86 / 116
Augustus 2016
84
CA adoption in Europe
very slow
C
ompared to other world regions conservation agriculture
(CA) development in Europe has been particularly slow,
such as for example in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ger-
many, with an adoption rate of just above 1%. This is de-
spite the serious environmental problems they have, such as land
degradation.
According to Kassam (2011), ‘the root cause of UK’s agricultural land
degradation and decreasing productivity – as seen in terms of loss
of soil health – is their low soil-carbon farming paradigm of inten-
sive tillage which disrupts and debilitates many important soil-
mediated ecosystem functions – (this system) is no longer fit to
meet the agricultural and rural resource management needs and
demands of the 21st century.’
There are a number of reasons for this slow adoption in Europe,
some of which are the moderate climate, which does not cause too
many catastrophes urging for action, agricultural policies in the UK
and European Union (EU) including direct payments to producers
and subsidies for certain commodities, which take the pressure off
the producers for extreme cost savings and discourage the adoption
of diversified crop rotations.
However, the situation has begun to change in recent years, not
only through more favourable policies towards CA, but through
individual countries taking their own initiative to introduce and pro-
mote CA. Increased awareness of producers, politicians and society
as a whole of the benefits of CA is leading to gradual changes in the
overall approach to soil conservation (Basch
et al
., 2008).
Two issues stand out: Firstly, in all the successful initiatives, such
as in Finland, the CA adoption process was driven by producers,
and secondly, there still exists a wide gap between producers and
the agricultural research and extension policies and programmes
operating in their countries or areas.
There has been little or no promotion of CA in the UK from govern-
ment side (Andrew Howard, Ashford, Kent – personal communica-
tion); it has been primarily producer-led. In the UK the main reason
producers are more interested in CA is due to black-grass having
become such a serious weed problem. Minimal disturbance at
planting, a switch to spring cropping and more diverse cropping are
seen as key tools for black-grass control.
First-hand experiences in the UK
From 26 April to 11 May I had the privilege to visit the UK and
Germany to share experiences about the promotion of CA in South
Africa. I was invited to visit the UK after two Nuffield scholars,
Mr Andrew Howard from Kent in England and Mr Gordon Whiteford
from Scotland, visited South Africa in January.
I assisted them to visit two CA producers, namely Mr Joseph
Swanepoel from Atlanta north of Brits and Mr Jan Grey near Ermelo.
The producers from UK were pleasantly surprised and thought that
they would gain from something similar (referring to the CA pro-
gramme Grain SA has established with the support of The Maize
and Winter Cereal Trusts) to speed-up CA adoption among their own
grain producers.
On 27 April I arrived in the UK and later that same day presented
an overview on natural resources and agriculture in South Africa,
plus Grain SA’s producer innovation approach promoting CA to
producers involved in Biodiversity, Agriculture, Soil, Environment
(BASE-UK) at Howard’s farm Oaklands, which is near the town
Ashford, Kent.
Producer groups like BASE-UK have been active in the last number
of years to promote more sustainable farming practices, such as
CA. The presentation followed after a farm walk, which allowed
the 50 mostly producer participants to observe and discuss the
various CA trials Howard has on his farm (see
Photo 1
and
Photo 2
).
The dominant soils on the farm are of a fine loamy to fine silty type
with a mean annual rainfall of 750 mm.
The trials included the following treatments:
Mixed intercropping treatments: Comprising different mixtures,
used as rotations with wheat: 1) Buckwheat; 2) faba beans and
lucerne; 3) faba beans and spring oats; 4) linseed and lucerne;
5) linseed, lucerne and buckwheat; 6) linseed and buckwheat;
7) linseed and oats; 8) linseed, oats and buckwheat; 9) buck-
wheat and lucerne (see
Photo 3a
to
Photo 3d
).
Relay intercropping treatments: The following crops were
broadcasted mid-season (April) into a standing wheat crop, with
the idea of achieving the effects mentioned in brackets: 1) Red
clover (to grow quickly after harvest and fix N before second
wheat); 2) lucerne (for becoming a permanent living mulch in-
between the cash crops.
On 29 April I made a presentation on Grain SA’s producer innova-
tion programme at the Agriculture and Horticulture Development
Board (AHDB) at Stoneleigh, Warwickshire, which continued into a
long discussion in the afternoon.
The AHDB is a statutory levy board, funded by producers, growers
and others in the supply chain. Their purpose is to equip levy payers
with independent, evidence-based information and tools to grow,
become more competitive and sustainable. Although the AHDB
does have a focus on soil research and recommends ‘no-till’ as a
possible soil management option for grain producers in the UK, CA
is not yet promoted and supported widely as the key to sustainable
grain production.
However, during the discussion, there was a great interest shown
by their staff in CA and research approaches that bring researchers
and producers closer to each other facilitating greater co-learning
and impact. Hence, the producer-centred innovation systems ap-
proach followed by the Grain SA’s CA programme was highly appre-
ciated as a model that could be used by AHDB in future.
– Conservation agriculture tour to the United Kingdom and Germany
HENDRIK SMITH,
CA facilitator: Grain SA
ON FARM LEVEL
Sustainable farming practices / EU and UK
Conservation agriculture