Integrated farming in Europe – time to move from pilot to practice

Integrated farming has gained more and more attention during the 1990s and the role that it is playing in environmentally sustainable farming is increasing. A recent conference, Integrated Crop Protection: Towards Sustainability, organised by Sustainable Farming Systems (a grouping of Scottish colleges) and the British Crop Protection Council was held to focus on the practical and policy implications of this form of sustainable agriculture. Some papers presented are highlighted here.

Does low input work?
The LIFE (Less Intensive Farming and the Environment) project at Long Ashton (UK), under the leadership of Dr Vic Jordan, has just completed its first five year cycle and covers two demonstration pilot farms(1). The LIFE strategy is for a less intensive agriculture based on integrated technology. Yields of wheat and oilseed rape were reduced by up to 18%, but production costs were reduced by 32%, and pesticide costs by between 26% and 79%, depending on the type.
    Farmers observing the LIFE demonstrations had mixed reactions. The most favourable responses were from those farming on marginal land or in mixed farming. Farmers on high-yielding cash crops on good arable land with higher overheads were less attracted. What is significant is that the demonstrations have attracted ‘satellite groups’ of other locally interested farmers. Farmers on land suffering soil erosion, or in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones have been among those taking up the practices demonstrated. “Environmental legislation coupled with environmental incentives seem to be the factors likely to encourage farmers to adopt the integrated farming systems approach,” said Vic Jordan in his paper to the conference.
    A French paper presented the results of a comparison between a low input integrated farming system which minimises environmental impact and conventional arable farming systems(2). Three trial sites were established by the Institut Technique des Céréales et des Fourrages in contrasting regions. After four years, a reduction of inputs and input costs (from 25% to 37%) was achieved—particularly for fungicides and insecticides. Yields decreased by up to 32%, depending on the crop, but the overall economic returns were slightly better.
    Weed control is still a problem, and the authors feel that the system has not yet stabilised and needs to run for longer, but the preliminary results are encouraging.

What is sustainability all about?
Webster examines the concept of sustainability from the point of view of changes in farming systems(3). Farms can become more efficient, substitute inputs (e.g. replacing inorganic fertiliser by nitrogen generated by legumes); or redesign cropping or livestock systems. There is a need for agreement on indicators for sustainable systems, although progress is being made on this. The author believes that the main determinants of sustainability at farm level are the individual farmer’s knowledge and skill, and the overall level of government policy and support within which the farmer operates. Unless there is considerable investment in these two areas, it is forecast that ‘sustainable’ farming systems will have a very variable effect on incomes—although generally negative—and that such systems will differ considerably between regions with different ecologies and different farming patterns.
    A similar point was made by Marsh in his paper(4). Agriculture is essential to all economies and societies, and the scale of agricultural land use make agricultural policies crucial to debates on, and strategies for, sustainability. It is deeply affected by food policies, but few consumers industries are familiar with agriculture and farming problems. It is difficult to balance the economic concept of sustainability with the social consequences. On a European scale different instruments can be used to encourage sustainability—pricing, structural policies, information and education, R&D and environmental policies. To bring these instruments into play in a Europe consisting of widely differing agricultural systems may mean a considerable degree of local autonomy and freedom—or subsidiarity—in policy making. (PB)

References
1. V.W.L. Jordan, J.A. Hutcheon, G.V. Donaldson, and D.F. Farmer, Research into and development of integrated farming systems for less intensive arable crop production: progress 1989-94.
2. P. Viaux and C. Rieu, Integrated farming systems and sustainable agriculture in France.
3. J.P. Webster, Analysing the economic consequences of sustainability in farming systems.
4. John Marsh, The policy approach to sustainable farming systems in the EU.

Integrated Crop Protection: Towards Sustainability, 11-14 September 1995, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland, proceedings available from British Crop Protection Enterprises, 49 Downing Street, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 7PH, UK, Tel. +44 (0) 1252 733071, Fax +44 (0)1252 727194.