WHEALBI Project Socio-economic study of reduced tillage and conservation agriculture in Europe

Context Intensive forms of agriculture cause severe environmental effects: Soil erosion Loss of biodiversity Water pollution Development of conservation measures could help to reach a more sustainable agriculture Reduced tillage Rotation Cover crops Some varieties may be more adapted to conservation agriculture WHEALBI tests wheat and barley varieties under different cropping managements

Study case : Example with WHEALBI trial (Cambridge 2015-2017) Which factors affect the adoption of conservation agriculture at the farm scale ? Study case : Example with WHEALBI trial (Cambridge 2015-2017) European incentives to favour conservation agriculture (CA) This study is only focused on one of the three component of CA : Soil management

Which factors affect the adoption of conservation agriculture at the farm scale ? Cultural Lack of knowledge in Europe No clear benefits at the farm scale but only at the society level ? Conventional model =security Economic Investment on machinery for soil management Supplementary costs for herbicides Yield loss in the first years of implementation Physical Raise of weeds, pests and diseases Soil quality Bad conditions for crop emergence Survey (175 interviews) on European farmer’s perception on conservation agriculture (Catch C Project, 2015) Risk management, efficiency, time and effort to implement reduced tillage on farm are the strongest barriers to its development

Which factors affect the adoption of conservation agriculture at the farm scale ? Survey shows reduced tillage have the best index of acceptance, of all the practices from Conservation Agriculture Reduced tillage limits machinery, fuel and labour costs Economic study : WHEALBI trials Cambridge 2015-2017 realized by NIAB

Study case: Example with WHEALBI trials Evaluate farmers’ economic interest to adopt new crop management practices Crop management Conventional tillage Plough: 40cm depth Conservation tillage Deep Non-Inversion: 30cm depth Shallow Non-Inversion: 18cm depth Fertilization Cambridge, 2016 High N input: Best local farm practice for each crop Low N input: Reduced N

Study case: Example with WHEALBI trials Results presented on conventional and elite varieties locally adapted Wheat Barley KWS Santiago KWS Infinity Alchemy Lomerit Hereward Saffron Robigus

No significant differences between tillage practices Results - Wheat yields No significant differences between tillage practices

Results - Barley yields No significant differences Between tillage practices

Crop itinerary and costs 2017 Previous crop : Pea Sowing date : 22/10/2016 Harvest date: 29/07/2016 (Barley) 31/07/2016 (Wheat)   Wheat Barley Operation Nb. of application Cost (£/ha) Herbicides 5 131.87 1 55.72 Fungicides & PGR’s 162.80 4 82.28 Insecticides 2 6.90 - Machinery costs 84 35 Total 385.57 173.00 Fertiliser High 3 (190kgN/ha) 122.00 2 (140kgN/ha) 90.00 Low 2 (50kgN/ha) 32.00 1 (40kgN/ha) 26.00 6,65/operation

Detailed economic analysis   KWS Santiago High N 2016 2017 Plough DNI SNI Costs Seeds 64,80 59,40 Tillage 129.50 110.00 98.00 Fertilisation 129.95 141,95 Crop itinerary 315.31 385.57 Total 639,56 620,06 608,06 716,42 696,92 684,92 Incomes Grain Price*Yield 1140.80 1077.55 1075.25 1373.10 1339.98 1272.36 Gross Margin (£/ha) 501,24 457,49 467,19 656,68 643,06 587,44 Low N 42,30 45,30 315,31 385,57 551,91 532,41 520,41 619,77 600,27 588,27 630.2 839.5 622.15 1189.56 1226.82 1305.48 78,29 307,09 101,74 569,79 626,55 717,21

Economic analysis – Wheat & Barley In most cases, reduced tillage has better margins than traditional ploughing

Summary of WHEALBI trials No statistical differences between the three tillage practices on yields Non inversion tillage reduce the machinery and labour costs and permit a better gross margin For the trials in Italy and Hungary, the statistical analysis doesn’t show a difference between tillage for the yield Further developments to integrate cover crops (N rich-soil), rotation (less weeds, diseases and insects) yielding reduced crop itinerary (less inputs and mechanization) in a systemic approach is needed to remove the barriers to engage farmers in conservation agriculture

Public policies to improve RT practices Mandatory measures Absence of an overarching legal and policy framework (Air and Water Directives) for soil protection in Europe Greening Crop diversification GAEC Soil minimum coverage Minimum land management to limit erosion Maintenance of soil organic matter Current CAP must play an important role for soil management Voluntary measures Member states adjust policy measures to correspond to environmental national issues Agri-environmental schemes linked with soil management

Choices of Member States France United Kingdom Italy GAEC Implant a crop before the 31st May Farmers have to take all reasonable steps to protect soil by having a minimum soil cover and prevent soil erosion Only on soils with erosion problems Soil minimum cover No tillage on gorged or flooded fields Only on soils with erosion problems Erosion control No burning of stubbles or crop residues No burning of stubbles or crop residues No burning of stubbles or crop residues Organic matter Greening European regulation Substitute for maize producers European regulation European regulation Crop diversification Crop rotation, cover crop, minimum tillage and reduction of fertiliser Increase organic component of arable soil Three schemes Entry Level Stewardship Organic Entry Level Stewardship Higher Level Stewardship AES field crops Agri-Environment Schemes

No mandatory measures to improve use of RT or suitable soil management CAP 2021 ? Conditionality Protection of carbon rich-soils Crop rotation instead of crop diversification Voluntary Innovation : Adapting precision farming techniques to new contexts A développer