential.
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi were studied under the microscopic in a recent AHDB PhD project at NIAB Mycorrhizae
This type includes arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi that associate with over 70% of land plants (excluding brassicas). The word ‘mycorrhiza’ stems from two Greek words: mykos and rhiza, which mean ‘fungus’ and ‘root’, respectively.
Through root colonisation, AM fungi form an extension of the root network, potentially helping to increase nutrient uptake, particularly P and, to some extent, N. The extended root network can also improve soil structure. These fungi have also been shown to increase crop tolerance to pests, pathogens and drought.
In the UK, field trials have shown mixed results. More consistent results could potentially be achieved through the long-term use of these biostimulants, giving them time to develop fungal networks.
Root-associated fungi
Root-associated fungi also interact with the plant in a positive way, but, unlike AM fungi, they do not need a host plant to survive. The various species occupy different plant areas. For example, Trichoderma species interact with root tissues, whereas Penicillium species interact with the root surface or the rooting zone (rhizosphere). Across the species, benefits include plant growth stimulation, improved P uptake (for example, Penicillium species can solubilise rock phosphate), protection against plant diseases, tolerance to environmental stress, and bio-remediation, via the sequestration of harmful substances.
Protozoa and nematodes
These common soil web organisms selectively graze bacteria and, to a lesser extent, fungi. They have been shown to increase the mineralisation of soil N and enhance root growth.
Mixes and complexes
Because of their biological nature, effective trialling and use of biostimulants is challenging. Most knowledge is also derived from tests of single components. However, many products on the market are based on mixtures of product types. There is very little robust information available on whether mixing product types is additive or synergistic. It is a key knowledge gap.
The spring barley (Laureate) plants shown are from mycorrhizal glasshouse trials (seven weeks after inoculation). Left to right: control (no treatment), Funneliformis mosseae, F. geosporum, Claroideoglomus claroideum, Rhizophagus irregularis, Glomus microaggregatum and a five-species commercial mix Selecting biostimulants
Make sure that a biostimulant is the right choice for your situation. For example, if your soils are in poor health, it may fail to support naturally present beneficial organisms, as well as any artificially added. The following saying holds true: “build it and they will come”.
The interactions between the site, the crop and the season are likely to be significant when using biostimulants. Consider trying a product in a relatively small area and compare it with the rest of the crop area (preferably over several seasons) to get a feel for whether it is right for your system.
It is also important to be clear about what you want to achieve. Define your goals and set your approach based on them. For example, if you want to manage large, accumulated soil P reserves, this will impact on the timing of your application.
Biostimulants are often tested on commercial farms in AHDB’s Monitor Farm network. In this test, the farmer buried boxer shorts in the ground as a simple test of soil microbial activity Once you have selected a biostimulant, take time to get to know it. Follow all product guidelines to ensure the product is applied in good conditions. Consider:
- Are the species native and proven in the UK?
- How could the biostimulant interact with native soil organisms?
- Is it incompatible with your system? For example, brassicas cannot form mycorrhizal associations
- Would the biostimulant benefit from the addition of a food source? For example, AM fungi need N and P to develop the initial relationships with compatible roots
- What formulations are available? For example, seed coatings may provide better access to plant roots at early developmental stages
- Do you need to assess the chemical status of your soil?
- What are the optimum moisture and temperature requirements? Microbial activity generally declines with temperature
- How could your fungicide programme affect biostimulant efficacy? For instance, fungal inoculants are unlikely to respond well to being tank mixed with certain fungicides
- How does soil management affect the biostimulant? For example, cultivations can damage mycorrhizal networks
- Does the rotation allow mycorrhizal networks to build? The network will deteriorate in the absence of host plants
- Do certain pests cause problems for the inoculant?
Evidence base
Most biostimulant tests have occurred outside of the UK, often tackling challenges such as drought, salinity, cold, alkalinity and limited nutrient levels.
If soils are in good health, many biostimulants are unlikely to contribute much on a day-to-day basis. However, where proven to be effective under UK field conditions (and cost-effective), they could warrant regular use to insure against ‘bad’ seasons.
AHDB Environment Scientist Joanna McBurnie Evidence for yield impacts associated with the use of biostimulants was reviewed for 11 broad product categories by ADAS/AHDB in 2016. As limited data was available for UK field conditions, evidence from controlled experiments and non-UK field conditions was also used.
The reviewers found that nine of the 11 product categories were associated with a statistically significant increase in yield in at least one experiment. For the most common product categories – seaweed extracts, humic substances, phosphite and plant-growth-promoting bacteria – statistically significant yield responses were observed for 3/7, 3/4, 4/17 and 13/15 cereal experiments, respectively. Data for oilseed rape was found to be lacking for all products, and no firm conclusions could be made.
The AHDB website features in-depth information about biostimulants: ahdb.org.uk/biostimulants
-
A special relationship
Plants depend on microbes and microbes depend on plants. Direct Driller explores this special relationship and asks whether novel biological amendments can supplement natural processes.
By Lucy de la Pasture
‘Very few researchers understand the degree plants are dependent on microbes for their development’, that’s the view of Professor James F White who specialises in symbiosis research at Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA.
To understand why this is, James’ team at Rutgers has gone right back in time to look at the plants that first evolved to live on land. His group has found endophytes in green algae and very primitive plants, the bryophytes (which includes liverworts and mosses), a discovery that indicates microbial communities have been associated with plants from the very beginning.
Understanding the evolutionary process is important because plants can’t develop properly and grow in the absence of microbes, explains James. A landmark evolutionary event occurred around 500 million years ago when in the evolutionary game of chance, a union was made between a eukaryotic organism (having a nucleus) and a photosynthesising cyanobacterium. It marked the origin of plant life which eventually evolved to leave the water and populate the land.
But it was also the very beginning of a special relationship between plants and microbes. When the first plants populated the land, plants needed microbes to supply nutrients to them in the thin ‘soil’, and microbes benefitted because the plant supplied them with sugars.
Plants secrete exudates at their root tips which serve as signalling molecules to attract beneficial communities of microbes. “It really paints a picture that when plants first came onto dry land, they had endophytic microbes within them. We now know that plants use endophytes to adapt to whatever environment they find themselves in, and they are critical not only to their growth and development but for their health and disease protection,” he says.
Endophytes aren’t single microbes, they’re communities of soil organisms that plants recruit to help them adapt to their environment. They can switch endophytes depending on their needs at any time, explains James.
The discovery of how plants utilise these endophytes is relatively new. The interaction was first observed by a group of Australian microbiologists in 2010 and dubbed rhizophagy, but it was the team at Rutger’s university that delved further into the detail and first described the rhizophagy cycle in which plants seem to ‘farm’ microbes for their own benefit.
Professor James F White believes biostimulants microbes can help kickstart the rhizophagy cycle. The process gets underway by plants secreting exudates at their root tips which serve as signalling molecules to attract beneficial communities of microbes, he explains.
“At the root tip meristem, these microbes are somehow internalised by the plant – we don’t yet know the exact mechanism. Once inside the root tissues, the plant produces superoxide which oxidises the bacteria, stripping off the bacterial cell walls to leave protoplasts. It is from these that the plant extracts nutrients.”
What happens next emphasises how plants are dependent on microbes for more than just food, they also need them for root hair development. They do this by secreting substances such as ethylene, nitric oxide and other hormones that trigger root hair elongation.
Some bacteria die during the process but many that survive are ejected back into the soil from the tips of elongating root hairs, where root exudates encourage their cell walls to reform. And the cycle begins again as the microbes migrate away from the root to acquire the additional nutrients they need to grow and then return to the exudates at the root tip,” explains James.
Rhizophagy is a system common to all plants with root hairs. “Without the rhizophagy cycle, roots appear ‘naked’, without root hairs, and you don’t see this much in nature, perhaps only in very acid soils.”
Because the symbiotic relationship between plants and endophytes is especially important in their early development stages, a seed producing plant will place some of its endophytes onto and into its seeds, adds James.
“Seed producing plants systematically use these bacteria and move them onto their seeds so that endophytes are in situ when the seed germinates, aiding root hair development and elongation as well as supply of nutrients to the seedling. Later, some plants will form mycorrhizal associations which will take over the process of acquiring nutrients.”
It’s a process that’s understood by many regenerative farmers that home-save seed because they’re aware it already contains the endophytes adapted to the environment it will be planted into.
Researchers have found that endophytes are necessary for root hair development and elongation. With the focus in farming only recently turning to soil biology and recognising its important function, modern farming practices have left many soils with depleted microbial communities.
“We didn’t understand the importance of microbial communities in the soil and over the years, we’ve used so much chemical fertilisers that we’ve destroyed many of them. But now we understand the soil microbiome is important.”
Boosting microbial communities
That begs the question, can we supplement the soil biology by providing the plant or seed with endophytes?
“I’m a firm believer in biostimulant microbes because they work. Mostly they’re available as soil microbes but sometimes they come from plants. When you apply them to the seed, they’ll replace some of the microbes that were lost so that when the seed germinates, the plant will internalise these microbes and kick-start the rhizophagy cycle.”
Biologicals can also act as a supplement in soils where microbial communities are depleted but it may not be a long-term effect. “In the longer term, once the plant’s roots start growing, other microbes from the soil or microbes that happen to still be in the plant seed will come in and take over. And in many case the microbes you put on will become less important,” says James.
The endophytes in TIROS Max were isolated from wild poplar growing on the nutrient-poor banks of the Snoqualmie River. “However, there are some biostimulant microbes that have been isolated from plants and the intention with those is that they establish a more permanent relationship with the plant. The proviso is that the consortium selected is adapted to the crop plant and the plant needs that community in its environment,” he adds.
Not all endophytes get stuck in the rhizophagy loop, instead the plant moves some of the bacteria from the root and spreads them throughout its tissues. “Many plants will put these bacteria into their leaf hairs (trichomes) where they feed them plant sugars in exchange for the nitrogen these endophytes will fix from atmospheric nitrogen,” explains James.
Increasing nitrogen and phosphorous bioavailability
Landrace corn with nitrogen fixing ability has been discovered in Mexico. It possesses larger and longer filamentous trichomes and is highly nitrogen efficient, a trait that could potentially be brought into commercial corn varieties.
“We can see the nitrogen around the bacteria in these trichomes and we think this nitrogen fixation is happening in trichomes all over the planet.”
It was the ability of popular and willow to not just survive but to thrive on the banks of the Snoqualmie River in western Washington State that led University of Washington’s Prof Sharon Doty to investigate how these plants are able to grow so well in such adverse conditions.
Somehow, the native plants were getting more than adequate nutrition despite the very low nutrient content of the Snoqualmie River, which originates from snow melt and contains less than 0.5 mg/l total nitrogen, and without root nodules to account for N-fixation. The rocks and sand deposited by the river also supply little to no nutrients.
The team at the Doty lab isolated a wide range of symbiotic microbes from the plants’ branches and confirmed N-fixation was occurring in above-ground plant tissues by tracking labelled nitrogen. The results were also supported by the presence of microbial nitrogenase genes in the wild poplar microbiome.
“Over the past two decades of characterising these strains, we’ve determined that some of these microbes make nitrogen and phosphorous bioavailable, increase photosynthesis and water use efficiency, as well as promote plant growth, yields, and health under drought and nutrient stresses,” she explains.
TIROS Max endophytes have been shown to be distributed through the plant by movement in vascular tissues. Using endophytes in the field
A consortium of these bacterial endophytes, isolated from the strains from the Snoqualmie wild poplar, was developed by US-based Intrynsyx Bio as a seed treatment optimised for integration into diverse cropping systems. These endophytes are now available as TIROS Max, which has now superseded Unium Bioscience’s flagship product TIROS.
“The endophytes in TIROS Max are generalist and using electrofluorescence, we’ve seen them move via the vascular system of the plant,” explains Unium’s director John Haywood.
“These plant-microbe associations are known to be beneficial for germination and seedling establishment. Seed endophytic bacteria are found naturally in these early plant growth stages, but TIROS provides a combination of highly functional strains that wouldn’t normally be present to form additional associations with the host plant.”
John describes Tiros as a ‘back-up generator’ that’s running all the time the plant is growing. “When nitrogen and other nutrients are limiting, the endophytic bacteria within the plant tissues provides a solution – helping the plant keep going and then recover once conditions become more favourable.”
As for the permanence of the association between the novel endophytes and crop plants, the data suggests a lasting effect.
“Trials have shown that the endophytes in TIROS Max significantly increase the biomass (shoot and root) over and above untreated and other seed treatments, and it is long-lasting. In winter barley trials, the difference in biomass (compared with untreated) became evident 60 days after treatment and continued to increase at a far greater rate in the following months.
“The larger leaf area has also been found to contain more chlorophyll, improving the photosynthetic capability of plants and ultimately increasing yield. Over 30 trials the average yield response was 0.58t/ha (range -0.19t/ha to 1.84t/ha) and we calculate Tiros is likely to give a 90% chance of return on investment from the data.”
As explained by James, endophytes also improve the plant’s nutrient use efficiency (NUE). In crops where Unium endophytes have been applied, the leaves have been tested to show a higher accumulation of nitrogen. “This is the case for other nutrients, including phosphate and potash, which may be particularly useful where phosphate is locked up in the soil,” explains John.
“Our trials with the TIROS Max endophytes indicate a contribution of around 30Kg N/ha to nitrogen supply. It’s able to facilitates more from less by maintaining yield where N inputs are reduced and supporting yield increases where standard N rates are applied.”
A new generation of biological seed treatment
Building on the reliable performance of TIROS, Unium has developed a unique, advanced formulation of endophytes which supports and enhances rhizophagy during early development and enables crops to fix atmospheric nitrogen (N).
The new formulation provides a prebiotic, also known as an extender, in powder form rather than a liquid. This change removes a mixing phase when preparing the seed treatment and provides more flexibility in the size of batches which can be treated, with smaller quantities of one and five tonnes now able to be treated as well as the standard 10-tonne pack.
Seed treated with TIROS Max produces more biomass above and below ground, with many more root hairs due to enhanced rhizophagy. The extender is a crucial part of the TIROS Max seed treatment and reduces the variability in performance seen historically when live biological products are applied to seeds. The new formulation delivers 13% more Colony Forming Units (CFUs) per seed than TIROS and is effective at preserving the endophytes during application, as well as supporting and promoting early population growth during germination and establishment.
“The new formulation for TIROS Max now sets the bar even higher. It marks a real advancement in seed treatment technology by supporting the biology to a greater extent, demonstrated by the higher CFUs achieved per seed,” comments John.
Want to know more about endophytes?
To celebrate the launch of TIROS Max, Unium is hosting an educational evening on endophytes in collaboration with BOFIN. Two of the leading researchers in this field are joining us in a special webinar on July 2nd at 6pm.
Prof James White of Rutgers University in New Jersey will outline his research into rhizophagy and how endophytes affect root development and Prof Sharon Doty of the University of Washington will outline the discovery of endophytes that can fix atmospheric nitrogen in non-nodulating plants and sequester phosphate.
The feature event of this educational evening on endophytes will be a ‘fireside chat’ where both researchers will be joined by agroecology consultant Ben Taylor-Davies in an interactive, no-holds barred discussion. With questions from the audience, there’s the opportunity to find out anything you want to know about endophytes, including how farming practices affect them and how effective it is to supplement naturally occurring endophytes with biological amendments.
For further information and to register, click here
-
Can you farm carbon?
As I embarked on my Nuffield scholarship in 2022, I held soil carbon markets (SCMs) in very high regard. The media buzz portrayed them as a transformative solution for promoting regenerative farming in UK agriculture. Sceptics of SCMs were dismissed as ‘killjoys’ and those likening it to the ‘wild west’ considered ‘spoilsports’.
Soil carbon dynamics
Understanding the dynamics of soil carbon (C) sequestration was essential at the start of my Nuffield. Researchers in France and the US have clarified that soil continuously loses carbon, at between 1 and 5% loss of background soil organic matter (SOM) annually. Soil micro-organisms, together with larger fauna (e.g. earthworms), break down the SOM, using its organic carbon as a food source and respiring it to the atmosphere as CO2. This loss is usually greater than C inputs in crop stubble, chaff and roots; therefore to maintain or increase soil carbon levels, farmers need to apply additional carbon inputs through cover crop residues, straw returned, manure or inclusion of grass leys in the rotation. Think of your soil carbon balance like a bank account- if your deposits are larger than your withdrawals then your balance is going to increase, and vice versa.
The soil micro-organisms process these fresh carbon additions, eventually releasing 90% of the carbon back to the atmosphere as respirational CO2. Around half of this loss may occur in the first year, three quarters loss by 4 years with the remainder being lost over the next 10 years or so. Only 10% may remain as stable persistent soil carbon which has potential for climate change mitigation and relevant for offsetting. This 10% is the excrement or dead bodies (aka necromass) of those micro-organisms. In summary, sequestering soil carbon is quite hard! Soil micro-organisms prefer to cycle soil carbon rather than just let you store it, in the process they provide the vital soil health and function farmers rely on.
The complexity of sequestering soil carbon becomes apparent here. When bold claims are made about significant increases in total soil carbon, it’s crucial to discern whether this carbon is part of the transient 90% or the more stable 10%. Selling the temporary 90% as carbon credits is misleading, as this carbon quite quickly returns to the atmosphere. As one farmer recently explained to me, selling this 90% fraction as offsets could be likened to fly tipping- collecting someone else’s rubbish but then throwing empty cans out the window as they drive down the road. I was rather impressed with their analogy!
In the case of a move towards minimal or no-till, has the farmer just re-distributed carbon within the soil profile, concentrating it in the surface? If I tidy my house and move all the downstairs clutter upstairs, the bottom floor may look tidier while the upper floor may look twice as cluttered. But the total amount of clutter hasn’t changed, I’ve just concentrated it upstairs- it works the same for your soil carbon.
Soil scientists- US based Marshall McDaniel (left, centre), France based Murilo Veloso 
France based Murilo Veloso (right, right). Information asymmetry
When selling any product, thorough product knowledge is key. It allows you to help the buyer discern if your product matches their needs and expectations, and explain any potential risks and benefits over possible alternatives. In SCMs information asymmetry between market participants can create power imbalances, inefficiencies and moral hazard. Are farmers and buyers fully aware of the credibility issues and potential risks of trading carbon credits? Are carbon brokers being open and honest about this? It seems many do not grasp the intricacies of what they are trading. If you think you’re selling a horse and the buyer later discovers you sold them a donkey- they are not going to be happy about that, even if you didn’t know at the time! I think it’s vital for farmers, buyers and carbon brokers to upskill themselves on the SCM so they know what questions to be asking of each other, to avoid potential hazards.
Figure 2:Is this a picture of a horse or a donkey? Unless all parties have clear and full information, it’s might not be clear to either party what is being bought or sold, with obvious implications. Source: Unsplash. The importance of Additionality
The carbon offset market exists solely to mitigate climate change by neutralizing new emissions and storing them in sinks like soil. For offsets to be genuine, additionality is crucial- the sale of carbon credits must drive new carbon removal activities. If these activities would occur regardless, the credits don’t deliver their intended benefit to the climate.
Let’s imagine you lead a healthy lifestyle- you eat healthily, and you normally attend two gym sessions per week. But today you decide to eat a slice of cake. It’s all good- you’ll cancel out the cake when you attend your second weekly gym session tomorrow. No you won’t. You already do two gym sessions per week, to truly cancel out the slice of cake you would need to attend an additional 3rd gym session- otherwise you’re just going to put on weight! It’s the same with carbon offsets that demonstrate poor additionality- companies can’t genuinely offset carbon emissions with an activity that was already happening or going to happen anyway. To do so would be to brush their climate responsibilities aside, because they would continue emitting without having genuinely neutralised them elsewhere, their emissions would continue to warm the climate.
During my research, I found that early adopters of regenerative practices were the main participants in SCMs. These farmers had already implemented most of their carbon farming practices in the past, raising questions about the additionality of these credits. Buyers of these credits would be claiming credit for routine actions that would have occurred anyway—effectively greenwashing. This is akin to you using your 2nd routine weekly gym session to offset that piece of cake you ate. Clearly, without additionality carbon credits don’t accelerate the adoption of regenerative farming- they maintain the status quo, and they don’t deliver their intended benefit to the climate- defying the sole reason they were created in the first place. In the absence of it driving either of those things one has to ask what the point of them is?
Additionality rules seem to be the achilleas heel for these carbon brokers. If they stick to the rules too rigidly they likely don’t have a business. At today’s low carbon prices, undoubtedly the path of least resistance for them is to use these early adopting regenerative farmers to generate carbon credits- they’re already doing these farming practices so arguably don’t need any incentive to carry on doing so. So even small incentives will be attractive to them- after all they don’t have to do anything different. Only if the carbon price increases significantly could incentives be large enough to persuade conventional farmers to change their ways- which would improve additionality.
The strict (but necessary) additionality requirement for offsets creates a potential injustice for early adopting regenerative farmers who feel they should be rewarded for their early efforts. While I agree rewarding early adopters matters, offsets seem an improper mechanism with which to do so.
Figure 3: Examples of progressive ‘early adopter’ farmers I met in the US who expressed concerns about being excluded from the SCM on the grounds of additionality, because they had already implemented their carbon farming practices in the past – a contentious issue among this community of farmer. Source: author’s own. Insetting: a Viable alternative?
Insetting, where companies work with farmers to reduce ‘scope 3’ emissions (emissions associated with the production of their raw materials such as grain or milk) within their supply chain, offers a promising alternative. Unlike offsetting, insetting keeps carbon credits within the value chain, reducing issues related to additionality and permanence. It allows companies to reward both early and late adopters, making it more attractive to early adopting farmers who feel excluded from SCMs.
Insetting has additional benefits. When a farmer reduces net emissions, all stakeholders in the supply chain can claim this ‘scope 3’ reduction, fostering potential collaboration and cost sharing. At this point I can almost hear farmers shouting ‘but I get fleeced by my supply chain!’. For insetting to be fair and effective, policy and regulation might well be necessary to ensure food and beverage companies collaborate justly with farmers. But farmers shouldn’t consider themselves helpless- you don’t have to wait around for your commodity buyer to play catch up or play fair. You can be proactive, go out and find new customers that want to buy low carbon or regeneratively grown commodities, if that’s what you want to do- those customers are out there and will likely pay a premium.
A role for policy and legislation?
In the US, the ’45Z’ tax credit policy incentivises renewable fuel producers to source low-carbon corn from early adopting regenerative farmers, an example of insetting. This model rewards early adopters which motivates others to follow suit, driving sector-wide change. Unlike the SCM, which often excludes early adopters, this approach channels financial incentives to those already practicing sustainable farming- without any issues with additionality.
Figure 4: An example of one US based early adopting regenerative farmer who favoured an insetting model based on the ‘45Z’ tax credit system. In his eyes this is superior to offsetting as it rewards the right people like him, and incentivises other farmers to farm the way he does. Source: author’s own. Conclusion
You may be reading this thinking I’ve joined the ‘killjoys’ of the carbon offset market. I haven’t. While I still support carbon offsetting in principle, it must be genuine and effective. Current SCMs seem to maintain the status quo rather than drive meaningful change, and therefore aren’t delivering their intended benefits for the climate. If carbon prices rise sufficiently, SCMs might incentivise new practices, meeting additionality requirements and genuine climate mitigation, whilst delivering a myriad of wider benefits to farmers and the environment. What’s not to like about that (if it happens!). However, this could also exclude early adopters due to strict (but necessary) additionality rules, who could be perversely incentivised to un-do past practices in order to participate- another reason why the insetting model may be seen as superior.
Climate change poses significant risks to us, future generations and especially the agricultural sector, making it vital to avoid greenwashing. For farmers to get embroiled in greenwash would only be shooting themselves in the foot.
Farmers face numerous challenges, including rising costs, climate change, and environmental regulations- it’s necessary for farmers to spearhead internal change of the sector to combat these challenges. The jury is out as to whether the SCM has a relevant role to play here, in the meantime promoting the adoption of regenerative practices for reasons beyond small financial incentives from SCMs might be more effective. There is ample support available through schemes like the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) and water companies to support farmers’ transitions.
Do we need SCMs? What is their purpose if not to deliver their intended benefits? Do they present more risk or opportunity? These questions are crucial as we navigate the future of UK agriculture. For further insights, my full Nuffield report is available here.
Find Ben on X/Twitter: @soilcarBEN
-
Farmer Focus – David Aglen
It was so wet, all we could do was wait patiently and relax!
May 2024
Our first outdoor calving for a generation here at Balbirnie is complete. We managed to get the cows off kale and onto grass on the 15th March. The grass was deferred from July last year. Daily moves were planned, and due to the very wet conditions, absolutely necessary. On the worst of the days, we were moving twice daily. Calving, due to start 10th April, started as planned with few problems.
Cows were moved onto fresh grass daily, the freshly calved moved as well if they chose to, otherwise they were left to catch up with the herd a few days later. We started to encounter a few problems towards the end with some heifers from a particular blood line which required vet assistance, and even a few caesarean sections. Not all the efforts were successful, unfortunately. Such outcomes are very disheartening. We spent a while trying to work out why this had happened and concluded that the ample grass they were getting led to some oversize calves. So, it may have been our management that was the main factor in this, rather than the heifers concerned. We should probably consider restricting the grass to heifers that are due to calve in the last 3 weeks of calving to reduce the risk of a repeat in future.
Cows and calves are all thriving now on the ridiculous amount of grass we have, with ‘happy lines’ appearing on the cows. These horizontal lines along the cows’ body are said to be a sign of good health on animals on a high forage diet.
Some of the youngstock were moved from kale to grass on the 1st March, the aim was to finish them a little earlier, with the majority making the transition in mid-April. Average gains have been 1.3kg/day since then. There are a few stragglers letting the side down, but a good number are gaining over 2kg/day. Poor performing genetics will be taken out of the herd as we continue to improve performance. Hopefully I can report back next year with a higher average daily gain.
Finally, our patience gave out, we made a tentative start to sowing spring crops on the 1st April, for one day only, not unsuccessfully. However, we would have to wait another 3 weeks before conditions improved sufficiently again for round two. We managed to establish everything in conditions varying from ok to excellent in the following fortnight. Thereafter the heavens opened again. We cultivated most of the spring cereal land as we had concerns about a pan 2 to 3 inches down. This felt like the right decision at the time, Ijust hope we have not undone several years of structure building in one fell swoop. We did direct drill a couple of barley fields as a comparison and the combine will tell us if we wasted the money or not.
Since then, we have had some very growthy conditions, with crops catching up almost to where they would be normally for the time of year. The capacity of nature to do this always amazes me. However, we are starting to see the effects of the very wet May now, with yellow patches appearing in fields, adding to the fact that the land was just dry enough when crops were sown.
Winter crops have responded well to the favourable conditions, with the ugly parts disappearing among the lush growth. This makes us feel better, but they will still be ugly at harvest. It should be no surprise to us that the winter oats appear to have relished the wetter season more than anything else. I have high hopes for the output, so long as they remain standing.
We have managed with only one fungicide on the wheat, as per usual, to sort out the yellow rust. Our blend consisting of Istabraq, Revelation, Sundance, Skyscraper and Redwald appears to have been bolstered by the addition of Dawsum. There is a clear improvement in the disease pressure. I apply little science to this mix, simply adding together what grew well on the farm at the start, followed by extra varieties that perform well locally over the years. The only downside I have discovered is that the judges in The Fife Agricultural Association crop competition do not like blends – they do not look pretty enough with the heads all at slightly different heights and varying shades of green. On the bright side, that will save us the £5 entry fee from now on.
I wonder what the future will have in store for us if these wet seasons do become more frequent. Will arable cropping be worthwhile here? I am certain that we need more grass in the rotation, the only questions are how much more and how to make a good margin from it?
We are seeing fields with historically poor structure recover remarkably quickly once put down to grass and grazed appropriately. Our fixed costs are already paired to the bone, so any further reduction in the arable area would need to see a slight redistribution of labour into livestock which is not always a popular request. The move can be eased by judicious investment in infrastructure to ensure dealing with animals is as straight forward as possible. With that in mind, the team are currently building a new livestock handling system. We have outgrown the existing facilities as we run the animals in increasingly large mobs. Most of the construction has taken place in the farm workshop. Our guys, Colin Black and Grant Ross have worked tirelessly to make what will be a very smart looking set up when finished.
Hairy vetch has been a new addition to our cover crop species. We sowed some in a mix with rye last autumn to get a look at it. Having appeared to be rather lack-lustre over the winter, especially when sown after mid-September, I have been very pleasantly surprised how it has grown since the third week of April. ‘A bit of a beast’ would be one description. A few of these fields will be taken to harvest to provide seed for next year. The rest were mown and baled up in the 3rd week of May. These bales were left in the fields, all lined up ready for next winter. The kale will be sown around them, providing the complete diet for the cattle for a portion of next winter.
We are entering the holiday season here soon. From Mid-June onwards we seldom have a full compliment of bodies as there will be someone on holiday virtually every day until early August. With that I would like to wish you all a great summer and hopefully harvest will be a pleasant surprise for us all.
-
Horizon – Our first Agritechnica
Can we justify the expense? Do we have enough staff? Do we know anyone who speaks German? Where is Hannover? These were the questions being discussed at Horizon in 2021, but the decision was finally made; “we’re going to Agritechnica 23 and we will make it a success!’”
As a young company with only 2 years of trading at the time, we committed to attending. This decision was a bold one to say the least! Not only is Agritechnica a huge financial investment, the planning, build phase and attendance of the event would also drain a considerable amount of resources from the daily operation of the business.
With credit to everyone involved, the preparations and build phase went well. The machines arrived on time, our stand builders were brilliant, nothing was left in England and all the marketing material looked fantastic. One lesson we quickly learnt was to not underestimate the time it takes to polish our machines to ‘Agritechnica standard’! After Sam Illingworth and I spent over two hours cleaning one 750 Michelin tyre each, we quickly called for reinforcements!
Several months before the event, conversations developed with the marketing team at Fendt about Horizon displaying products on their stand as part of their ‘Future Farming’ area. This was clearly a huge opportunity for us to showcase our products alongside such an established German brand. I thought I had a lot on my plate organising for Horizon to attend, but working alongside the Fendt marketing team gave me a great insight into just what level of preparation is required for the tractor manufacturers to attend such an event.
Our SPX (Strip-Till) and PPX (Planter) looked fantastic on their stand, it gave us significant exposure to farmers who weren’t aware of Horizon and added a real buzz to the occasion. We were incredibly proud to have our machines endorsed by such a huge global player and it was a fitting representation of just how far Horizon has come in such a short period of time.
7 days is a long time to work on an exhibition stand, so we staggered the team attendance to ensure we always had fresh and enthusiastic faces to greet potential customers. With no German speakers in our commercial team and no German dealers, our inability to speak German was a big concern. Thankfully Florian Roettger (our first German DSX customer) kindly offered to help us for 2 days and he was so inundated with German farmers interested in our products that after the event we agreed to employ him as our German Territory Manager.
We were delighted with how many farmers and dealers visited our stand. The event offered a great platform for us to formally launch into the German market, which is now seeing significant interest as German farmers start to transition to regenerative practices. It also gave us a fantastic platform to meet a lot of new dealers, from Agritechnica introductions we have now appointed new dealers in Italy, Switzerland, Czech, Croatia, Austria, Bulgaria and Moldova.
It’s always nice to shake hands on a deal at a show, with one such deal at Agritechnica leading to the sale of our first machine into China. This was a PPX Planter which we delivered in March with Jon Gray, our Head of Technical Support, travelling to China to install with the farmer.
It was also great to welcome so many British farmers to our stand, however another lesson that we quickly learnt is that when a British farmer travels abroad, he wants beer! We had planned to offer refreshments to all our visitors but massively underestimated the required volumes of beer so every morning the team had to make trips to the local Lidl to fill the back of our cars and carry in crates on a daily basis, much to the concern of the event security!
Was it worth it and will we go back? Absolutely no question we will! Agritechnica is a special show and if you’ve never attended then I highly recommend it. We have already started our preparations for next year and can’t wait to launch several exciting new product developments.
Do come and visit us at Agritechnica in November 2025, we’ll have plenty of cold beer next time!
Charlie Eaton, Head of Sales & Marketing – Horizon Agricultural Machinery
-
A brief history of the Recommended Lists (RL)
The RL has entered its eightieth year. Jason Pole, technical content manager at AHDB, explores the history and direction of the long-lived lists.
A brief history?
The RL has delivered trusted, independent variety information since 1944. Over the intervening 80 years, it has evolved and adapted through many changes to farming and wider society. Although it is difficult to capture all the ins and outs in a single article (you’d probably need a book), it is possible to pen a potted history to chart some of the key developments.
1940s and 1950s
In August 1944, World War II continued to rage across the globe, but the end was in sight. Paris was liberated (25 August) and, as nations met in Washington DC to discuss proposals for a new international body that became the United Nations, thoughts turned to the post-war period and brighter times.
One ray of light for farming was the release of the first recommended list by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB). Published 8 August 1944, it was a major milestone. Although restricted to a narrative description of winter wheat varieties for England and Wales, it gave farmers an evidence-based list to help them sift through the many (over 100) varieties available.
After the war, agriculture relentlessly focused on output. It was a catalyst for improvements in plant genetics and production practices. For example, the post-war period saw increased UK investment by overseas plant breeding companies. It also featured advances in chemistry, including the first synthetic herbicide in the UK (MCPA, 1946) and the introduction of the multi-site fungicide folpet (1952).
In 1952, the RL introduced the first 1–9 trait scoring system. It was part of developments that moved the lists from being primarily descriptive to primarily numerical. The RL increasingly helped to quantify the benefits (and weaknesses) associated with varieties, making it easier for farmers to back varieties most likely to succeed in their systems. It also started to underpin the rise of varieties that dominated the market (often for many years). In 1953, for example, two highly influential varieties were first listed: Capelle Desprez (winter wheat) and Proctor (spring malting barley).
The change to the varietal composition across the UK, combined with improvements in agronomy, culminated in big uplifts in yield in the second half of the twentieth century. In 1944, average commercial winter wheat yields were only about 2.5 t/ha – a long way behind today’s average of about 8.6 t/ha.
The 1960s
Several notable developments occurred in the mid-60s. In 1964, the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act established a royalty payment system for plant varieties (plant breeders’ rights). The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) also commissioned NIAB to test varieties for distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) and to conduct statutory variety performance trials. The year also saw the broad-spectrum fungicide chlorothalonil introduced and Maris Widgeon wheat listed (still the variety of choice for thatching). The following year, 1965, saw the establishment of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) and the launch of winter oat Peniarth, which dominated the UK market for 25 years.
The 1970s
The 1970s kicked off with Norman Borlaug winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership that contributed to extensive increases in global agricultural production, saving (by some estimates) a billion lives. This included the development of semi-dwarf wheat varieties, with the first true semi-dwarf wheat variety listed in the UK in 1976 (Maris Hobbit).
In 1973, the UK joined the European Common Market. Throughout the decade, common agricultural policy (CAP) incentives increasingly influenced what was produced (and how much was produced). As part of the European Community, the UK adopted the National Lists (NL) system for cereals that established a candidate variety’s value for cultivation and use (VCU) and generated extremely valuable trial data for the RL. Varieties usually go through at least two years of NL trials before being considered for the RL trials, with data only published once candidates are added to the NL. The NL system was eventually replaced (see the 2020s section).
Chemical advances in the 1970s included the introduction of glyphosate (1974) and azole fungicides (1976). Incredibly, the decade also saw UK Flour Millers (UKFM, known as nabim at that time) celebrate 100 years since its inaugural meeting in 1878. Even more impressive is that the Maltsters’ Association of Great Britain (MAGB) celebrated 150 years of representing the UK malting industry in 1977. The decade also brought major advances in single-low varieties that helped to underpin a major expansion of the UK oilseed rape area.
The 1980s
The 1980s saw major changes in the way new varieties were produced and regulated. In particular, 1986 was a big year, with the formation of the British Society of Plant Breeders (BSPB). The HGCA levy also began support of the RL, which coordinated investment in cereal trials across the UK. Also, in 1986, UK flour millers’ usage of home-grown wheat exceeded 80% for the first time, as breeding started to deliver better bread-making varieties for the UK. In the following year, the Cambridge-based Plant Breeding Institute (PBI) was privatised (sold to Unilever), marking the end of public-sector involvement in variety development in the UK.
In the USA, the first genetically modified (GM) crop was released (a virus-resistant tobacco). In the UK, the introduction of double-low oilseed rape varieties improved end-use quality for food and animal feed, fuelling the continued expansion of the crop. The decade also saw ever-closer integration of the RL and NL trial systems.
The 1990s
The 1990s got underway with a broadening of HGCA’s scope to cover oilseeds (levy rate of 50p/tonne) and investment in variety evaluation across the UK, with the first UK list for cereals released in 1993.
In 1991, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) convention recognised the right of plant breeders to collect royalties on farm-saved seed, with the first payments collected by BSPB in 1996.
The decade also saw the first HGCA strategic review of the RL (1996), strobilurin fungicides introduced into the UK (1997) and the arrival of the first fully restored oilseed rape hybrids (1996). HGCA also embraced the digital age, publishing the RL on its new website (which, thankfully, turned out to be immune to the millennium bug – like most of the internet).
The 2000s
In 2001, as foot-and-mouth rocked the UK livestock sector, the full responsibility of the RL transferred from NIAB to HGCA. The same year saw the establishment of the Voluntary Initiative (VI) to allow the industry to self-regulate its use of pesticides (and avoid the introduction of a pesticide tax) and the publication of The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations.
The first HGCA-produced RL was launched in 2002, which included Mendel – the first oilseed rape variety recommended for growing on clubroot-infected land. In addition, 2002 saw the launch of the harvest results service (by fax and email) to release RL trial information soon after it was gathered by the plot combines.
Following the formation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in 2001, MAFF was formally dissolved in 2002. This year also saw strobilurins rocked by resistance, with the first septoria tritici isolates with much-reduced sensitivity to this chemistry identified in the UK (just five years after its introduction).
The following year, 2003, saw Robigus listed (in 2019, this would be named by NIAB as the most influential UK wheat variety from the past 100 years). HGCA distributed 33,000 copies of the RL (booklet and CD) and grew over 100 varieties at the Cereals Event – a feature (including plot tours) that became an event staple for almost 15 years. The same event saw the National Register of Sprayer Operators (NRoSO) launched on the VI stand, by the then-Defra Farming Minister Lord Whitty.
In 2004, HGCA introduced its classifications for wheat exports ukp (bread wheat) and uks (soft wheat). The year also saw the introduction of the first recommended winter wheat variety with resistance to wheat blossom midge (Welford). In 2008, HGCA became part of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds).
The following year, 2009, saw the arrival of the first semi-dwarf-type oilseed rape varieties. It also recorded the start of a series of alarming changes to the UK’s yellow rust pathogen population, which saw some dramatic changes in resistance ratings. For example, the yellow rust rating of winter wheat variety Oakley fell to just 2 (from 6), with the variety subsequently removed from trials.
The 2010s
The 2010s picked up where the previous decade left off. The wheat yellow rust pathogen population became increasingly diverse, following the arrival of the “Warrior race” in the UK (2011). Subsequent investigations revealed the race comprised a diverse population (which forced a new approach to naming races).
Some varieties became more susceptible to the disease, others withstood the invasion. The latter includes Crusoe (first listed in 2012) that maintains a resistance rating of 8 on the current (2024/25) list. The variety has had a good innings. Syngenta also launched the first SDHI fungicide (isopyrazam) for cereals in the UK in 2012, bringing improved septoria control, just as AHDB’s fungicide performance data was starting to clearly show the decline in activity of azoles against the disease.
The 2010s also saw a peak of innovation in oilseed rape breeding, with multiple new traits being introduced onto the RL. In 2013, DK Imagine CL became the first oilseed rape variety listed with a specific recommendation for tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides (a Clearfield® variety). In 2015, V 316 OL became the first HOLL (high oleic and low in linolenic acid) variety listed, which opened value in the food-oil markets. This was followed by Amalie in 2016, which became the first turnip yellows virus (TuYV) resistant winter oilseed rape variety listed. Tempering the good news was the start of restrictions on the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments in 2013, marking the beginning of a major decline in oilseed rape crop areas.
Though average UK winter wheat yield peaked at 8.9 t/ha in 2015, rising costs, increasing resistance to crop protection products and tightening regulations saw a subtle shift in what farmers wanted from varieties and the RL. A survey of growers in 2018 saw disease resistance topping their priority list – a shift from a survey in 2011 that recorded fungicide-treated yield as the most important factor. These findings led to changes in RL recommendation processes that made it easier for varieties with lower yields but good disease resistance to get onto the lists.
Key varieties recommended included spring malting barley variety Laureate, which still dominates the malting market, Skyfall, which brought feed-wheat yields to the quality bread-making Group 1s, and KWS Extase, which had “exceptional untreated grain yield of 95% (compared with the treated control varieties)”.
At the end of the decade, AHDB launched a variety selection tool to provide a way to navigate, select and visualise trial data for winter (wheat, barley, oats and oilseed rape) and spring (barley and oats) crops.
The 2020s
The current decade kicked off with the launch of the RL app, which adds value to the online tables and booklet by delivering the latest variety data to farmers’ fingertips. It replaced the pocketbook publications, following a request for more digital sources of information. Initially based on RL 2020/21 data, the app gets a major update each year, just after the release of the latest lists. Unlike its physical counterpart, it also gets minor updates throughout the year to include, for example, the latest candidate data.
Due to instability in rust populations, RL 2021/22 introduced major changes to wheat brown and yellow rust disease resistance ratings. It used weightings to give the most recent years’ results more influence, making the ratings more sensitive to changes in the pathogen population. The same edition also saw the first winter wheat variety (RGT Wolverine) with a specific recommendation for resistance to barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV).
Following high levels of septoria tritici in the 2020/21 growing season and concerns about the breaking of resistance in varieties with Cougar in their parentages, AHDB issued the RL 2022/23 septoria tritici ratings early. We also revised the cereal lodging ratings to help pull apart varietal differences and make the ratings more representative of what is seen in the field and improve their consistency.
Since RL 2023/24, the tables for winter wheat have included information on young plant resistance to yellow rust. Some varieties are susceptible at the young plant stage but develop moderate to high levels of resistance later, after the adult plant stage resistance kicks in. In a season with high levels of yellow rust (like this year), it is good to know how well a variety resists the disease across its life cycle.
The UK officially “Brexited” at the start of the 2020s. One of the many ramifications was that new GB and NI Variety Lists (VL) officially replaced the NL system. It hasn’t had a major impact on the RL, but it has increased some costs and been occasionally inconvenient. It should settle down, with time.
The RL today
Over its lifetime, the RL has grown in scope and depth. It now involves several hundred trials each year, spread from Cornwall to Aberdeenshire, and delivers annually updated variety data for 11 crops in recommended and descriptive lists.
- Number of trial plots = 24,735
- Length of plots (combined) = 293 km (almost London to York)
- Width of plots (combined) = 47 km (almost Coventry to Worcester)
- Plot area (combined) = 54.4 ha (75 Wembley football pitches)
Note: figures based on AHDB-funded RL trials for harvest 2023.
AHDB has committed almost £10 million to the current five-year RL project phase (2021–26). However, the total project cost, which includes cash and in-kind contributions from breeders and processors, is closer to £25 million.
The evolution continues
In 2023, over 900 people responded to the latest RL review to direct the future of the variety trialling project.
This reconfirmed that the RL is widely used and highly valued, but it also identified that the RL needs to continue evolving over the short, medium and long term. An early development in response to the review was immediate changes to the current (RL 2024/25) booklet. Over 300 farmers and agronomists voted on alternative formats, with 72% opting for the same option, which provides the following advantages:
- Variety data can be viewed on a single page
- A new fold-out key provides at-a-glance information
- Agronomic information is in a more prominent position
- More information is included about the RL trial system and recommendation process
We have also strengthened our digital tools:
- A comparison feature added to the RL app
- A variety index tool published to show the year a variety was first and last listed
- Variety selection tool updated faster (with plans to develop a simpler “entry level” version)
With more resources directed towards digital tools, we will no longer produce the summer edition of the RL booklet. Compared to the winter (first) edition, demand for this edition was relatively low.
Low-input research
Most RL trials aim to limit the influence of (controllable) factors that may hold back genetic potential. For example, the fungicide programmes help minimise disease in treated trials and nitrogen is applied to maximise yield in feed varieties. The RL trials also test other extremes, such as in the fungicide-untreated trial series.
It is important to test the extremes. However, we are often asked to provide information more in line with commercial practice. It was a point raised again in the RL review responses. We have funded two three-month scoping reviews to examine evidence of varietal responses under lower-input scenarios (nitrogen and fungicides, respectively). The initial results from these reviews will be issued this summer.
For the latest RL news, visit: ahdb.org.uk/rl
-
BYDV threat under the spotlight at TWB Farms open day
The increasing threat of barley yellow dwarf virus in winter wheat and the potential of resistant varieties to overcome it was the focus of a recent open day at TWB Farms, near Lichfield.
Host farmer Clive Bailye set up an observation trial last autumn, comparing 15ha of BYDV-resistant RGT Grouse with a similar area of Dawsum. Clive, who started the farm’s no-till/cover crop regime 16 years ago, hasn’t used insecticides in that time. “We’ve not had any noticeable symptoms or yield loss, apart from occasional hotspots under hedges and trees, but are we losing yields from sub-clinical disease?
“That’s one reason I’m keen to find out more about BYDV-resistant wheat. I also I want to maintain my no-insecticide policy, and the trait is even more interesting now we can receive £45/ha under SFI where we don’t use insecticides on crops.”
How much he will learn from his trial this year is unclear. Despite large numbers of aphids being recorded in the area, very few were seen in crops and BYDV symptoms are absent. “The general consensus is that the wet autumn reduced aphid numbers,” said Clive, who intends to follow up next year with a split field trial, using qPCR testing to pick up any sub-clinical presence. RAGT managing director Lee Bennett says unprotected crops can suffer severe damage when aphid numbers are high. “BYDV is the single most damaging pest of winter cereals,” he added.
According to AHDB figures 82% of the UK wheat area is susceptible to BYDV and the average annual loss would be 8% if no action was taken against the disease.
“We’ve artificially recreated that situation at our breeding station in Cambridge, applying inoculated aphids to plots of our own BYDV-resistant wheats and several popular conventional varieties,” Lee said. “None were sprayed with insecticide. The BYDV-resistant varieties were untouched, but we saw 2% to 60% yield loss in the conventional ones. At the upper end it’s not worth getting the combine out.”
He added: “Neonicotinoids gave fantastic control of aphids for two decades, but after their withdrawal in 2019 we’re left with often prophylactic applications of pyrethroids as the only chemical control.”
Lee Benett | RAGT | Direct Driller Magazine However, RAGT’s Genserus (BYDV-resistant) varieties offer complete season-long control, whilst providing economic and environmental benefits, ease of management and security he said (see table).
In addition, currently available varieties (see panels) offer a real opportunity to claim the £45/ha SFI payment for insecticide-free crops thanks to their double resistance to BYDV and orange wheat blossom midge.
“Genserus varieties offer the best control of BYDV, do not affect the environment and are cost effective,” Lee said. “The trait element costs around £14/ha, the equivalent of buying and applying just one pyrethroid spray.”
BYDV control
Currently, growers who choose to spray are totally reliant on pyrethroids, said entomologist Dr Alan Dewar.
“Nothing else is registered for use in the autumn at the moment, so this must change,” he says. “The risk of selection for resistance is very high.”
Of the two main aphid vectors of BYDV, the bird cherry-oat aphid is controlled well by pyrethroids, although resistant/tolerant clones have recently been recorded in Ireland and China.
By contrast, resistant grain aphids were first recorded in 2009, and control failures have been reported in four years since then, most recently in 2023.
Quoting Dr Stephen Foster of Rothamsted Research, Dr Dewar said: “Whilst currently a moderate resistance, it will become important if lower rates of pyrethroids are applied and/or coverage is inadequate.”
Non-chemical methods for reducing BYDV are available, he added. “Delaying drilling until the aphid threat is diminished works well – aphids do eventually stop flying through November and in December. But late drilling can result in reduced yields and getting crops drilled in the first place is also subject to inclement weather, as in 2019 and 2023.”
Conservation control, such as flowering margins that encourage predators like hover flies, has helped to put an end to major epidemics of grain aphids in wheat ears in the summer, Dr Dewar believes. “However, it is less easy to rely on predators in the autumn, when virus transmission is the main threat.”
The use of BYDV resistant/tolerant varieties has worked well in barley. “This should be regarded the best approach as you don’t need pesticide at all,” he notes. “The big question is whether yields can match the top conventional varieties – there have been problems with that in barley, for example.”
However, Dr Dewar added; “Epidemics of aphids carrying BYDV are occurring more often in the autumn due to global warming, causing BYDV infection the following spring.”
If regulatory pressure on chemistry increases and aphid resistance climbs, might BYDV-resistant crops be the only solution?
Genserus varieties available this autumn
RGT Grouse
- Group 4 type hard feed wheat
- Resistant to BYDV and OWBM
- Suitable for early sowing when BYDV risk is highest
- High tillering capacity and retention
- Good disease resistance
- Very good yield potential
RGT Goldfinch
- The UK’s first quality wheat resistant to BYDV and OWBM
- Very strong disease profile – best in official trials
- Clean, consistent, and sustainable
- Excellent baking quality to date
- Strong miller interest
- RL Candidate variety – accelerated production means seed is available.
