There is a real concern that important research papers published more than a couple of decades ago will be ignored because they cannot be accessed through online searches. This is why the British Crop Production Council (BCPC) archive of its annual crop protection conferences and occasional specialist colloquia has been digitised and made available on a free searchable online database. This was made possible with funding from five agricultural charities*, co-ordinated by the Agri-Food Charities Partnership (AFCP).

There are 65,000 pages in the archive, all packed with data and information, much of which is still very relevant today. Overall, the archive gives the details of the scientific development in crop protection since the first papers in 1954. In addition to the science, the conferences from 1973 onwards have a keynote address (the Bawden Memorial Lecture) by a major player in the industry on the strategic issues that may influence the future of crop protection and the wider industry. The initial Bawden Lecture was delivered by Sir Henry Plumb, then president of the NFU. These lectures make fascinating reading and describe the then informed views on issues related to food production.

The 1997 Bawden lecture

I have just read the Bawden lecture delivered in 1997 by Dennis Avery who ran the Hudson Institute in the US. It is amazingly perceptive. He concluded that the way to provide food sufficient for the needs of a burgeoning world population whilst looking after the environment is through growing high yields. These should be achieved through the responsible adoption of technology.

He came to his conclusions because conservationists at the time were finding that species extinctions and reductions in biodiversity were mainly due to loss of habitats.  The same seems to be true today.

Dennis Avery highlighted his particular concern over the pressure on land in Asia.  The picture, which some Microsoft Windows users may recognise, makes the point with rice terraces being squeezed precariously into an otherwise unspoilt valley in China.

In his Bawden lecture Dennis Avery also presented his opinions on how to feed a much larger world population in the future. They included continuing to adopt new and safe technologies as well as ensuring free trade in agricultural products. He added that production subsidies should be withdrawn and any financial support for farming should be to provide habitats for wildlife…. sounds familiar? Remarkably, remember that it was written in 1997, he raised the possibility of an expansionist Russia being a threat to global food production.

The one current major issue he did not predict was the need to reduce greenhouse gases attributable to food production. However, his message of the merits of high yield farming would be untroubled by this issue.

What happened next?

Dennis Avery’s views on the virtue of achieving high yields were treated with suspicion at the time but gradually gained traction to such an extent that other forms of production felt threatened, I think unjustly.  This included some in the organic movement and a paper was published in 2007 stating that organic yields and conventional yields were remarkably similar.  However, a subsequent analysis by Dennis Avery’s son Alex found that such a conclusion was highly suspect because of cherry picking results, multi-counting favourable studies and including many studies that did not even include organic comparisons.  It was just as well that it was not really championed by many in the organic movement because they themselves could not really believe it.

Recently Dennis Avery’s views have been reinforced by a number of leading independent researchers in papers published in highly regarded scientific journals. In addition, a recent paper concluded that not only is sustainable high yield farming best for the environment but also for the taxpayer.

Have his messages been adopted? … not really.  Pesticides are still seen by many as having pariah status. For instance, EU policy makers have adopted a Farm to Fork framework that aims to reduce considerably pesticide usage. Independent analysis shows that this will very significantly lower food production in the EU. Hence, such a policy is likely to have a large deleterious impact on the global area of natural habitats. In my mind, this populist policy is a massive strategic error based on emotion and misconceptions rather than cool analysis. Some conservationists are now so concerned that they are beginning to adopt a social science approach to convince the public, and particularly politicians, that policies resulting in sub-optimal responsible pesticide usage are a threat to global biodiversity.

There is so much more to discover and learn from the BCPC archive.   There may even be more blogs on its contents!  In the meantime, why not look it up?

*The Chadacre Agricultural Trust, Felix Cobbold Trust,  Perry Foundation, The Douglas Bomford Trust, The Morley Agricultural Foundation

Needs, wants and vision?

Where is the vision?

Listening to the excellent presentations and talking with attendees at the recent AFCP seminar on Research in Action; Need, Funding and Outcomes it was reassuring to see the breadth of activity on soil structure and health that has been supported by agricultural charities including AFCP.

However, whilst it is often cited that you should invest in land because we’re not making any more of it, we need to think a little more holistically if we want to sustain UK agriculture and address the ‘elephant in the room’ – food security?

Food security hit the headlines in 2021 during Covid-19 but was swiftly forgotten. Sadly, the over-riding memory of lockdown will be toilet rolls, Matt Hancock and parties at No 10.  Similarly, on 24^th February 2021 the war in Ukraine highlighted the precarious state of worldwide food supplies, not just oilseeds and grains but the collateral impact on gas and subsequently fertiliser prices.

 Roll forward to February 2023 and the rationing of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers led to many news bulletins; but the urgency and importance of defining a longer term vision for sustaining UK food production seems consistently overlooked.

On a positive note, next month the House of Lords Committee inquiry starts into the Horticulture Sector including a topic on funding for science, research and development - whilst also addressing labour shortages, production costs and the loss of extensions of authorisation for minor use of crop protection products that underpins production.

Needs and wants

Climate change is making production more precarious, as witnessed by record UK temperatures in 2022, but so too is a realisation in some areas of Government that food production is politically and economically critical.  What is surprising is why the level of investment to mitigate such risks has barely changed whilst the urgency, extent and severity of threats has been amplified?  Yields for many crops are claimed to have flatlined, despite all the effort to improve productivity.

I tried to explain this to non-farming friends whose knowledge has progressed a little after watching Clarkson’s Farm. Growers, plant breeders and agronomists are madly treading water to keep many crops afloat against a rising tide of pest, weed and disease threats which have historically been kept in check by crop protection products.

Availability of crop protection products is dwindling as the European Union policy aims to halve use of all pesticide by 50% by 2030, an approach which appears to be mirrored within the UK.  Such an approach needs to consider three things;

 1 – will the environment be kind?  Recent evidence of extreme climate events shows that stability will not be on the agenda for weeds, pests and diseases.

2 – breeding/engineering/technology will adapt to fill the void? This was the vision of Agri-Tech initiative launched a decade ago in 2013, yet research, development and introduction remains slow. Even the promise of the precision breeding bill in England will need to see many smaller, fragmented crops or markets sustained in the interim.

3 – will these issues be compounded and amplified when we reduce choice of cropping, variety or chemistry across a whole rotation?  Effectively making the transition even more challenging.

Historically the interaction between Genetics, Environment and Management or G x E x M was used to define output. This was relatively predictable; but as all three vary more frequently and to a greater extreme then we need a step change in research investment if we are to cope.

AFCP seminar

This was one of the core reasons for the AFCP seminar hosted at NIAB. 

When you look at how soils function; how they interact with crops and their environment it is likely that the challenges will be more numerous and frequent.  The presentation by George Crane of Yara Growth Ventures on cover cropping, soil structure and arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis pointed to the need for long term responses assessed over decades, not one or two seasons. 

The presentation from Ana Prada Barrio of Harper Adams on controlled traffic, tyre pressure and tillage systems sponsored by the Douglas Bomford Trust, The Morley Agricultural Foundation and Harper Adams University built on this. It showed the complexity of cover crops interacting with soil structure and farm practice including controlled traffic over time. Even though in its 9^th season, the initial conclusion that there was no significant difference in crop yield between treatments highlighted the likelihood that we need to be looking at a much longer perspective to draw conclusions. 

When the Broadbalk trial was established in 1843 at Rothamsted the founding fathers understood that Agricultural Research is a vital investment for the future. The need to optimise use of fertilisers or resources to sustain production and a growing population remains unchanged, 180 years later.

Similarly, Edwin Jarratt Barnham’s of the Cambridge Crop Science Centre presentation on nutrient regulation in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis started with a reminder from Sri Lanka about the flawed attempt to ban fertiliser use in 2021 – hobbling their food industry with a 50% yield reduction.  Excessive fertiliser use will gain more pressure for regulation globally due to environmental impacts, and because it is economically beyond the reach of many farmers and supply depends on a limited number of manufacturers.  Phosphate sources are likely to be the most urgent, as it is widely predicted supply will peak in the coming decades.

So, in conclusion, the challenge as ever is to reconcile the needs and wants of the United Kingdom with a vision to deliver food security whilst addressing the risk of displacing food production and with it the UK industry’s high standards overseas.