Through the Sustainable Farming Incentive, we're paying farmers to carry out actions that support both a sustainable farm business and a healthy natural environment.
Food production relies on healthy soils, lots of clean water, beneficial plants and animals, and of course, stable weather. Scientific research and farmers’ experiences shows that nature can do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to boosting soil fertility, controlling pests and protecting crops from floods and drought. These are all vital components of both the short and long-term farming system.
In this post, I’ll share a few scientific examples that show how the actions within the SFI can support businesses, bring about positive environmental outcomes whilst maintaining — and in some cases boosting — food production.
Reducing the impact of rising costs by improving soil health
Due to global events, farmers have felt the impact of rising input costs. The prices of fertilisers, pesticides, animal feed and machinery have all gone up.
Figures from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) show that between May 2021 and May 2022, the price of UK-produced ammonia nitrate fertiliser in the UK had increased by 152%. This reflects an increase from £284 per tonne to £716 per tonne.
Although prices have gradually dropped since then, less reliance on these inputs will increase the farming industry’s resilience to future global events.
I’ll first explore the SFI’s arable and horticulture soil standard.
Action included in SFI: Add organic matter. For example, through cover crops, legume mixes and incorporation of straw into soil
Effect: Increases nutrient availability, suppresses pests and disease (amongst other benefits).
Explanation: Organic matter offers an alternative source of nutrients to fertilisers. The addition of organic matter either directly or through cover crop increases the amount of nutrients available in the soil.
Additionally, incorporating organic matter into soil supports a diverse community of bacteria and fungi.
This living community breaks down organic matter into absorbable nutrients. It can also reduce pest populations and keep fungal plant pathogens in check. This reduces the need for costly pesticides and anti-fungal treatments.
Careful selection of the cover crop can boost yields. For example, using a cover crop mix containing legumes has been shown to boost yield by up to 13%1. This is because legumes absorb nitrogen from the atmosphere and ‘fix’ it in the soil, making it available for uptake by plants.
A study carried out in Poland showed that the use of legumes in rotation decreased the total quantity of nitrogen required to maintain yields2.
A longer-term study combining large quantities of yield data across Europe and Africa showed that increasing crop diversity, adding fertility crops, such as legumes, and direct additions of organic matter could all increase yield.
This study further showed that this effect was largely substitutive for N fertiliser (the practices increased yield when N fertiliser use was low but had minimal or no effect on yield when high levels of fertiliser were being applied)3.
Action included in SFI: Reduce bare ground and tillage. For example, through cover crops and minimum tillage
Effect: Reduces soil loss through erosion and reduces nutrient loss through leaching
Explanation: Soil left uncovered or disturbed by tillage is at risk of being washed away in wet conditions.
Furthermore, nutrients sitting at the soil surface will dissolve more readily into rainwater and be lost to watercourses. This is a particular problem if these nutrients have been added to the soil at a high cost to the farmer.
Covered soil is less at risk of these losses, so ensuring bare ground is kept to a minimum will reduce the wastage of nutrients that would otherwise benefit crop growth.
Reducing soil disturbance by limiting tillage will further prevent these losses and improve the chemical, physical and biological properties of soil4,5.
A study investigating the effect of differing tillage methods on soil erosion and nutrient loss showed that excessive tillage (multiple ploughing and harrowing cycles) resulted in the highest nutrient losses6.
The study also showed that the eroded sediments were often richer in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and organic matter than their soil source. This indicates that even for small amounts of soil loss, the loss of nutrients in the eroded sediment could be high and costly.
Mitigating the impact of extreme weather on crops
With England’s climate changing, there is projected to be an increase in extreme weather events such as heatwaves, droughts and flooding7,8,9.
This was exemplified by the record-breaking summer we’ve just had. It was one of the driest summers ever and the first time the UK had air temperatures above 40°C10 since records began.
Crop failure is predicted to become a more common occurrence as our climate becomes warmer and drier11.
Just as improving soil health reduces the need for nutrient inputs, it also improves the ability of soil to absorb and hold water. This is beneficial in flood and drought events.
Action included in SFI: Adding organic matter and reducing bare ground. For example, through cover crops, tree planting on unproductive land and overwinter stubbles
Effect: Soil structure improves making it better able to hold water (increased water retention) and less at risk of being washed away during floods.
Explanation: Well-structured and well-aerated soil, interspersed with decomposing organic matter and living roots acts as a ‘biological sponge’, regulating water flow through the land.
This healthy soil can absorb large quantities of water when needed (during flood events), in the process slowing the flow of water and preventing major damage to crops and infrastructure.
This soil then holds onto this water and dries out more slowly than degraded soil, mitigating the damaging effect of drought on crops and soils12,13.
Reducing biodiversity loss to increase yields
Plants and animals are declining globally, with England seeing some of the greatest declines14.
For example, one measure of UK farmland birds, an indicator of the state of wildlife generally, has fallen to less than half its 1970 level15. These figures indicate the UK is suffering loss of vital species that play a role in how our environment functions.
Biodiversity plays an important role in maintaining crop yields by providing services such as pollination and pest control. For example, it has been shown that increasing pollinator numbers drives greater yield of oil seed rape16.
Meanwhile, for winter wheat, crop pest density and crop damage were found to be significantly lower near biodiversity-supporting wildflower strips with an average 10% crop yield increase for land near the strips17.
By making space for wildlife, we can boost the biodiversity we have and our crops can benefit. This is one of the aims of the Sustainable Farming Incentive.
Action included in SFI: Incremental hedgerow cutting and planting hedgerow trees, flower habitats and wild bird food
Effect: Increased provision of food and nesting resources available to wildlife. For example, beneficial insects that support farming through pollination and pest control, and birds, which are an indicator of wider environmental quality.
Explanation: These actions are just some examples of measures SFI will pay for to boost biodiversity by increasing the foraging and nesting resources available for wildlife18.
Cutting hedgerows less often will increase flowering and fruiting, resulting in more resources for pollinators and other animals including farmland birds19,20.
The increased availability of berries will particularly benefit birds going into the autumn and winter months when there is less food available elsewhere21.
Other actions that involve creation of habitat such as introducing flower plots and tree planting will further increase food provisions for these species.
Additionally, these habitats will give wildlife the vital materials and space they need to nest.
Supporting pollinator species is important because they are vital for crop pollination and thus yield. Without pollinators, many crops would produce lower quality fruit and/or have significantly lower yields or would not produce fruit at all.
One study showed faba bean yield increased with increasing proportion of semi-natural habitat within 1.5km of the field22 whilst a second study showed that crop yield increased with the number and richness of pollinators visiting flowers23.
A long-term study on the Hillesden Estate in Buckinghamshire demonstrated that habitat creation in less productive areas led to increased yield in cropped areas24. This meant that, even accounting for reduction of cropland to allow for wildlife rich habitat creation, yields at the field scale were maintained or, in some cases, increased.
In addition to supporting pollinators, creating wildlife rich habitats means boosting the number of natural pest predators in the landscape. By creating the right habitat for animals that prey on common crop pests, pest numbers are reduced, meaning that natural predators can replace some of the work done by expensive pesticide applications25.
For example, a field study in southern England showed that the presence of natural predators successfully suppressed aphid populations26. Further anecdotal evidence from farmers points to a decreased need for pesticides after wildlife rich habitat creation. For example, through hedge planting27.
Learn more about our environmental land management schemes
The actions I’ve talked about in this post represent just a small snapshot of what farmers will be paid for within the Sustainable Farming Incentive.
Each action has been carefully chosen to provide environmental benefits such as boosting soil fertility, controlling pests and protecting crops from floods and drought resulting in evidence-based schemes that will protect both our environment and our food-production capabilities.
We recently set out the 6 new SFI standards that will be available in 2023. They are:
- nutrient management standard
- integrated pest management standard
- hedgerows standard
- arable and horticultural land standard
- improved grassland standard
- low/no input grassland standard
In the meantime, take a look at the current SFI offer.
You might already be carrying out the actions we’ll pay for.
We've improved the scheme standards so they’re clearer. The online application system is faster and easier to use. We're processing applications and issuing payments quickly. You will be able to add more standards as they become available .
You can be in both the SFI and Countryside Stewardship at the same time, but we won’t pay you for the same actions twice and the actions must be compatible.Our recent post on the rollout of our environmental land management schemes summarises the actions, payment rates and when they’ll be available.
And, if you haven’t yet received free business advice, do take a look at our list of independent providers. An adviser can explain the changes to farming in England and can help you plan for the future.
Watch
Video: How the Sustainable Farming Incentive works hand in hand with arable crop production
References
1 Abdalla, M. et al. (2019). A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity, Global Change Biology, 25:8, 2530-2543. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14644
2 Grażyna, S. et al. (2020). The long-term effect of legumes as forecrops on the productivity of rotation winter triticale–winter rape with nitrogen fertilisation, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science, 70:2, 128-134. doi:10.1080/09064710.2019.1677766
3 McClaren, C. et al. (2022). Long-term evidence for ecological intensification as a pathway to sustainable agriculture, Nature Sustainability, 5, 770-779. doi:10.1038/s41893-022-00911-x
4 Wilkes, T.I. et al. (2021). Zero tillage systems conserve arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, enhancing soil glomalin and water stable aggregates with implications for soil stability, Soil Systems, 5:1, 4. doi:10.3390/soilsystems5010004
5 Lal, R.,& Kimble, J. (1997) Conservation tillage for carbon sequestration, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 49, 243–253. doi:10.1023/A:1009794514742
6 Quansah, C. et al. (2000). Soil fertility erosion and the associated cost of NPK removed under different soil and residue management in Ghana, Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science, 33:1, 33-42. doi: 10.4314/gjas.v33i1.1882
7 Betts R.A. et al. (2021) Introduction. In: The Third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Technical Report [Betts, R.A.,Haward, A.B. and Pearson, K.V.(eds.)]. Prepared for the Climate Change Committee, London
8 Christidis, N. et al. (2020). The increasing likelihood of temperatures above 30 to 40°C in the United Kingdom, Nature Communications, 11, 3093. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16834-0
9 The Royal Society, 13. How does climate change affect the strength and frequency of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes? | Royal Society (accessed 01.2023)
10 MET Office (2022). Available at: Guest post: A Met Office review of the UK’s record-breaking summer in 2022 - Carbon Brief (accessed 12.2022)
11 Caparas M. et. al. (2021). Increasing risks of crop failure and water scarcity in global breadbaskets by 2030, Environmental Research Letters, 16, 104013. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac22c1
12 Blanco-Canqui, H. et al. (2015). Cattle manure application reduces soil compactibility and increases water retention after 71 years, Soil & Water Management & Conservation, 79:1, 212-223. doi:10.2136/sssaj2014.06.0252
13 Gabriel, J.L. et al. (2021). Cover crops reduce soil resistance to penetration by preserving soil surface water content, Geoderma, 386, 114911. doi:10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2020.114911
14 Phillips, H. et al. (2021). The Biodiversity Intactness Index - country, region and global-level summaries for the year 1970 to 2050 under various scenarios [Data set], Natural History Museum. doi:10.5519/he1eqmg1
15 DEFRA (2022). Agriculture in the UK Evidence Pack, pp. 43. Available at: PowerPoint Presentation (publishing.service.gov.uk) (accessed 12.2022)
16 Woodcock, B.A. et al. (2019). Meta-analysis reveals that pollinator functional diversity and abundance enhance crop pollination and yield, Nature Communications, 10, 1481. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09393-6
17 Tschumi, M. et al. (2016). Perennial, species-rich wildflower strips enhance pest control and crop yield, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 220, 97-103. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.001
18 Pywell, R.F. et al. (2005). Providing foraging resources for bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes, Biological Conservation, 121:4, 479-494. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.05.020
19 Byrne, F. et al. (2019) The effect of management practices on bumblebee densities in hedgerow and grassland habitats, Basic and Applied Ecology, 35, 28-33, doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2018.11.004
20 Staley, J.T. et al. (2012). Long-term effects of hedgerow management policies on resource provision for wildlife, Biological Conservation, 145:1, 24-29. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.006
21 Hinsley, S.A., & Bellamy, P.E. (1999). The influence of hedge structure, management and landscape context on the value of hedgerows to birds: A review, Journal of Environmental Management, 60:1, 33-49. doi:10.1006/jema.2000.0360
22 Raderschall, C.A. (2021). Landscape crop diversity and semi-natural habitat affect crop pollinators, pollination benefit and yield, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 306, 107189. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107189
23 Garibaldi, L.A. et al. (2016). Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large farms, Science, 351:6271, 388-391. doi: 10.1126/science.aac7287
24 Pywell, R.F. et al. (2015) Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences. 282:1816, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.1740
25 Cardinale, B.J. et al. (2003). Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agroecosystem, Ecology Letters, 6: 857-865. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00508.x
26 Woodcock, B.A. et al. (2016). Spill-over of pest control and pollination services into arable crops, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 231, 15-23. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.023
27 Wolton, R. et al. (2014). Regulatory services delivered by hedges: The evidence base, NE and Defra Report LM0106, 45-47
12 comments
Comment by rob yorke posted on
an excellent post outlining the wider, at times unseen on first glance, benefits of SFI.
enabling the 'mental' space for farm businesses to assess and implement, is an tougher issue to deal with at a time of so many other fast-moving narratives (Ukraine, net zero goals etc) within the same 'space'.
best wishes, Rob Yorke
Comment by Philip posted on
Sensible words....try applying it to the welsh SFS.......!!!
Comment by Iain Murray posted on
Good info, thanks.
Comment by Peter Sutton MA Cantab, (Agronomist & Ecologist) posted on
Thanks for this. But when one follows up it is somewhat perplexing to see the first heading as “SFI 2022”….we need to see the whole scheme as it is now.
How can one work out the financial value of different options? Where is the spreadsheet?
Finally I feel you guys are over-valuing cover crops. In my experience much of the benefit is lost with the necessary cultivations in the spring
Comment by The Team posted on
Hi Peter, thank you for your comment.
We recently published more information on the growth and rollout of the SFI and other ELM schemes. You can find our blog post about the announcement here or the full document on GOV.UK.
The annex to the full document on GOV.UK summarises the list of actions we will pay for, along with when we plan for the actions to be available through the schemes and payment rates where these are available.
These include:
current payment rates for actions already in CS and SFI
new payment rates for the SFI 23 actions
indicative payment rate ranges for the other new actions we will introduce
We will publish payment rates for more actions over the coming months and these will be made available this summer.
Comment by Robert Kendall posted on
Excellent explanations which are clearly and concisely presented
Brilliant work
Comment by Caroline Dominique Bacon posted on
Thanks for a clear explanation referencing the relevant studies. Are there any negative studies that do not show a link between taking the actions recommended and increased soil health or yield?
Comment by The Team posted on
Hi Caroline, thank you for comment. The aim of this blog post was to provide examples of some of the ways farmers could benefit from doing the land management actions set out in SFI rather than provide a comprehensive review of the literature.
Using reduced tillage as an example, we have mixed evidence on the action but a fair few studies pointing to no change in crop yields or in some cases increase yields (Defra project SP1605B, HGCA, 1988; Davies and Finney, 2002, Dimassi et al., 2014). However, this comes with the caveat that the technique requires a reasonable level of skill to be implemented effectively. This is demonstrated by Withers et al, (2007) whose study of cultivation methods showed that soil cultivation effects varied from site to site due to weather, soil type and management, sometimes resulting in reduced yields. There are potential significant economic benefits in terms of lower establishment costs within no-till or reduced tillage systems, but each farmer needs to consider if a reduced cultivation system will work for them (AHDB, 2020).
Development of SFI content involved consultation with a range of experts from Defra, Natural England, the Environment Agency and others. They have strong knowledge of the evidence sitting behind land management actions as well as practical experience of their impact on the ground.
1.AHDB (2020). Arable soil management - Cultivation and crop establishment. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 2020. 36pp.
2.Davies, D.B. and Finney, J.B. 2002 Reduced cultivation for cereals: research, development and advisory needs under changing economic circumstances. HGCA Research Review No 48.
3.Dimassi, B., Mary, B., Wylleman, R., Labreuche, J., Couture, D., Piraux, F., Cohan, J-P. (2014). Long-term effect of contrasted tillage and crop management on soil carbon dynamics during 41 years. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 188, 134-146, ISSN 0167-8809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.014.
4.HGCA (1988). Reduced cultivation for cereals. Research Review No 5.
5.Withers, P.J.A., Hodgkinson, R.A., Bates, A. and Withers, C.L. (2007). Soil cultivation effects on sediment and phosphorus mobilization in surface runoff from three contrasting soil types in England. Soil and Tillage Research, 93, 438–451.
6.Defra project SP1605 - Studies to support future Soil Policy. Objective B: To determine the relationship between best practice for managing soils to protect the environment with that for increased productivity.
Comment by Steven Jacobs posted on
Good to see evidence but I would offer some feedback on the selection chosen here.
It would be great to see evidence of farmers working more closely with ecosystem services which after all are highlighted as being in severe decline and needing quite radical approaches to help them recover. In other words is it perfectly rational and scientific to look beyond the tillage/herbicide approaches.
You chose to look at synthetic input use with mechanical tillage (conventional agriculture) compared only with synthetic input use with no-tillage (no-till or zero-till) - reference Wilkes, T.I. et al. (2021).
From a scientific perspective that surely is insufficient and leaves a gap in the evidence. I would expect people in the Future Farming team would be fully acquainted with research that can fill some of those gaps.
Below I have put some examples.
I hope my comments are taken as constructive feedback.
What farmers need is help in joining the dots. Farmers, organic and non organic alike, are experienced land managers who are already running businesses that can withstand many shocks.
But to make the radical shifts needed to address the huge crises we all face requires a strong lead from government, and consistent policy support that is well-funded and that enables a very coherent framework drawing options together and offering farmers a suite of measures they can use, work with and potentially improve upon.
There are concerns that throwing 280 options at people and expecting them to work it all out will benefit those with bigger farms who can afford to run teams of people analysing the ins and outs. "How much will I get for this but does it deny me that?" is a massive dilemma for many who may simply leave the options alone. And then the concern is they leave the industry altogether.
Research citations.
Firstly with tillage comparisons and impact of glyphosate on the health of key relationships in the microbiota -
- Glyphosate herbicide affects below ground interactions between earthworms and symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in a model ecosystem -
'Herbicides containing glyphosate are widely used in agriculture and private gardens, however, surprisingly little is known on potential side effects on non-target soil organisms.'
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05634
- Glyphosate decreases mycorrhizal colonization and affects plant-soil feedback - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718320345
'These results demonstrate negative effects of glyphosate on non-target organisms in agricultural environments and grassland ecosystems.'
——
And here are papers looking at agroecology with a view to biodiversity benefits but also in how to help and farmer take-up.
Incidentally, these projects attracted Defra funding -
——
- Transitions to Agroecological Systems: Farmers’ Experience - http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/6707121038557184
'At this critical time for farmers and farming in the UK, it is more important than ever that we understand the motivations, attitudes and experiences of those who have successfully adopted more sustainable agricultural practices and systems.
The motives and events that prompted the farmer to engage with transition to agroecology, the challenges experienced and the opportunities, as seen by the farmers, are almost as varied as the fourteen farms we studied.
“The biggest step is getting started”.
Other big challenges mentioned included issues related to self (symbolic capital – self-belief, prestige, reputation) and to other people (transitioning being seen as different from the mainstream resulting in negative attitudes of other people, problems with staff), financial (access to finance, cash-flow problems, rejected grant applications) and technical problems (failure to establish crops and trees, problems with silage or weeds).
Structural and farm-specific factors were very important as motivations for shaping the transition, such the ability to diversify the farming activities (e.g. taking over the family farm, access to more land) as were personal beliefs (e.g. concerns about the soils, dislike of pesticides).
The transition process appears to be shaped by the interaction between the farmer and his/her farm as well as by external events.
There is a need to improve the understanding of these links between personal, farm-specific and external drivers of change and the interaction between agronomic and human challenges.'
——
- The Role of Agroecology in Sustainable Intensification - http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/6602354724962304
'We are now of the opinion that agroecology can form an integral part of sustainable intensification, although there are a number of barriers hindering the wider adoption of this kind of approach, in particular those relating to knowledge exchange.
The potential of agroecological approaches to contribute to sustainable intensification (used in this sense described above) should be more widely recognised and developed. Agroecology is not just an option for, but an essential component of, sustainable intensification;'
——
Comment by Simon Ward posted on
The blog starts by talking about soil health but the references barely address this aspect and largely deal with other SFI actions (such as pollinator sources and benefits where the evidence is much better (over 20 years of data and a clear public good) ).
There are UK review papers of data on cover crops which are absent (such as Bhogal, White and Morris and their earlier paper with Stobbart both for the AHDB ) which help round the opinion.
I don't think that anyone would disagree with the benefits of soil organic matter and need to support biodiversity but there are still a lot of untested assumptions about impact and how to achieve the goal. Very often the evidence is erratic and varies with season (with one trial we are certain of the outcome with two often less so).
It is so important to be evidence based. We need great ideas but these need to be tested. We also need to publish "null" trials and not forget that continuous wheat has been grown at Rothamsted for over 100 years without additional organic matter and yields are still rising. Higher yields and the end of stubble burning means we already apply a lot more organic matter than we used.
Comment by Steven Jacobs posted on
Good to see evidence but I would offer some feedback on the selection chosen here.
It would be great to see evidence of farmers working more closely with ecosystem services which after all are highlighted as being in severe decline and needing quite radical approaches to help them recover. In other words is it perfectly rational and scientific to look beyond the tillage/herbicide approaches.
You chose to look at synthetic input use with mechanical tillage (conventional agriculture) compared only with synthetic input use with no-tillage (no-till or zero-till) - reference Wilkes, T.I. et al. (2021).
From a scientific perspective that surely is insufficient and leaves a gap in the evidence. I would expect people in the Future Farming team would be fully acquainted with research that can fill some of those gaps.
Below I have put some examples.
I hope my comments are taken as constructive feedback.
What farmers need is help in joining the dots. Farmers, organic and non organic alike, are experienced land managers who are already running businesses that can withstand many shocks.
But to make the radical shifts needed to address the huge crises we all face requires a strong lead from government, and consistent policy support that is well-funded and that enables a very coherent framework drawing options together and offering farmers a suite of measures they can use, work with and potentially improve upon.
There are concerns that throwing 280 options at people and expecting them to work it all out will benefit those with bigger farms who can afford to run teams of people analysing the ins and outs. "How much will I get for this but does it deny me that?" is a massive dilemma for many who may simply leave the options alone. And then the concern is they leave the industry altogether.
Research citations.
Firstly with tillage comparisons and impact of glyphosate on the health of key relationships in the microbiota -
- Glyphosate herbicide affects below ground interactions between earthworms and symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in a model ecosystem -
'Herbicides containing glyphosate are widely used in agriculture and private gardens, however, surprisingly little is known on potential side effects on non-target soil organisms.'
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05634
- Glyphosate decreases mycorrhizal colonization and affects plant-soil feedback - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718320345
'These results demonstrate negative effects of glyphosate on non-target organisms in agricultural environments and grassland ecosystems.'
——
And here are papers looking at agroecology with a view to biodiversity benefits but also in how to help and farmer take-up.
Incidentally, these projects attracted DEFRA funding -
——
- Transitions to Agroecological Systems: Farmers’ Experience - http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/6707121038557184
'At this critical time for farmers and farming in the UK, it is more important than ever that we understand the motivations, attitudes and experiences of those who have successfully adopted more sustainable agricultural practices and systems.
The motives and events that prompted the farmer to engage with transition to agroecology, the challenges experienced and the opportunities, as seen by the farmers, are almost as varied as the fourteen farms we studied.
“The biggest step is getting started”. Other big challenges mentioned included issues related to self (symbolic capital – self-belief, prestige, reputation) and to other people (transitioning being seen as different from the mainstream resulting in negative attitudes of other people, problems with staff), financial (access to finance, cash-flow problems, rejected grant applications) and technical problems (failure to establish crops and trees, problems with silage or weeds). Structural and farm-specific factors were very important as motivations for shaping the transition, such the ability to diversify the farming activities (e.g. taking over the family farm, access to more land) as were personal beliefs (e.g. concerns about the soils, dislike of pesticides). The transition process appears to be shaped by the interaction between the farmer and his/her farm as well as by external events.
There is a need to improve the understanding of these links between personal, farm-specific and external drivers of change and the interaction between agronomic and human challenges.'
——
- The Role of Agroecology in Sustainable Intensification - http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/6602354724962304
'We are now of the opinion that agroecology can form an integral part of sustainable intensification, although there are a number of barriers hindering the wider adoption of this kind of approach, in particular those relating to knowledge exchange.
The potential of agroecological approaches to contribute to sustainable intensification (used in this sense described above) should be more widely recognised and developed. Agroecology is not just an option for, but an essential component of, sustainable intensification;'
——
Comment by George Harcourt posted on
A good post, thanks. I hope these schemes will point farmers in the right direction. However, some farmers have been attempting soil improvement for decades - and it is not as simple as this piece may make out.
Good farmers know that adding organic material, returning valuable nutrients to the soil and cultivating in a timely careful manner can have good results.
But, with the best intentions it does not always work! Every day is a school day on the farm, the weather may have the last laugh and the law of unintended consequences rules!
Our farmland birds have increased since grassy wildlife plots have been left adjacent to small wild woodland areas. So have buzzards and kites. Increasing traffic (the biggest and most damaging predator) supplies road kill. It is sad to see the leverets and small rabbits being picked off. They are endangered too!
Crab apple trees left to fruit in the hedgerows are great for wildlife. Deer are now so prolific they are damaging woodland and causing a lot of insurance claims to motorists (who travel too fast on country roads).
These schemes are complicated. My rotation with sugar beet and outdoor pigs (great for wildlife!) is just not suitable for the SFI soils scheme. My stewardship application was rejected because the RPA could not process it in time. Maybe ELS was better.
Perhaps the larger farmers have more success in accessing some of this green funding. As things currently look, my small farm will be part of a huge unit in a year or two because we can't carry on like this!