Intensive tillage farming and care for the environment are regarded by some as mutually exclusive concepts. But it doesn't have to be so, according to scientists from Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority, who have established that grain farmers can boost their incomes while reducing the use of pesticides and fertilisers.
For the past five years the scientists have been carrying out trials at Teagasc's Oak Park research centre in Carlow which, given the results now emerging, could radically alter the way grain farmers manage their crops.
The purpose of the research, says Dr Michael Conry of the crop scientists' department at Oak Park, was to establish what would happen if farmers reduced the use of pesticides and other inputs such as nitrogen, phosphate and potash.
"The conventional high input system is what the good farmers in this country are doing, and maybe overdoing," he says. Over-use of fertilisers is frequently cited as a source of groundwater pollution.
"We are measuring the effects of reduced inputs on both the yield and quality of the grain, and seeing how that affects the profitability of the farmer. As well as that, we're monitoring the effects on the flora and fauna in the soil," says Dr Conry.
The trials are set to continue for at least five more years, but already significant and in some cases surprising results are emerging. Farmers, Dr Conry believes, could add thousands of pounds to their income while engaging in more environmentally-friendly practices than heretofore.
In the reduced input system adopted by Teagasc, the use of pesticides, employed to control weeds, disease and insects, has been cut by 50 per cent; nitrogen use is reduced by 25 per cent; while phosphate use has been eliminated because of the existing high level of phosphates in the soil at Oak Park. Alongside crops where this system is in place, cereals are being produced under the normal high input regime.
Scientists knew that reduced inputs would bring lower yields, says Dr Conry, but what effect would it have on quality? None, the trials have shown. "In terms of the quality of the grain the farmer sells to the merchant, it makes no difference whatsoever," he says.
"In terms of yield, we're finding that the reduced input gives a 5 per cent reduction in the case of winter wheat. In the case of winter barley, winter oats and spring barley, we're getting a nine to 12 per cent reduction."
With the effect on yields established, the next step was to examine the implications for farmers' incomes. Detailed costings including those related to ploughing, sowing and harvesting, as well as the impact of EU area aid support payments, are included in the calculations.
"We have found at the end of the day that all the winter cereals leave more money in the farmer's pocket in the case of the reduced inputs system. That is a benefit that we didn't expect, really . . . We did expect that they might break even on costs, but to find that there is a benefit for winter cereal producers is a bonus.
"This is very, very important," Dr Conry says, "not only for farmers but also for people who are interested in preserving our environment. We have seen down the years how a lot of birds have disappeared from this country, including the grey partridge, and people blame fungicides and pesticides and all these things.
"Now we find that when we reduce them by half there's a benefit to the grower, and this looks promising." The environmental impact has yet to be fully assessed, but positive results are also expected.
The low input system, he stresses, will only work for "skilled growers" as the timing of applications assumes greater importance. Adjustments would also need to be made to take account of local soil conditions.
Teagasc has already begun informing farmers of the results of the research, although to date they have been reluctant to act upon the findings. "They're reluctant to take it up," says Dr Conry, who believes farmers see the high input system as an "insurance policy".
"Most farmers don't like to take chances, but I can assure them if they do reduce inputs and put them on at the right crop growth stage and the right time, they will certainly make more money. The crops may not look as well, but they'll have more money in their pockets and more people will be able to remain viable as cereal producers in this country."
