A comparison of energy use in conventional and integrated arable farming systems in the UK

The LINK Integrated Farming Systems (LINK-IFS) Project (1992-1997) was setup to compare conventional and integrated arable farming systems (IAFS), concentrating on practical feasibility and economic viability, but also taking into account the level of inputs used and environmental impact. As part of this, an examination into energy use within the two systems was also undertaken. This paper presents the results from that analysis. The data used is from the six sites within the LINK-IFS Project, spread through the arable production areas of England and from the one site in Scotland, covering the 5 years of the project. The comparison of the energy used is based on the equipment and inputs used to produce I kg of each crop within the conventional and integrated rotations, and thereby the overall energy used for each system. The results suggest that, in terms of total energy used, the integrated system appears to be the most efficient. However, in terms of energy efficiency, energy use per kilogram of output, the results are less conclusive. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

A critical assessment of a desk study comparing crop production systems: The example of the 'system of rice intensification' versus 'best management practice'

When assessing hypotheses, the possibility and consequences of false-positive conclusions should be considered along with the avoidance of false-negative ones. A recent assessment of the system of rice intensification (SRI) by McDonald et al. [McDonald, A.J., Hobbs, P.R., Riha, S.J., 2006. Does the system of rice intensification outperform conventional best management? A synopsis of the empirical record. Field Crops Res. 96, 31-36] provides a good example where this was not done as it was preoccupied with avoiding false-positives only. It concluded, based on a desk study using secondary data assembled selectively from diverse sources and with a 95% level of confidence, that 'best management practices' (BMPs) on average produce 11% higher rice yields than SRI methods, and that, therefore, SRI has little to offer beyond what is already known by scientists.

Do Integrated Arable Farming Systems provide a more sustainable form of agricultural production: the UK case

Integrated Arable Farming Systems (IAFS) projects utilise a range of novel and different farming techniques, often associated with optimising or reducing the use of inputs. Here, data is presented from the LINK-IFS project which suggests that, although input levels are being reduced, the overall profitability of the system can be maintained. The effect of thus reduction in inputs, however, in terms of impact on key environmental indicators is unclear.

Towards a method for the economic evaluation of environmental indicators in UK Integrated Arable Farming Systems

Integrated Arable Farming Systems (IAFS), which involve a reduction in the use of off-farm inputs, are attracting considerable research interest in the UK. The objectives of these systems experiments are to compare their financial performance with that from conventional or current farming practices. To date, this comparison has taken little account of any environmental benefits (or disbenefits) of the two systems. The objective of this paper is to review the assessment methodologies available for the analysis of environmental impacts. To illustrate the results of this exercise, the methodology and environmental indicators chosen are then applied to data from one of the LINK - Integrated Farming Systems experimental sites. Data from the Pathhead site in Southern Scotland are used to evaluate the use of invertebrates and nitrate loss as environmental indicators within IAFS. The results suggest that between 1992 and 1995 the biomass of earthworms fell by 28 kg per hectare on the integrated rotation and rose by 31 kg per hectare on the conventional system. This led to environmental costs ranging between £2.24 and £13.44 per hectare for the integrated system and gains of between £2.48 and £14.88 for the conventional system. In terms of nitrate, the integrated system had an estimated loss of £72.21 per hectare in comparison to £149.40 per hectare on the conventional system. Conclusions are drawn about the advantages and disadvantages of this type of analytical framework. Keywords: Farming systems; IAFS; Environmental valuation; Economics; Earthworms; Nitrates; Soil fauna

Integrated Arable Farming Systems and their potential uptake in the UK

Integrated Arable Farming Systems are examined from the perspective of the farmer considering the use of such techniques, and data are presented which suggest that the uptake of the approach may expose the manager to a greater degree of risk. Observations are made about the possible uptake of such systems in the UK and the implications this may have for agricultural and environmental policy in general.

An analytical framework for appraising Integrated Arable Farming Systems

Integrated Arable Farming Systems are examined from the perspective of the farmer considering the use of such techniques, and data are presented which suggest that the uptake of the approach may expose the manager to a greater degree of risk. Observations are made about the possible uptake of such systems in the UK and the implications this may have for agricultural and environmental policy in general.

Potential of legume-based grassland-livestock systems in Europe

European grassland-based livestock production systems are challenged to produce more milk and meat to meet increasing world demand and to achieve this by using fewer resources. Legumes offer great potential for coping with such requests. They have numerous features that can act together at different stages in the soil-plant-animal-atmosphere system and these are most effective in mixed swards with a legume abundance of 30-50%. The resulting benefits are a reduced dependency on fossil energy and industrial N fertilizer, lower quantities of harmful emissions to the environment (greenhouse gases and nitrate), lower production costs, higher productivity and increased protein self-sufficiency. Some legume species offer opportunities for improving animal health with less medication due to bioactive secondary metabolites. In addition, legumes may offer an option for adapting to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and to climate change. Legumes generate these benefits at the level of the managed land area unit and also at the level of the final product unit. However, legumes suffer from some limitations, and suggestions are made for future research in order to exploit more fully the opportunities that legumes can offer. In conclusion, the development of legume-based grassland-livestock systems undoubtedly constitutes one of the pillars for more sustainable and competitive ruminant production systems, and it can only be expected that legumes will become more important in the future.

Potential of legume-based grassland-livestock systems in Europe

European grassland-based livestock production systems face the challenge of producing more meat and milk to meet increasing world demands and to achieve this using fewer resources. Legumes offer great potential for achieving these objectives. They have numerous features that can act together at different stages in the soil–plant–animal–atmosphere system, and these are most effective in mixed swards with a legume proportion of 30–50%. The resulting benefits include reduced dependence on fossil energy and industrial N-fertilizer, lower quantities of harmful emissions to the environment (greenhouse gases and nitrate), lower production costs, higher productivity and increased protein self-sufficiency. Some legume species offer opportunities for improving animal health with less medication, due to the presence of bioactive secondary metabolites. In addition, legumes may offer an adaptation option to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change. Legumes generate these benefits at the level of the managed land-area unit and also at the level of the final product unit. However, legumes suffer from some limitations, and suggestions are made for future research to exploit more fully the opportunities that legumes can offer. In conclusion, the development of legume-based grassland–livestock systems undoubtedly constitutes one of the pillars for more sustainable and competitive ruminant production systems, and it can be expected that forage legumes will become more important in the future.