Lockhart & Wiseman’s Crop Husbandry Including Grassland || Sustainable crop management

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd

9

Sustainable crop management DOI: 10.1533/9781782423928.2.218

Abstract: Agricultural systems have intensifi ed in order to produce crops and livestock at the lowest unit cost in a competitive global market. This can only be achieved in the long term through sustainable production systems that take account of the impact of farming on the natural environment and resources – water, soil and air. The Common Agricultural Policy is introducing new rules on having at least three crops in the rotation and a ‘greening’ requirement of 7%. Targets to improve water quality by reducing diffuse pollution have focused attention on soil management and are driven by the Water Framework Directive.

Key words: integrated farm management, crop rotations, soil management, wildlife and conservation, environmental stewardship.

9.1 Introduction The agricultural industry has experienced a period of great change in the last decade following a relatively stable period through the 1980s and 1990s. The catalyst was the review of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) brought about by the Accession Countries joining the European Union in May 2004. The inclusion of a further ten countries required a change in the arrangements for agricultural support in order for the CAP to be sustainable. The reforms moved from subsidy payments targeted at production fi nally to a regional fl at rate payment per hectare in 2012. These payments are linked to environmental and biodiversity targets. These changes mean that farming systems are now fully exposed to global food markets, and as a consequence prices for agricultural products are more volatile. The impact of these changes has encouraged farmers to produce food at the lowest unit price, which generally results in specialisation of enterprises and an increase in the area farmed to spread overhead costs. However, agricultural systems are still closely aligned to the concept of integrated farm management and sustainability, and the adoption of this philosophy will

Sustainable crop management 219

allow farmers to meet both cross-compliance and statutory management requirements as well as maintaining a viable farming system.

9.2 The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in 2004, called the Mid Term Review, has had a major impact on rural businesses. The aim of the reforms was to decouple support payments from a production basis. It was hoped that this would remove the fi nancial incentive to intensify both arable and livestock enterprises by producing more grain per hectare or increasing stocking rates respectively. The Single Payment Scheme (SPS), (sometimes referred to as the Single Farm Payment (SFP)), started initially as a historic payment in England based partially on support payments received over the period 2000 to 2002. By 2012 these payments levelled out to a fl at rate regional payment per hectare. The system was managed slightly differently in Wales and Scotland.

The concept of cross- compliance was introduced as part of the new measures. Farmers only receive the SPS if they demonstrate their land is in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) and they comply with a number of specifi ed legal requirements relating to the environment, public and plant health, animal health and welfare, and livestock identifi cation and tracing. These are termed Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs). Farmers who are found not to comply can have their single payment reduced. For example, farmers are required to have a fi eld margin of at least two metres which is uncropped from the boundary midpoint, and must produce a soil management plan for the farm which considers the risk of soil erosion and manure application to arable or grassland.

Modulation was introduced to provide the funds necessary to support agri- environment schemes in the UK, including Environmental Stewardship. Each year a certain percentage of the SPS is deducted at source by the Government to fund the England Rural Development Plan (ERDP). The funds deducted from the SPS are matched by an equivalent amount from the UK Treasury to provide the funds for Environmental Stewardship. From 2009 to 2012, 19% was deducted from the SPS (made up of a 5% statutory deduction set by the EU plus 14% set by the UK Government). Further information on SPS can be accessed on the Defra website and the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) website where booklets providing up- to-date information for each region on the SPS and Cross Compliance can be downloaded.

The EU has published proposals for further reforms to the CAP to take effect from January 2014 to 2021. Key changes in the proposals include replacing the current Single Payment Scheme (SPS) with the Basic Payments Scheme (BPS). This will be made up of a basic payment per hectare equating to 70% of the total payment and a greening payment comprising the remaining 30%. The greening of the CAP will require farmers to maintain an ecological focus area of 7% of the farm area, cultivate at least three crops and maintain permanent pasture at the level declared in 2014. An ‘active farmer’ defi nition has also been proposed, whereby landowners will only qualify for their payment if they are rearing or growing

220 Lockhart & Wiseman’s Crop Husbandry

agricultural products, maintaining land in a condition that allows cultivation or grazing and carrying out a minimum amount of farming activity that will be set by each Member State. Whilst these reforms are proposed for the period 2014–2021, it now appears unlikely that they will be introduced before 2015 or even 2016.

9.3 Sustainable agriculture Although there is no single defi nition for sustainable agriculture, most are similar to those for Integrated Farm Management (IFM) with the addition of social issues or resources, such as soil, air, water, biodiversity and energy. A defi nition for sustainable agriculture or crop production is ‘ensuring the continuing availability to the consumer of adequate supplies of wholesome, varied and reasonably priced food, produced in accordance with accepted environmental and social standards’.

In order to be sustainable, the farming system adopted must be profi table, and there is no virtue in introducing all the benefi cial features demanded by pressure groups if the business is not sustainable in the long term. The concept of sustainability draws attention to the importance of food safety in agriculture and that producing food on the farm is an integral part of the food chain, together with the processors, distributors and retailers. Currently, there is much more emphasis on the provenance of the food that we eat, and there has been a corresponding growth in farmers markets providing locally sourced food, which has prompted supermarkets to promote both regional and British produce. This has also stimulated a debate concerning the carbon footprint of the food we eat, with retailers starting to provide details on the products supplied. This can be confusing to the consumer depending on the stages of production, processing and transport that are considered. A true comparison can only be gained from a life cycle analysis, which is detailed and time consuming. The discussion has highlighted that as a nation we have become accustomed to a large range of fresh produce all year round, compared with the seasonal supply of fruit and vegetables accepted previously. There is awareness that food production impinges on the environment, and that water quality, soil erosion, wildlife and conservation are included as key aspects of farm management plans. The concern regarding greenhouse gas emissions has highlighted the contribution of methane from ruminants and the release of nitrous oxide from the soil in microbial processes converting nitrogen to different forms in crop production systems. These issues demonstrate the current tensions between implementing sustainable crop production systems and the requirement to grow suffi cient food for an expanding global population.

Whilst Integrated Farm Management is put forward as a farming system that will fi t the bill for sustainable agriculture, the role of Organic Farming Systems cannot be overlooked in this context. Many would argue that organic farming is the sustainable system that should be adopted to deliver safe, wholesome food and environmental benefi ts. Organic produce fulfi ls a signifi cant market requirement that is currently estimated to be around 8% of food production in the UK in terms of monetary value and around 4% in terms of land area.


Other issues could be highlighted which are important components of the overall crop production system. For example, IFM involves the use of traditional farming practices alongside new techniques. Some commentators argue that there is nothing new in IFM, but when the use of precision farming techniques, involving the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for yield and nutrient mapping or disease and insect forecasting are considered, it is clear that modern technology is being embraced in current farming systems. The use of cultural control methods and the reduction in agrochemical use is a key part of IFM philosophy. Alternative strategies for pest control are considered before pesticides are used, which introduces the idea that IFM requires informed decision making. Similarly, in animal production systems this technology allows monitoring and recording of individual animals that facilitates health and welfare as well as optimising production. There is no doubt that the approach requires a high management capability and a commitment in both time and effort.

9.4 The development of Integrated Crop Management (ICM), Integrated Farm Management (IFM) and sustainable crop production

Integrated Crop Management, or ICM, was fi rst introduced in 1991 in an attempt to improve the public’s perception of farming. Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) promoted ICM in an attempt to reassure consumers that produce from British agriculture was safe to eat by informing them of the underlying philosophy and the methods of food production. This was in direct response to the criticisms that agriculture was facing following adverse media coverage of issues such as nitrates in drinking water, organophosphate residues in food, salmonella and E. coli contamination of food, the BSE crisis and the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001. Integrated Crop Management aimed to introduce a standard for crop production which would publicise the high standards of farming in the United Kingdom. However, it was apparent that although these aims were correct and laudable, it was not suffi cient just to demonstrate and promote the principles of ICM. The fresh produce sector realised that further action was required to protect their industry and meet the demands of their customers – the supermarkets. The introduction of Assured Fresh Produce in 1996 gave the fi eld vegetables and salad crops sector an externally verifi ed assurance scheme that covered the health and safety aspects of growing these crops. The Assured Combinable Crops Scheme followed in 1997 to cover the small grain crops such as cereals, oilseed rape, peas and beans. The LEAF Marque has since been introduced to provide greater recognition in the market place of the high standards achieved by farmers in producing food.

There was no universally accepted defi nition of Integrated Crop Management. However, a defi nition would generally refer to the fi nancial performance of a business that is producing food that is wholesome and safe to eat and includes the implications of the farming system on the environment in terms of wildlife and pollution. ICM was the fi rst attempt to propose the concept of a holistic or whole


farm approach to crop production. Each farm is unique, not only in respect of the physical landscape, features and climate, but also in its management and the farming system. Thus, the implementation of ICM principles will be different on each farm and there cannot be a blueprint.

It became apparent in the late 1990s that the term Integrated Crop Management (ICM) was not entirely appropriate when considering a holistic or whole farm approach. On livestock farms, crops are grown for feed and bedding, with animal manures returned to arable and grassland fi elds. In addition, issues relating to animal health and welfare have been given a much higher profi le on farms to refl ect their importance in current production systems. For these reasons LEAF introduced the term Integrated Farm Management as a more appropriate term for modern farming systems. This has been defi ned by LEAF as: ‘A whole farm policy aiming to provide effi cient and profi table production which is economical, viable and environmentally responsible.’ Whilst integrated farm management is wholly relevant today, the terms sustainable crop production and sustainable agriculture are synonymous with IFM.

9.4.1 Crop rotations Sound crop rotations are a cornerstone of sustainable crop production because they provide the opportunity to control pests, diseases and weeds by cultural means rather than relying solely on chemical control methods. They provide a mixture of exhaustive crops such as cereals, which remove valuable nitrogen and potassium from the soil, and restorative crops such as legumes, which fi x nitrogen from the air into organic compounds. These are released to the following crop after the residues are incorporated into the soil. This reduces the requirement for inorganic nitrogen fertiliser that is not only expensive to produce but also a major energy input to growing crops because the manufacturing process involves using high temperature and pressure to produce nitric acid and then ammonium nitrate.

Set- aside was introduced to control the over- production of agricultural products and became an integral part of arable cropping systems. There was a great deal of fl exibility in how set- aside was incorporated into arable cropping systems; it could be rotated or placed strategically adjacent to water courses or conservation areas. Leaving stubbles through the autumn was very valuable in providing a food source of weed and crop seeds, as well as invertebrates on volunteers and weeds for foraging birds. The removal of set- aside was welcomed by the farming community because the concept of leaving land uncropped was never accepted. The loss of habitats, such as overwintered stubbles and buffer strips next to water courses, has raised concerns from environmental organisations. This prompted the Campaign for the Farmed Environment where farmers were encouraged to voluntarily maintain or even exceed the benefi ts provided by set- aside, by establishing wild bird seed mixes or fi eld margins with nectar and pollen species. A recent survey by Defra indicated that 37% of farmers in 2011/12 had left 82 000 ha of land out of cultivation for environmental benefi t, with overwintered stubbles being the preferred option. This falls a long way below the original target


of 600 000 ha, and hence the current CAP proposals are for 7% of the farm area to have an ecological focus to ensure that farmers allocate land to wildlife and conservation. Those farmers implementing IFM do manage the arable area of the farm to ensure profi table crops are produced, and consider carefully the options for the non- cropped areas on their farms taking advantage of Environmental Stewardship to achieve their objectives.

9.4.2 Soil management Good soil management has always been recognised as an essential element of growing high yielding, profi table crops. Since the introduction of IFM much more emphasis has been placed on the importance of soil management in alleviating some of the environmental problems that are a consequence of agricultural systems. The Environment Agency aims to reduce diffuse pollution into both surface and groundwater from agricultural sources. Soil management practices to reduce nutrient leaching and soil erosion are key aspects that need addressing to achieve these aims. The current focus on soil management is strengthened with it being a cross- compliance requirement in the Single Payment Scheme. A Soil Protection Review, which is a documented soil management plan, had to be completed by 31 December 2010 in England. Welsh farmers had to provide this information by March 2005. The soil management plan examines the risk of soil erosion, diffuse and point source pollution on the farm, and then details management practices that can be implemented to reduce or alleviate the problems. The Soil Protection Review must be updated annually and implemented as part of the Cross Compliance requirements – GAEC1 (Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition). Whilst the emphasis is currently on individual farms, this approach will only be successful if implemented on a wider scale considering the farming systems in a geographic region or river catchment. In February 2005 the concept of Catchment Sensitive and Environmentally Sensitive Farming was introduced by Natural England. This aims to deliver practical solutions and targeted support to enable farmers and land managers to take voluntary action to reduce diffuse water pollution from agriculture to protect water bodies and the environment. Sixty fi ve priority catchments and nine catchment partnerships have been identifi ed, and catchment sensitive farming offi cers or river basin coordinators have been employed to provide advice and guidance to farmers in these areas. This is a key part of the strategy to achieve the aims of the Water Framework Directive. This requires that all inland and coastal waters within defi ned river basin districts reach at least ‘good’ status by 2015. The water quality of surface waters (lakes, rivers, estuaries and coastal waters) and groundwaters in the UK is assessed in relation to biological, chemical and physical parameters.

9.4.3 Cultivations The aim of soil cultivations is to produce a seedbed which is fi rm enough to provide good soil to seed contact but has spaces between aggregates that allow


free movement of water and air with no impedance to root growth. Establishing the desired plant populations and conditions that facilitate uptake of nutrients and water will provide the potential for a high yielding crop provided disease is carefully managed. The importance of soil structure and the role of soil organic matter in the aggregation of soil particles into stable entities is fundamental to these processes. Therefore, cultivations are a key component of IFM because soil management must produce the desired conditions without damaging the soil structure. This will result in surface run- off, erosion and environmental pollution from leaching of nutrients and pesticides.

Traditionally, ploughing has been the primary method of cultivation, inverting the soil to bury weeds and alleviate surface compaction. This is a costly operation, both in terms of the time taken and also the amount of energy required, with contractors currently charging around £60 per hectare. In the 1990s combination drills, incorporating a power harrow to produce a seedbed and a pneumatic seed drill, were used successfully as a one pass system. However, with the reduction in the grain price to £60 per tonne in 2004 severely affecting the profi tability of winter wheat, interest in minimal cultivation and direct drilling increased again.

These crop establishment techniques fi t comfortably with the philosophy of sustainable crop production. The use of minimum cultivation or conservation agriculture, as it has been referred to recently, has the benefi t of reducing the amount of energy used to establish a crop and therefore meets the aim of reducing off- farm energy inputs. There are also additional benefi ts to invertebrates and wildlife. Trials carried out in the 1970s and 1980s comparing direct drilling, minimal cultivation techniques and ploughing showed that earthworm populations were inversely related to the amount of cultivation carried out. The slicing and inversion associated with ploughing kills earthworms resulting in fewer earthworms per metre squared than either minimum cultivation or direct drilling.

9.4.4 Crop nutrition While good crop establishment is essential for successful and profi table crop management, the provision of nutrients at the correct rate and timing allow a crop to grow to its full potential. However, the inappropriate use of fertilisers, by applying at too high a rate or at times of the year when they are not utilised effi ciently, can lead to losses to water and air causing pollution problems. Nutrient planning can be carried out on a fi eld- by-fi eld basis, tailoring the crop’s requirement based on recommendations given in the Fertiliser Manual : RB209. Estimates of the soil nitrogen supply (SNS) are used to adjust nitrogen recommendations taking into account rainfall, soil type and previous cropping. The soil mineral nitrogen (SMN) content of the soil, which is a measure of the amount of ammonium and nitrate nitrogen available to the crop, can also be used on an individual fi eld basis to predict the need for nitrogen fertiliser. Where there is a fi xed cropping rotation on a farm, the nutrient management plan can be improved by carrying out nutrient balance calculations. From records of crop yields, the nutrient removal of phosphorus in the form of phosphate and potassium


as potash can be calculated from standard values. These are then totalled over the rotation and compared with the recommendations calculated from RB209. In many situations there will be imbalances between off- takes and inputs that can be corrected. This should be carried out by trained agronomists or FQAs (FACTS Qualifi ed Advisers), who hold the Fertiliser Advisers Certifi cation and Training Scheme (FACTS) qualifi cation, and can make adjustments according to individual crop needs.

Technological developments have resulted in precision farming becoming an integral part of sustainable crop production systems. The concept of canopy management for winter wheat and oilseed rape crops together with developments of weigh cells on fertiliser spreaders, yield monitors on combines and crop nitrogen sensors has led to the use of variable rate fertiliser application on many farms. This has been extended with soil conductivity measurements being used to prepare soil maps that can then be used for variable seed rate applications depending on seedbed conditions and time of drilling. These are offered as commercial services to farmers.

IFM places great emphasis on the utilisation of organic manures in cropping systems and the assessment of their nutrient contribution when calculating inorganic fertiliser requirements. For an individual crop this means analysing the manure to assess the nutrient content or using standard values from RB209 and subtracting the quantity of available nitrogen, phosphate and potash from the fertiliser recommendation. ‘Planet’ is available as an on- line nutrient management software tool that is freely available for use by farmers and advisers to calculate the fertiliser requirement of different crops taking into account the availability of nutrients in manures.

Records should be kept of all operations, including primary cultivations and applications with operator name, date, fi eld, crop, soil and weather conditions. These should also include the type of fertiliser or organic manure applied and storage details. In Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) records of all organic and inorganic nitrogen applications must be kept. All staff carrying out fi eld operations should be fully trained and have access to records including the Nutrient Management Plan and the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice for Air, Soil and Water. Careful planning of crop nutrition is essential for profi table crop production, but this can only be achieved through the correct timing of application, machinery maintenance and calibration to avoid waste and pollution.

9.4.5 Crop protection The EU Sustainable Use Directive (Directive 2009/128/EC) is intended to set high and uniform requirements for good practice in the use of pesticides. This Directive was transposed into UK law by the Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012. National Action Plans have been produced by Member States designed to reduce the risks relating to the use of pesticides and to reduce their use wherever possible. There is a requirement that all professional users, distributors and advisers had access to appropriate training by November 2013. A


further requirement is the adoption of appropriate measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water supplies which provides a link with the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). The Sustainable Use Directive also requires that measures are taken to promote low pesticide input pest management, giving priority to non- chemical methods. The concept of Sustainable Crop Production (or IPM, ICM, IFM), which aims to utilise cultural control methods where the opportunities arise and reduce the reliance on chemical control, is very much in line with this policy and is fully supported by the agrochemical industry. Many publications, leafl ets and the Defra website promote IFM as a farming system that will deliver many of their objectives.

The history of agricultural production has been inextricably linked to the control of weeds, pests and diseases in crop production practices. There is no doubt that the production of consistently high yielding, high quality crops requires the use of pesticides. Although organic production methods provide a viable alternative the yields achieved are lower and the quality of the produce can be more variable. The aim, therefore, of an IFM system is to utilise the cultural control methods that are known to reduce the incidence of pests on crops, and then use crop protection chemicals as a fi nal resort.

Whilst it has been stated that rotations are a cornerstone of IFM, there can be little doubt that the choice of variety selected to be grown is an integral part of the philosophy. If the aim is to reduce the application of crop protection chemicals the starting point must be to choose varieties from the HGCA Recommended Lists that have resistance to disease. The next important step in the implementation of a crop protection policy involves the correct identifi cation and evaluation of a pest problem. This has been recognised by the requirement of all advisers recommending crop protection products to hold the BASIS Certifi cate of Competence.

Once the need for a plant protection product has been justifi ed the choice of product, rate and timing are all very important decisions to make. The crop protection chemical selected will not only depend on its ability to control the pest, but also on its environmental profi le. An environmental information sheet (EIS) is produced for each pesticide approved, and these are held on the Voluntary Initiative website. Properties such as the ease with which the chemical leaches to water, persistence in the environment, volatility and effect on non- target organisms can be taken into account. A major challenge for the industry involves the development of strategies to overcome pesticide resistance and avoidance of plant protection products polluting groundwater.

Integrated farm management also places great emphasis on operator training for all aspects of work carried out on the farm. The area of pesticide application provides an excellent illustration, with the spray operator being required to hold a PA2A certifi cate. These certifi cates are issued by the National Profi ciency Tests Council to show professional competence in calibrating and operating a boom spray applicator. Further training would be required to understand and follow ‘The Code of Practice for Use of Pesticides on Farms’, which would involve carrying out a COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) assessment


of the risks to health from using a pesticide before work starts. This includes assessing the level of personal protective equipment which the spray operator is required to wear.

The spray operator would also need to be familiar with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance on storing pesticides. There are also issues involved in the disposal of pesticides, such as the EU Groundwater Directive, which requires farmers to have designated areas for the disposal of pesticides. Knowledge of the sprayer, and how it operates, can reduce risk to the operator and environment through the use of close transfer fi lling systems or low drift nozzles to reduce spray drift. The fi eld of crop protection demonstrates the requirement for a well- trained workforce, conversant with the relevant legislation and codes of practice, as well as the practical skills necessary to carry out certain tasks, in order to conform to IFM principles.

9.5 Food quality and safety in the food chain: farm assurance schemes

The farmer is the fi rst link in the food chain. He determines the way crops are planted, the inputs applied to the growing crop and the method of harvesting and storage. Therefore, the farmer has a signifi cant impact on the safety and quality of a food product, especially where fruit and vegetables reach the consumer with very little further processing. The farm assurance schemes set standards for good agricultural practice, and require farmers to provide evidence of the methods used in producing their crops. A further quality control imposed is the maximum residue level (MRL) of a pesticide in food on the supermarket shelf. This is not a safety limit, but indicates if a pesticide has been applied in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations, and is monitored and tested for by The Food Standards Agency.

The management of food safety in the food chain is being addressed by assurance schemes, with the use of HACCP (Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points) systems being seen as the preferred approach to management at all stages of food production, including agricultural production. The HACCP system identifi es hazards which can cause the consumer temporary or permanent injury, and assesses risk as the probability of a hazard occurring. Current EU hygiene regulations include reference to HACCP proposing that it should be extended to the primary production of food on farms to provide effective control of pathogens and their hazards, fulfi lling the key aspects of the Farm Assurance Fresh Produce Scheme (previously Assured Produce) or EUREP GAP Schemes.

The fi rst crop assurance scheme to be introduced in 1996 was Assured Produce for growers supplying vegetable and salad crops. This was an initiative by the producers themselves, putting in place a system, which not only recorded farming operations and inputs, but also allowed external scrutiny or verifi cation of the production systems. The voluntary introduction of the scheme aimed to demonstrate to supermarkets that fi eld vegetables and salad crops were grown


to professionally agreed protocols, and provide traceability. This has given rise to several quotes, such as from ‘Plough to Plate’ and from ‘Field to Fork’ indicating that the whole food supply chain is included. Assured Produce has provided an industry standard for the main UK supermarkets. The Assured Combinable Crops Scheme was launched in 1998 to address the same issues for arable crops. Whilst not placed directly onto supermarket shelves like many vegetables and salad crops, wheat grown for bread making is processed and baked at the miller’s prior to being sold in retail outlets. It is therefore just as important for these to be subjected to the same quality assurance standards as other food.

Both the Assured Produce and Assured Combinable Crops Schemes concentrated on ensuring that good farming practice is followed when growing crops. These schemes are now integrated into Assured Food Standards. Although it may address some environmental issues, there is no requirement for farmers to undertake positive habitat management that will benefi t wildlife. One UK supermarket chain did address this issue by offering preferred growers the opportunity to provide a plan for the development and improvement of wildlife habitats on the farm. This has been taken further by developing a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for species that are present on the farm and are highlighted as important species for conservation in the locality. Assurance schemes have a cost to the farmer, which depends on the area of land being used for crop production. The fee pays for the administration of the scheme and includes a visit by the external verifi er.

The EUREP GAP Protocol was introduced in November 1999 to standardise the requirements of retailers in the EU and to bring benefi ts to the food supply industry. The Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) is a technical working party aimed at promoting and encouraging good agricultural practice (GAP) in the fruit and vegetable production industry. The scheme aims to fulfi l the same role as the Assured Produce and Assured Combinable Crops Schemes established in the UK, but actually goes further in requiring the producer to have an environmental management plan that addresses wildlife and conservation as well as health and safety issues. EUREP GAP has become established for fresh produce and is currently being introduced for other crops such as cereals.

9.6 Wildlife and conservation Farmers have been seen as the custodians of the countryside because of the way they have managed and developed landscapes and habitats over the centuries. However, recent surveys have shown that the numbers of breeding birds in farmland habitats have declined substantially. This has focused attention on the farming practices in an attempt to fi nd the reasons and halt or reverse these declines. Loss of habitats, such as hedgerows, woodland and rough grazing, drainage of wetlands, change of cropping practice from spring sown crops to predominantly winter planting, intensive cropping systems dependent on the use of pesticides, fertilisers and increased mechanisation are considered to be the main factors causing farmland birds to decline.


Integrated Farm Management acknowledges that the countryside is our heritage and that it is incumbent on everyone, including farmers and the farming industry, to work towards its conservation. The fi rst step in any on- farm improvement is to carry out a survey of the site to determine what landscape features are present, record the habitats and make an assessment of the species present, possibly quantifying the numbers of selected indicator species. This would then form the basis of a management plan for both the cropped and uncropped areas on the farm.

On many farms in the UK this would focus on fi eld margins, and particularly hedgerows, as a habitat that is a prominent component of the rural landscape. Field margins have been viewed by some farmers as a source of pernicious weeds, such as cleavers, couch and sterile brome. The previous answer was to prevent spread into the cropped area by spraying into the hedge bottom with a broad spectrum herbicide. This was not only expensive and time consuming as it was carried out each year, but also destroyed the fi eld margin vegetation and frequently reduced the growth of the hedge. IFM advocates leaving a minimum one metre grass strip of non- invasive perennial grass species (eg. mixtures of cocksfoot, Yorkshire fog, Timothy and red fescue) adjacent to the hedge or fi eld margin ( Fig. 9.1 ). On many farms this grass margin has been extended to widths varying from 2 to 12 metres using options from Environmental Stewardship. The biodiversity in these margins can be improved further by the addition of native wild fl owers to encourage benefi cial insects, such as bees, hoverfl ies and lacewings ( Fig. 9.2 ).

Conservation headlands have been promoted to further increase the biodiversity adjacent to the fi eld margins. A grassy strip adjacent to the hedgerow could

Fig. 9.1 Grass fi eld margin.


provide suitable nesting habitat for grey partridge. However, in cereal crops treated with residual herbicides, very few weeds survive to provide habitat for insects and particularly saw fl y larvae, which are a preferred food source for partridge chicks. A conservation headland is typically the outer six metres of a fi eld that is selectively sprayed to control serious grass weeds (wild oats and black- grass) and cleavers, but allows other broad- leaved weeds that are hosts for invertebrates to survive. This concept has been shown to be successful in promoting biodiversity and increased partridge chick survival, but does increase the weed seed burden in the harvested crop from the fi eld headland.

Beetle banks are grassy strips created in the centre of large arable fi elds to provide suitable habitat for predatory insects as well as nesting habitat for partridge or skylark. They are designed to provide a habitat of tussocky grasses (e.g. cocksfoot) where ground beetles can overwinter in relatively dry conditions. The predation of aphids is more effective because the beetles move into the crop from the beetle bank in the centre of the fi eld and the fi eld margin round the outside.

These measures, together with the sympathetic management of existing fi eld margins such as hedgerows, ditches and associated ponds, can have a major impact on wildlife. For example, the introduction of a management plan for cutting hedges would advocate rotational cutting on a two to three year cycle to allow berry development. The actual cutting would be carried out in late winter, where possible, to allow birds to forage through the autumn and winter when food is scarce. Similarly, cereal stubbles could be left undisturbed until spring before sugar beet

Fig. 9.2 Buffer strip with wild fl owers.


or maize is sown to provide valuable feed for a wide variety of farmland birds. These are some of the options in the current stewardship schemes that all farmers can consider undertaking to enhance the biodiversity of arable farming landscapes.

Environmental Stewardship was introduced with the CAP Reforms in 2004 as the new agri- environment scheme, which consists of Entry Level Stewardship, Organic Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship, that will eventually replace the old schemes, such as Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Countryside Stewardship Schemes. Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) is a whole farm scheme open to all farmers and land managers who can meet the scheme’s requirements. Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS) is also a whole- farm scheme open to all farmers who manage all or part of their land organically. Payments are double those for ELS and there is more for the fi rst two years if in- conversion. Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) is combined with ELS options and aims to deliver signifi cant environmental benefi ts by improving the environment for wildlife, improving water quality and reducing soil erosion, maintaining and enhancing landscape character and protecting archaeological features. Payment in the HLS scheme is based on options delivered. Payments are available for a range of capital works, unlike in ELS and OELS.

There are over 65 management options to choose from that provide a range of environmental benefi ts. Several have been developed to provide nesting and foraging for farmland birds, such as fallow plots or uncropped areas for ground nesting birds or overwintered stubbles to provide winter foraging for birds and mammals (e.g. fi nches and the brown hare). Wild bird seed mixtures can be tailored to benefi t particular bird species; for example teasels ( Fig. 9.3 ) provide

Fig. 9.3 Field corner with teasels.


seed for goldfi nch, sunfl owers provide seed for greenfi nch, linseed and cereal mixtures provide suitable habitat and seed for the grey partridge and kale provides seed in the second year for linnets. Buffer strips and grass margins prevent surface water run- off, soil erosion and reduce spray drift into water courses ( Fig. 9.4 ). The benefi t to wildlife of any grass option is improved greatly if wild fl owers and legumes are included to provide pollen and nectar for insects, such as bees and butterfl ies.

The national target is for 70% of farms to enter ELS agreements. In many cases farmers will not have to change their farming practice signifi cantly to accumulate

Fig. 9.4 Grass buffer strip next to a water course.


the points required. However, some of the measures being introduced could have a major impact. For example, the introduction of the Soil Protection Review, requiring a soil management plan, means that a soil erosion risk assessment must be carried out on the farm. On many farms this may change agricultural practices where soil water erosion is a problem, for example in wide- spaced row crops such as forage maize, grown on light sandy or silty soils with moderate slopes.

Applications for HLS generally require the farmer/landowner to have made an application for, or already be in, Entry Level Stewardship – ELS or OELS. The fi rst step in making an HLS application is to complete a Farm Environment Plan (FEP), comprising a whole- farm assessment of biodiversity, historic, woodland and landscape features. The FEP will identify the environmental features that need management and their current status in order to help select the HLS options appropriate for the specifi c farm. Completion of an FEP will require specialist knowledge and in most cases needs to be carried out by an external consultant/agent, with the cost claimed from the scheme. HLS is discretionary and applications will only be successful if they deliver signifi cant environmental benefi ts in high priority areas.

9.7 Key points • Sustainable crop production is delivered by adopting systems based on

Integrated Farm Management and Organic Farming. • Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy together with exposure to global

markets has had a major impact on rural businesses, leading to further specialisation and a drive towards reducing the unit cost of production to remain competitive.

• Targets to improve water quality by reducing diffuse pollution have focused attention on soil management and are driven by the Water Framework Directive.

• Crop Assurance Schemes are an integral part of the food supply chain required to ensure food quality and safety of farm produce.

• Environmental Stewardship aims to deliver widespread environmental benefi ts through ELS and OELS, with HLS aimed at high priority situations and areas, providing an income source to farmers and landowners for these agreements.

9.8 Sources of further information and advice Further reading Benckiser G and Schnell S , Biodiversity in Agricultural Production Systems , Boca Raton :

Taylor Francis Group , 2007 . British Agrochemical Association , Integrated Crop Management , BAA , 1996 . Defra , Fertiliser Manual (RB209), TSO , 2010 . Defra , Pesticides – Code of Practice for Using Plant Protection Products , Defra , 2006 . Defra , Code of Good Agricultural Practice: Protecting Our Water, Soil and Air – A Code

of Good Agricultural Practice for Farmers and Land Managers , Defra , 2011 .


HSE Guidance on Storing Pesticides for Farmers and other Professional Users , HSE , 2012 .

HGCA , Arable Cropping and the Environment , HGCA , 2002 . HGCA , Managing Uncropped Land to Encourage Biodiversity , HGCA , 2010 . HGCA , Field margins – Guidelines for Entry Level Stewardship in England , HGCA , 2005 . HGCA , Benefi cials on Farmland: Identifi cation and Management Guidelines , HGCA ,

2008 . HGCA , Enhancing Biodiversity – Six Practical Solutions for Farms , HGCA , 2007 . LEAF , Simply Sustainable Soils , LEAF , 2011 . Natural England , Entry Level Stewardship: Environmental Stewardship Handbook , Natural

England , 2013 . Natural England , Higher Level Stewardship: Environment Stewardship Handbook , Natural

England , 2013 . RPA , The Guide to Cross Compliance in England , RPA , 2012 .

Websites www.defra.gov.uk www.rpa.gov.uk www.naturalengland.org.uk www.planet4farmers.co.uk www.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk www.rspb.org.uk www.gwct.org.uk www.cfeonline.org.uk www.leafuk.org www.saffi e.info www.cropprotection.org.uk www.assuredfood.co.uk

Documents

Lockhart & Wiseman’s Crop Husbandry Including Grassland || Sustainable crop management