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

2. 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

3. 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 )
European incentives to favour conservation agriculture (CA)
This study is only focused on one of the three component of CA : Soil management

4. 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

5. 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 realized by NIAB

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. Results - Barley yields
No significant differences
Between tillage practices

10. 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

11. 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
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
78,29
307,09
101,74
569,79
626,55
717,21

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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