The concept of IFS has been much debated.
It can be described as "a system relying as much as possible on cultural and
biological inputs, with chemicals as integrated supplements. The main aim is to
minimise inputs of non-renewable resources and to provide a better balance
between the adequate production of yields and farm income on the one hand and
ecological, environmental and sociological aims on the other. All of these
considerations having to be compatible with cost-effectiveness"(1).
The principles of IFS specify "a holistic pattern of
land-use, which integrates natural regulation process into farming practices to
achieve maximum replacement of off-farm inputs and to sustain income"(2).
Integrated results
The LIFE project is a farm-scale experiment occupying
a total of 23 ha. During the first five years, it compared the following systems
of production: a conventional rotation and an integrated rotation each managed
by standard farm practice and a low input approach under a five year rotation.
In the overall systems comparison, the low input approach
resulted in an overall 10% and 15% yield reduction in the conventional and
integrated rotation, respectively, with savings in variable costs of 33% and
35%. Gross margin remained the same or showed a slight increase (2%) compared
with the conventional system. Reductions (kg active ingredient per ha) were
achieved in the following inputs: nitrogen (36%), herbicides (26%), fungicides
(79%), and insecticides (80%). This data has shown positive trends in economics,
reduction in pesticide use and enhancement of beneficial organisms illustrating
that conventional farming systems can be modified according to IFS guidelines.
This EU-funded project aims to demonstrate to the farming
industry alternative methods and approaches that encourage arable farming
practices which are more compatible with the protection of the environment and
are technically and economically viable.
Key elements
The key elements are: crop rotation, cultivation and
soil management, varieties, sowing date, nutrition, pesticides, and
biodiversity. The latter two are
elaborated:
Pesticides-many factors must be
taken into account: economic thresholds, selective pesticides, minimal dose and
frequency of application, patch treatment, mechanical and weed harrowing, low
volume sprays, slow release granules and careful timing of application. Crop
rotation and soil management coupled with enhanced field margins should
encourage natural control pests, diseases and weeds, thus reducing input costs.
An environmental assessment of pesticides is carried out and the products are
selected on the basis of parameters such as of leachability, volatility and
residual behaviour.
Biodiversity-maintenance,
enhancement and creation of field margins and landscape features are highly
desirable, not only for diversity of flora and fauna but also to provide
semi-natural habitats for ecologically beneficial elements.
Farming response to IFS
The farming industry is aware of the need for a change
from conventional practices, both for financial and environmental reasons. The
trends towards growing food surpluses, reduced product price and public concern,
together with the introduction of environmental legislation (particularly
Nitrogen Vulnerable Zones) have increased this awareness. IFS offers a solution
to many of these environmental problems whilst still achieving a sustainable
level of income for the farmer. Nevertheless, there is some resistance to
change, mainly because of unfamiliarity with (elements of) IFS due to lack of
experience and practical farm data. Allied with this is the concern of possible
gross margin reduction especially in farm businesses where overheads are high.
The large scale introduction and adoption of IFS can only be
successful if the farming community (farmers, advisers and teachers) is
sufficiently motivated and familiar with its methods and principles. Both pilot
farms have been set up to address these problems and, over time, will allay
fears and perhaps lead to greater overall farmer acceptance of IFS methods in
the future. Although in its early stages, financial performance on both farms
has been favourable with considerable savings on variable costs. Direct
comparison with typical farm crops is difficult to evaluate on a field-by-field
basis, but both farm managers accept that they have achieved quality yield
markets and comparative gross margins with other crops grown conventionally on
the farm whilst benefiting from other environmental aspects.
Attitudes to IFS
The farming industry's response IFS has been varied.
For financial reasons, farmers have already adopted some of these practices,
with the most important areas being disease-resistant varieties allied with
reduced dose fungicides/herbicides. It has been recognised that combined field
operations/reduced tillage methods to help save machinery costs, and a more
diverse crop rotation with profitable break crops can sustain income. However,
the farming industry finds it difficult to accept lower yields, reduced
field-size and to tolerate some weeds. Crop yields, in the farmer's opinion are
associated with farm profit-although this is not always the case. The IFS
approach on both pilot farms has shown that the introduction of profitable
breakcrops can bring considerable reduction (30%-40%) in variable costs
(pesticides and fertilisers) without a severe reduction in yield (5%-8%), and
this has led to a higher rotational gross margin.
Farmers' concern about the ability of crops to tolerate
some weeds, pests and diseases is based on past farming practice where pesticide
use ensured 'clean crops', but caused environmental impacts, but up to a
point, weeds are a cosmetic problem.
Since IFS offers no financial incentive for implementation,
adoption is strongly dependent on the farmer's motivation to integrate
environmental objectives into farm management. This motivation appears to be
lacking in the farming community, presumably due to a shortage of published
material on practical expertise. In addition the existing agricultural extension
service in the UK contains few advisers trained specifically in IFS.
When the pilot farms produce more practical evidence, the
uptake of IFS should increase. It is doubtful whether the majority of farmers
will be willing to integrate less intensive elements into their farm management
until the financial support structure of CAP changes, and there is legislation
restricting inputs and greater extension support.