MENU

HOMEPAGE

Animal Health/
Welfare/Zoonoses

Environment

Land Reform

Food

Science

Fishing

Tourism

Education

Cultybraggan
Farm

Trade

Book Reviews

Light Relief

Links

Glossary

Correspondence

Vacancies

Contact Us

Back to Current Topic

The Role of the Advisor

Dr Keith Dawson

Summary

The Adviser bridges the gap between research and development and the end user industry. Advisers should have the clearest view of growers needs in their individual and unique businesses, understand new areas of research and development and apply this in a bespoke manner to meet growers needs. The good adviser will have a greater grasp of economics and practicalities than the researcher and developer. Much of the advisory role is to sort the R&D wheat from the chaff! The best input is still an educated pair of boots in the field and web based communication is much overrated. Advisory work involves a blend of new and old technologies, hard won experience, and a good understanding of sound agricultural principles, economics and environmental stewardship. This is the very embodiment of IFM principles and is explored through discussion of advisory problems: cultivation choice, fertiliser optimisation, and targeting of crop protection agents. A mosaic of differing production systems will be the most robust way forward. What is clear is that IFM requires a greater input of management and technical skill than other forms of agriculture, but that it can be the most profitable! Farming does need to be profitable if environmental stewardship is to flourish - IFM provides a means of achieving both objectives, but maltsters, processors, supermarkets and the public also need to play their role by supporting initiatives such as the LEAF Marque and in buying local produce, thus cutting down on food miles.

Introduction

Northern growers could be forgiven for thinking yet again that this season more than any other the weather has been the most important input in determining business performance. Variable and lower than average yields and rock bottom prices have combined to put an industry on the brink and new systems of production take second place to survival. However, before you can manage your way out of this mess we must first measure. Proper detailed benchmarking such as our own CMS system and the use of the complementary LEAF audit are an excellent way forward.

However, this means that careful IFM management will be even more important this year to maximise what opportunities do exist. Good IFM management means that in seasons with good weather that full potential can be achieved and that in seasons like 2002 the damage of bad weather can be minimised, but not eliminated! A good example of this was the increased use of preharvest desiccants to reduce drying costs and increase combining capacity per day, thus reducing fuel usage and emissions. What is clear is that new technology and integrated farming systems will both play a part in optimising inputs. This is the major reason that as advisers we have embraced SNH's TIBRE initiative and LEAF as a core business philosophy. It is clear also that the need for good advice and good management will be even more important in the future in the drive to optimise production costs/tonne over the whole farm whilst safeguarding the environment.

Cultivation Strategies

An area which has received a lot of publicity recently is that of establishment costs and techniques. This is a classic example of IFM in practice and has significant potential impact on carbon management and watercourse pollution. CSC CropCare has carried out a number of trials in this area, indeed in over twenty years of agronomic experience this is the third wave of min till which I have experienced as an adviser. There was a good deal of useful work carried out in the eighties on this subject, much of it worthy of further study. Our work over a number of seasons and soil types has shown that it is a useful technique on heavier soils, the largest farms or in more difficult (but not the most difficult) of conditions. It also has the potential for significantly higher workrates, but often in reality there is very little saving as costs move across from establishment to the weed control column, as grass weeds become more costly and intractable to control. There is no doubt that annual meadowgrasses and brome are on a rapid increase as a result of a series of wet summers and this is worst on reduced tillage farms. We do not have the benefit of the possibilities of stale seedbeds that are possible in the South nor the superior grass weed chemistry available elsewhere in Europe yet, so we need to be careful in this area. There is good evidence also that weed resistance develops more quickly in low till systems. The plough will still be needed as a rotational tool and this poses questions about the investment needed and the implications on cash flow from a move to reduced tillage need to be carefully evaluated. Partnership approaches may be the answer to this poser for medium sized farms?

A number of new groups of chemistry with superior grass weed control properties will make these reduced tillage options easier but probably more expensive. One can argue that IPU gives relatively cheap, if variable grass weed control, but I wonder how cheap it will have been in real terms as water authorities pay (or rather the taxpayer) over £80m per year to remove it from water supplies due to the EU water quality directives. I wonder also how cheap it will be to farmers in real terms if it is the main reason for introducing an average 35% tax on crop protection products. By the time we are sitting in the conference at Battleby it may or may not be clearer whether the Government is minded to introduce such a tax at this stage. A great deal of work has gone on behind the scenes on this issue to fight the vested interests in favour of such a tax and the devastating effect it would have on jobs and the rural economy via the Voluntary Initiative.

There is no doubt that adjuvants have an important role to play in improving grass weed and BLW control with this new chemistry and optimising dose rate. Thus we may be in the process of squandering one of our main production advantages over the South of England ie that of lower weed control costs (typically 55-75% lower at present). We need all this benefit to help ease the burden of extra drying costs. The most flexible system for most farmers in Scotland is still the plough and drill/harrow combination. By the same token for most farmers there is no need to go for ultra early drilling if latest sowing dates are acceptable already. Here Set-Aside has been a very useful alternative entry for winter oilseed rape or indeed wheat and has allowed a useful environmental benefit, as well as a good break and the opportunity to tackle weed control more effectively if used correctly according to IFM principles.

Crop Nutrition

This is undoubtedly one of the areas of greatest opportunity for reducing costs per tonne available to Scottish growers. The increased cost of fertiliser N, brought about in part by a lack of competition caused by farmers themselves driving out all but the strongest from the market and by “cheaper” imports, has renewed interest in optimising N usage. However, N fertiliser is a key driver in reducing production costs and in some rotations the scope is limited to reduce. The use of real time tractor mounted N sensors will be a welcome step forward but is some way off for most situations. The main scope here is for better allowance and usage to be made of organic manures.

Better use could also be made of soil diagnostic techniques, especially in malting spring barley. A good deal of useful work has been carried out in this area, but technology transfer is slow. There is a good deal of nonsense talked about the effect of strobilurins on soil N residues. In many situations I believe Northern growers are under applying nitrogen, particularly in the autumn on the basis of politically correct but agronomically and environmentally incorrect advice.

In the area of phosphate lime and potash there is much greater scope for better targeting of inputs using GPS soil mapping as a key technique to put the fertiliser where it is needed most. Cost savings and yield benefits are considerable with one CSC CropCare farm study in the Borders showing actual savings of 37% on P and K and 50% on lime, as well as improvements in crop yield and quality. Unfortunately there are a number of bandwagon jumpers in this area who provide poor quality maps and it is important to beware of expensive imitations! This is a technology which will provide better financial and environmental performance through practical application of IFM principles.

Disease and Pest Control and Product Choice

Improved disease forecasting is also a means of making inputs perform more effectively. CSC CropCare currently operates Scotland's largest network of disease forecasting software and linked in-field weather stations in conjunction with ESG and Kettle Produce in Fife, Borders and Angus. This has allowed improved disease forecasting for potato blight and a number of vegetable diseases and allows more accurate timing and improved product choice in these important crops. This is also a good example of the type of advisory partnership we will need in the future to be successful in introducing new technology to good practical effect. It is also one of the few successful advisory agricultural web based applications.

Within the decreasing range of crop protection products there has been a clear shift towards lower dose better targeted, superior environmental profile chemistry. A close look at insecticides and herbicides emphasises this trend and this will be a key area for the adviser of the future.

I hope I have made it clear that new technology and Integrated Farm Management will both play a great part in optimising inputs and helping them pay even better in the future. There are both environmental and economic drivers to achieve this aim. There is in my mind no conflict between making inputs pay and achieving good environmental performance. It is clear also that the need for good advice and good management will be even more important in the future in the drive to optimise production costs/tonne over the whole farm, whilst achieving public and Government stewardship requirements.