In this issue:

-  Bangor Open Day
- Use BulkDry to help you dry your grain.
-  Harvest results
-  Early sown wheat
-  UKCPVS Reports
-  New project reports and research review

HGCA will be having a stand at the CALU Soils and Cereals workshop, looking at the importance of soils in planning cereal crops and the production of cereals in Wales. HGCA-funded work on naked barley and naked oats will be on show along with a range of publications and other information. For more details of this event please visit   www.hgca.com/events

If harvest conditions are such that you are forced to cut your cereals at elevated moisture levels then using the HGCA's grain drying simulation software may help you plan your drying strategy.

BulkDry allows you to run simulations of a wide range of drying scenarios.  You can download a local weather file (at a small cost) and then run the simulation. It displays the results in graphical form as drying progresses. It calculates the moisture content of the grain in the bed as a series of layers, and then calculates the likelihood of spoilage (risk of Ochratoxin A formation) occurring in each layer.  Although aimed at near ambient air drying you can see the effect of adding a heater or dehumidifier.  Control of the fan by RH threshold can be done as the grain dries to give a cost effective way to dry your grain. At the end of a run the summary will give you the time taken to dry, the cost of drying and a spoilage index.

To use BulkDry download the software at http://www.hgca.com/content.output/2688/2688/Resources/Tools/BulkDry.mspx

The harvest results of the HGCA Recommended Lists trials will soon be coming through. To sign up for e-mail notification of the results, you can register on line at http://www.hgca.com/content.output/69/69/e-Newsletters/e-Newsletters/Harvest%20Results.mspx

If you have signed up in the past there is no need to contact us again, you will still be on our records.

To keep up to date with the latest results follow this link: www.hgca.com/varieties.

Although harvest is still underway it will soon be time to think about early-sown wheat.

Varieties for early sowing should have slow speed of development, good disease resistance especially to eyespot and good resistance to lodging.

Disease and lodging resistance scores are available on the HGCA Recommended List.

Speed of development is measured at two RL sites each year (Essex and Yorkshire). Up to date results (including 2008 data) are available on the HGCA website at:

http://www.hgca.com/content.output/3348/3348/Varieties/Harvest%20Results%202008/Winter%20wheat%20RL%20results%202008.mspx

Of the varieties added to the RL last year, none appear to be as slow to develop as Claire from early September sowing but JB Diego is slower than average. Marksman and Duxford appear to be relatively fast developing when sown in early September.

PR433 Sclerotinia in oilseed rape, a review of the 2007 epidemic in England
http://www.hgca.com/publink.aspx?id=4605

PR432 Understanding the basis of resistance to Fusarium in UK winter wheat
http://www.hgca.com/publink.aspx?id=4598

RR54 (Revised) Environmental impacts of cereal and oilseed rape cropping in the UK and assessment of the potential impacts arising from cultivation for liquid biofuel production
http://www.hgca.com/publink.aspx?id=2177

PR433 Sclerotinia in oilseed rape, a review of the 2007 epidemic in England by Peter Gladders, Denise Ginsburg and Julie A. Smith of ADAS Boxworth, Battlegate Road, Boxworth, Cambridge CB23 4NN.
HGCA Project No. KT-0708-0017  Price: £4.50.

This review examined factors contributing to the sclerotinia stem rot (caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) epidemic in winter oilseed rape in 2007. The epidemic was the most severe yet recorded in England, with 5.7% plants affected in random disease survey samples and the worst since 1991. The local and regional distribution of stem rot was examined in relation to crop and pathogen monitoring and weather variables. Comparisons were made between 2006 (an 'average' year) and 2007 and between ADAS farms at Boxworth, Cambs and Rosemaund, Hereford between 1991 and 2007. Criteria for sclerotinia infection used in the German model SkleroPro were evaluated.

Disease survey and reports from consultants and farmers indicated the most severe stem rot in the south west and parts of the West Midlands. In south and central regions including parts of Essex and Hertfordshire, there were also high levels of stem rot. However, most of Eastern and northern England showed only low levels of stem rot and disease incidence was in some cases lower than in 2006. Petal tests and field observations indicated higher levels of ascospore inoculum in 2007 than in 2006. The dry 2007 spring led some to believe that the risk was low, though dry days are favourable for spore dispersal if apothecia (the fruiting bodies of sclerotinia) are present. A monitoring network indicated that apothecia were present during flowering except at one site on the Yorkshire Wolds.

Stem rot infection took place first in late April in the Hereford area where there was some rainfall, but a second and larger phase of infection took place towards the end of flowering (in mid May) in both the west and the south. Fungicides applied at early flowering (11 April) gave good control (70-80%) when high rates of application were used. The decision not to use fungicides and late applications contributed to the high disease incidence. The SkleroPro model identified days when infection might have occurred during flowering in 2006 and 2007 and during 1991-2007 at Boxworth and Rosemaund. No infection conditions were recorded at Bracknell or Coltishall in 2007. The weather during flowering was compared for six crops with severe stem rot (>25% plants affected) identified at Rosemaund (5 crops) and Boxworth (one crop) during 1991-2007 and all other 'low' disease crops, but no significant differences were identified to explain the differences between high and low disease sites. There were indications that high rainfall had a negative effect on stem rot. At Boxworth, inoculum on petals was known to be low in most years and this limited the severity of sclerotinia epidemics. Variation in stem rot incidence reflects both variation in inoculum and the occurrence of favourable weather for infection.

The SkleroPro model showed considerable promise for identifying 'infection periods' when used retrospectively. To be a practical tool to improve decision making, infection periods need to be predicted as fungicides show little curative activity. The development and use of rapid DNA tests to measure sclerotinia inoculum would be a significant advance to support decision making as it appears that inoculum is a limiting stem rot infection in many crops. With increased crop values, two fungicide treatments may be worthwhile at high risk sites to protect the crop throughout flowering.

A Sclerotinia Decision Guide on the HGCA website was updated and made available for the 2008 season.The link to this is  http://www.hgca.com/minisite_manager.output/2995/2995/Sclerotinia%20Decision%20Guide%20Tool/Sclerotinia%20Decision%20Guide%20Tool/Decision%20Guide.mspx?minisiteId=24.

PR432 Understanding the basis of resistance to Fusarium head blight in UK winter wheat by P. Nicholson of John Innes Centre, R. Bayles of NIAB and P. Jennings of Central Science Laboratory. 
HGCA Project No: 2726 Price: £6.00.

Fusarium head blight (FHB) of wheat is caused predominantly by Fusarium graminearum and F. culmorum although other Fusarium species and Microdochium majus and M. nivale are also important in some regions. The disease can often contaminate the grain with mycotoxins such as deoxynivalenol (DON) and nivalenol (NIV). Of 53 UK National List varieties tested for response to FHB, only three (Soissons, Spark and Vector) had significant stable resistance over trials. UK barley varieties differed significantly in FHB resistance.

Three FHB resistant varieties were studied to identify the location of quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with FHB resistance. Analysis of Spark and Soissons was combined with study of near-isogenic semi-dwarf lines for Rht1 and Rht2. Our results demonstrated that Rht2 is associated with a significant increase in susceptibility to initial infection (Type I resistance) while being largely unaffected in resistance to spread within the spike (Type II resistance). In contrast, Rht1 conferred no negative effect on FHB resistance, even conferring a very minor positive effect in one trial. Under high disease pressure both Rht1 and Rht2 significantly decreased Type 1 resistance. However, while Rht2 had no effect on Type 2 resistance Rht1 significantly increased Type 2 resistance. Enhanced susceptibility associated with Rht2 is probably due to linkage to deleterious genes rather than to pleiotropy and the positive effect of Rht1 on FHB resistance is due either to pleiotropy conferring Type 2 resistance or very tight linkage to resistance genes. In the third variety (RL4137), we identified FHB resistance QTL on chromosomes 1B and 2B.

Correlation for resistance to F. culmorum (DON-producer) and M. majus (non toxin-producer) was moderate across 29 European varieties following spray inoculation. Following point inoculation M. majus was not able to spread. Type 2 resistance appears to be important to restrict spread of DON-producing isolates of some species but may be largely irrelevant for other pathogens. Spread of a NIV-producing isolate of F. graminearum was much slower than that of a DON producing isolate. These isolates were used to identify and characterise new sources of FHB resistance among 300 lines from CIMMYT. 60 lines were shown to have moderate/high levels of FHB resistance. A few lines possessed a high level of Type I resistance only whereas a greater number possessed both Type I and Type II resistance. These lines merit further study as potential sources of novel FHB resistance. Furthermore, we propose that spray inoculation with an appropriate aggressive non DON-producing FHB pathogens may be used to identify the Type I FHB resistance component in wheat.

RR54 (Revised) Environmental impacts of cereal and oilseed rape cropping in the UK and assessment of the potential impacts arising from cultivation for liquid biofuel production by D Turley, N Boatman, H Huxtable and N Liddle of Central Science Laboratory, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ.
HGCA Project No:KT-0708-0020 Price: £7.50

PART 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CEREAL AND OILSEED RAPE CROPPING IN THE UK

Cereals, and in particular wheat, dominate the UK arable area. The oilseed rape area covers more than that of all other major arable break crops put together.  Production, particularly of oilseed rape, is concentrated in central and eastern areas of the UK.  Current market conditions, driven by increasing demand, will ensure that wheat and oilseed rape will continue to dominate UK arable agriculture and areas of both will expand as set-aside requirements are removed.

In terms of environmental profile and impacts of wheat and oilseed rape cropping, the following key aspects are highlighted:

1. Pesticide use  

• Both wheat and oilseed rape are relatively moderate users of pesticide compared to other arable crops in the rotation.
• Over that past 10 years the weight of pesticide active substance applied to wheat has declined by 8%.  There has also been a reduction in application rates applied to wheat for herbicides and plant growth regulators.  Molluscicide use in wheat has increased in recent years, and fungicide use has also begun to increase after a period of decline.  In oilseed rape both the area treated and total weight of pesticide applied has increased significantly since 1996, but with declines in application rates for all but herbicide and insecticide use
• Isoproturon (IPU) has been one of the most prominent pesticides associated with water quality problems.  Use on wheat (the main area of use) in recent years has declined as a result of tightening restrictions and there have been fewer reports of IPU appearing as a water contaminant, particularly of ground water.  IPU will be removed from sale in September 2008, and phased out of use by 30 June 2009.

2. Fertiliser use

• The efficiency of fertiliser use in wheat has increased in line with increasing yield, such that, to date, increases in yield have not required significant increases in nitrogen fertiliser input. Nitrogen use in oilseed rape has remained fairly static, as have yields.  However use of autumn applications has continued to decline.
• Wheat crops pose a relatively low risk of nitrate leaching loss where fertiliser applications are optimised.  In contrast, oilseed rape poses a relatively higher risk due to relatively high levels of residual fertility left behind after harvest.
• Phosphate applications to both wheat and oilseed rape are declining.
• Biosolids can be applied to wheat crops. This is a useful disposal option on land for a material for which other permissible disposal options are limited.

3. Soil impacts

• On most soil types, there is a low risk of severe soil erosion with most cereal and oilseed crops compared to risks with root crops and other spring-sown crops. Risk of loss increases where land is disturbed at critical periods on susceptible soil types.
• Phosphate loss from soils is linked to erosion and soil particulate movement.  These risks are reduced if cereal and oilseed crops are well established before winter on land susceptible to erosion.
• Incorporation of post-harvest cereal residues makes a valuable contribution to organic matter retention in arable soils.  Incorporating cereal straw can increase soil organic carbon levels by 50 ( 20) kg/ha/year/tonne of fresh straw incorporated.

4. Air impacts

• Oilseed rape and cereal production make a negligible contribution to overall UK CO2 emissions.
• Agriculture is a major source of emissions of nitrous oxide, an important greenhouse gas.  In terms of direct measured emissions, cereals and oilseed rape pose less risk than root crops and fertilised grassland.

5. Water impacts

• The number of water quality failures caused by pesticides is declining.  A few pesticides used on cereals are responsible for a small number of pesticide-related water quality failures. Very few water quality failures have been reported with the most problematic herbicide isoproturon in recent years. Of the pesticides most commonly associated with water quality failures, only one (carbendazim) is currently used on oilseed rape, but only on a small area.
• Nitrates in water continue to be a problem, but well-fertilised cereals pose a lower risk than many other arable crops.

6. Biodiversity impacts

• Weedy oilseed rape and cereal stubbles are key habitats for farmland birds. Wheat stubbles are commonly used by species like skylarks, finches and buntings.
• Oilseed rape crops are preferred by some birds.  Skylarks, yellow wagtails, sedge warblers, reed bunting and corn bunting nest in oilseed rape. During the breeding season the crop is also used by tree sparrows and yellow hammers.  Oilseed rape is an important breeding habitat for reed bunting.  Hedges close to oilseed rape are preferred by whitethroats, linnets and other common hedgerow bird species.
• Wheat and oilseed rape host relatively high populations and abundance of invertebrates when compared to crops such as potatoes.  Cereals in particular host many spiders and carabid beetles.  Insecticide use in both cereals and oilseed rape poses a potential risk to invertebrate diversity because of non-target effects associated with products commonly used.  However, this risk is minimised when applications are restricted to particular periods of the growing season.
• Molluscicide use in cereals and oilseeds is a risk to ground beetles and small mammals. Greater use of slug monitoring is required to help target use when most necessary.

All cereal and oilseed rape growers scrutinise the value of crop inputs to justify and optimise their use, which will minimise potential adverse environmental impacts.  In addition, many negative effects of cropping can be moderated or mitigated by adopting different management practices, either on a whole field basis (e.g. through ICM and sustainable farming techniques or precision application of inputs) and/or through measures targeted at particular field crops (e.g. spring cropping to provide overwinter stubbles) or field margins (e.g. agri-environment schemes) to support biodiversity in farmland landscapes.  Therefore, there is potential to significantly influence the environmental footprint of UK cereals and oilseed crops.

PART 2 - ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARISING FROM CULTIVATION OF WHEAT AND OILSEED RAPE FOR LIQUID BIOFUEL PRODUCTION

As part of a range of measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the UK government has set a target that 5% of UK transport fuel should be replaced by designated biofuels by 2010, using the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) as a driving initiative.  The European Commission has agreed further binding transport targets that 10% of transport fuel should be derived from biofuels by 2020.

The two main renewable so-called 1st generation liquid biofuels commercialised to date are biodiesel, derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, used as a diesel substitute and bioethanol (ethyl alcohol), derived from fermentation of sugar or starch feedstocks and used as a petrol substitute.

Both biodiesel derived from rape and bioethanol derived from wheat have the potential to significantly reduce both energy use in transport fuel production and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions over the full life cycle of production to point of use.  However the scale of the saving depends upon how feedstocks are grown (carbon intensity/tonne of produce), how crop by-products are used (e.g. as animal feed or as fuel in the processing of biofuels) and how efficiently feedstock is converted into biofuel.  Work establishing default reference values for HGCA's GHG calculator suggests that both bioethanol and biodiesel can be produced in the UK in ways that result in substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) savings compared to fossil fuel alternatives. Reductions of between 10 and 95% are reported for the production of wheat to ethanol, and reductions of 36 to 66% for biodiesel production from oilseed rape.

Feedstock production accounts for between 50% and over 80% of the GHG emissions associated with biofuel supply and production chains.  Nitrogen fertiliser and diesel fuel use represent the most significant energy inputs into wheat and oilseed rape crops, accounting for between 47 and 64% (ammonium nitrate) and 21 to 29% (diesel) of direct and indirect energy use in biofuel crop production.  There is ongoing debate over the emission levels associated with nitrogen inputs, particularly direct impacts of N2O emissions from soil and other indirect impacts.

The targets for fuel replacement in 2010, and particularly 2020 are demanding, particularly for diesel replacement.  To meet them, it is likely that the UK will rely on significant import of biofuels and biofuel feedstocks.  The UK will need a range of feedstocks and new 2nd generation technologies to meet proposed 2020 substitution targets.  However, biofuels produced from UK oilseed rape and wheat feedstocks should make a significant contribution to such targets.

Competitor biofuel feedstock vegetable oils such as palm and (until very recently) soya are relatively cheap compared to rape oil, and have been widely used in EU and UK biofuel blends.  Both of these oils are traded in large volumes on the world market, and represent a readily available source of feedstock.  Leading exporters plan for significant expansion in palm oil plantations, to meet growing food and fuel demands.  World ethanol production is increasing, by around 11-13% per annum currently.  Production is dominated by Brazil and the US, which account for around 33% and 36% of world production respectively, with the former responsible for much of the world export of ethanol.

Unless steps are taken to reward production of low carbon feedstocks, it is anticipated that there will be small (for higher alcohol yielding grains) or no financial premium for production of biofuel feedstocks, as raw material cost represents a significant part of the cost of biofuel production.  Significant shifts in areas devoted to wheat or oilseed production will therefore be most significantly influenced by trends in world prices, which reflect supply/demand balances.  Continued political support for 1st generation biofuel development, should help increase market demand and help support market prices for growers.  However, growers will still need to optimise returns from inputs where rewards will be based on production alone.  Maximising output/ha will also help minimise the area of crops required to meet biofuel targets.

Existing areas of wheat and oilseed rape production for feed and food use can be transferred to biofuel production, in the case of wheat reducing export surpluses.  Demand for feedstock from the UK is tempered by import of, often cheaper, alternative feedstocks.  However, in the right financial market, use of UK feedstocks could be significant.  There is current and planned UK biodiesel capacity of 0.5 million tonnes that could utilise the output of half of UK OSR production, and current planned bioethanol plants could utilise 2.6 million tonnes of UK wheat.  Clearly in the short to medium term, there is likely to be more pressure on OSR supplies than wheat.  However, with sufficient financial incentive and the current reduction in set-aside rate to zero there is potential to expand oilseed rape production. The opportunity for expansion of the cereal acreage is likely to be limited by its existing dominance in UK arable rotations.

The relative environmental impacts of production of feedstocks for biofuel production will depend on whether crops grown for biofuel markets are managed differently to those destined for food and feed markets and whether the current crop area expands to meet any increased market demand, replacing other crops in the process.  Under current market conditions it is most likely that a proportion of the conventional crop will be sold speculatively for fuel use where the price is favourable, supplemented by vegetable oil, oilseed, cereal or biofuel imports.  There is also likely to be some expansion on to former set-aside land.  The introduction of relatively small premiums, to reward high alcohol yields could significantly reduce nitrogen use on cereals which could have several important environmental benefits.

Impacts on the environment

Diversion of crops from existing market outlets to biofuel markets will have the least environmental impact.  Up until the end of the 2006/07 growing season, it was possible to produce crops for biofuel use on set-aside land (a permitted industrial use under set-aside rules) that would otherwise be left fallow, which potentially has the most significant environmental impact.  The situation of set-aside is changing. In the face of tightening cereal stocks (through tightening world demand) the compulsory EU set-aside rate was set to zero for the 2007/08 cropping season.  Furthermore, the continued use of set-aside as a supply/demand control measure is to be reviewed under the 2008 CAP health check. As a result, irrespective of whether grown for biofuels or conventional food markets, wheat and oilseed rape cropping will expand onto former set-aside areas.  Current indications are that reducing the set-aside rate to zero has reduced the area of un-cropped land in England (bare fallow and compulsory set-aside) by 40%, while the 2007/08 season winter wheat area has increased by 10.4% and the winter-sown oilseed rape area by 2.3% (Defra Survey of Agriculture, December 2007).  This expansion has been driven by market forces including increasing food demand and impacts of weather patterns on world supply.  It is difficult to determine how much of this expansion has been driven by development of biofuel markets alone and therefore on what scale any environmental impacts can be attributed to biofuel developments.  However, while the area of rape grown has increased only slightly, the proportion entered for EU energy crop schemes has continued to increase significantly, to the point where in 2007, around 40% of the UK oilseed rape area was earmarked for energy market outlets (excluding rape grown on set-aside).

A series of case studies are considered to assess the impacts of change in land use. The case studies associated with replacement of set-aside are retained and updated in the current report, though clearly if set-aside is removed as a market control measure then such comparisons will no longer be relevant.

CASE 1 - Oilseed rape for biodiesel replaces conventional oilseed rape crop

Managing oilseed rape for biofuel production offers little or no opportunity to reduce agrochemical or fertiliser inputs, but there is potential to reduce energy use during cultivation.  Reducing the intensity of soil cultivations would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and could contribute to reductions in nitrate leaching risk by reducing the intensity of soil disturbance and soil mineralisation of nitrogen.

CASE 2 - Wheat for bioethanol replaces conventional wheat crop

Recent HGCA and Defra-funded work, led by ADAS, looking at grain and alcohol responses to nitrogen suggests that where grain and alcohol values are equivalent, nitrogen rates can be reduced by around at least 10-12% compared to those used for feed wheat.  This could be encouraged by access to a small premium of around £2-3/tonne, depending on prevailing costs.  As well as improving GHG balances, reducing nitrogen application would reduce pressures on nitrate leaching.  In the current absence of a UK wheat-based bioethanol processor, it is difficult to assess whether such premiums will be made available by processors, to reflect improvements in efficiency.

When compared to the UK average for wheat (which includes management for both milling and feed markets), the pool of biofuel wheat crops is likely to demonstrate small reductions in insecticide, fungicide and plant growth regulator use and reductions of up to 1-3 spray passes per annum.  In addition, in the absence of premiums for alcohol content that could reduce applications further, nitrogen use will be lower than the UK average (by around 13 kg/ha N at current application rates), with benefits in terms of lower indirect energy use and green-house gas emissions, reduced risk of nitrate leaching and emission of ammonia.  There may also be opportunities to reduce the intensity of cultivations with benefits in terms of savings in energy use and reduced risk of nitrate leaching and an opportunity to build up soil organic matter levels.

CASE 3 - Replacement of natural regeneration set-aside with oilseed rape

Replacing set-aside with oilseed rape increases the physical inputs of pesticides, fertilisers and energy utilisation.  Impacts on nitrate leaching are not clear cut as typically set-aside has higher residual nitrogen levels that are subject to overwinter loss.  It is anticipated that there could be a small increase in risks of soil erosion and phosphate loss.  Overall greenhouse-gas emissions including CO2, and N2O would rise, largely as a result of nitrogen use.  Little impact on soil water quality is expected.  Replacement of set-aside with oilseed rape would reduce farmland habitat diversity (in terms of habitat, weed and invertebrate diversity) and would have a detrimental impact on some farmland birds, but other bird species of specific interest and concern that use oilseed rape as a resource in summer would benefit.  However, many of these same species also use winter stubbles which may be reduced where winter sown crops replace naturally regenerating set-aside, such that overall there may be little or no beneficial impact on such species.

CASE 4 - Replacement of natural regeneration set aside with wheat

Replacing set-aside with wheat increases physical inputs of pesticides, fertilisers and energy.  However, impacts on nitrate leaching are not clear-cut as typically set-aside has higher residual nitrogen levels subject to over-winter loss.  There could be a small increase in the risk of soil erosion and phosphate loss.  Overall greenhouse-gas emissions including CO2, and N2O would rise, largely as a result of nitrogen use.  There could be impacts on soil water quality arising from a few specific herbicides use in cereals.  Replacement of set-aside with wheat would reduce farmland diversity (in terms of habitat, weed and invertebrate diversity) and have a detrimental impact on farmland birds, but weedy wheat crop stubbles provide a valuable overwinter resource for birds if followed by spring-sown crops, which would mitigate to a limited extent losses of overwinter stubbles on set-aside.

In the case of replacement of set-aside by wheat or oilseed rape, the most significant impacts of replacing set-aside are likely to occur through reduction in diversity of habitat (which affects nesting opportunities and success) and impacts on arable flora, their associated invertebrates and knock on impacts on bird species which forage and nest on such areas.

CASE 5 - Replacement of break crops by oilseed rape

Impacts of replacing legumes with oilseed rape include an increase in fertiliser nitrogen inputs which would increase indirect energy use and overall greenhouse-gas emissions (which are typically doubled when accounting for typical rates of nitrogen applied to oilseed rape). There would also be a slightly increased risk of nitrate leaching by shifting to winter cropping/cultivations.  Pesticide inputs, including carbamate insecticides and fungicide treatments, would be reduced.  The main impacts on biodiversity include loss of relatively open canopy crops in the farmed landscape, favoured by birds such as lapwings and skylarks and used for foraging activity by many other species.  Where break crops are spring-sown, there are benefits for overwintering birds from cereal stubbles left after harvest of the previous crop; these would be lost by replacement with winter-sown oilseed rape.

Landscape scale impacts

There have been few attempts to identify or model what the impacts might be of expansion of oilseed rape and cereal cropping at a landscape scale, though related project experiences offer insights. Work carried out for the Defra Agricultural Change and the Environment Observatory examined the impacts in an arable landscape in Eastern England of a 21% increase in wheat area, a 69% increase in oilseed rape and a 74% reduction in set-aside.  Nitrate losses were reduced slightly (where crops replaced set-aside), phosphate loss increased (by 6.3%), skylark density decreased, finches were relatively unaffected and wood pigeon increased.  The increase in crop areas used in this scenario are much greater than those envisaged in meeting the 2010 biofuel targets (utilising a mix of UK cropping and import), however, such exercises help examine the potential impacts of wider expansion and highlight particular areas of concern where environmental impacts need to be carefully monitored and buffered where undesirable change is observed.

Amelioration of biodiversity impacts

Detrimental effects on biodiversity in agricultural landscapes could be mitigated to some extent by ameliorating measures along field margins and within fields.  Where biofuel crops are grown, a requirement to undertake measures such as use of unsprayed crop margins, adoption of un-cropped or sown field margin treatments, use of in-field fallow patches and beetle banks to encourage flora and fauna, could mitigate against at least some of the loss of diverse habitat on farmland.  In the short to medium-term, the most environmentally neutral option would be to divert existing crops towards biofuel production and this, along with some limited expansion of production onto set-aside is likely to be the main route of raw material supply for the foreseeable future.

Further work

Areas where further work is required includes continued work to screen and develop wheat cultivars with high fermentable starch contents (which equates to high alcohol yield) and reduced nitrogen demand (for both wheat and oilseed rape).  This could significantly improve the performance of biofuel crops in terms of greenhouse-gas savings and reduce energy requirements which will be a significant incentive to ensure continued wide-scale use of such feedstocks.  Similar work is required in oilseed rape to increase yield performance and efficiency of biofuel production and carbon savings.  Areas for agronomic improvement in the environmental profile of wheat and oilseed rape biofuel crops are also identified.

All cereal and oilseed rape growers are scrutinising the value of crop inputs to justify and optimise their use to minimise any potential adverse environmental impacts.  In addition, many negative effects of cropping can be moderated or mitigated by adoption of different management practices either on a whole field basis (e.g. through sustainable farming techniques or precision application of inputs) and/or through measures targeted at particular field crops (e.g. encouragement of spring cropping to provide overwinter stubbles) or field margins (e.g. prescriptions covered by agri-environment schemes) or in-field (fallow 'skylark scrapes') to support biodiversity in farmland landscapes.  Through such means there is potential to significantly influence the environmental footprint of UK cereals and oilseed crops.

Postscript

The 'Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production' was published in July 2008, just before the present review was published. It is available at:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/_db/_documents/Report_of_the_Gallagher_review.pdf

Professor Gallagher's review was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly. The report concludes that there is a future for a sustainable biofuels industry, but proposes that the introduction of biofuels in the UK should be slowed to enable robust sustainability standards to be developed and implemented. The main recommendation of the review is that the current RTFO target of 2.5% biofuel for 2008-09 be retained, but the proposed target of 5% inclusion, originally scheduled for 2010-11, be put back to 2013-14. Further increases in the target should be implemented only if the biofuels can be shown to be demonstrably 'sustainable' (in particular avoiding indirect land-use change).