Over the past few weeks, we have covered many of the main sustainability issues facing the different livestock enterprises. This week, we look at the tillage sector and examine its sustainability credentials.
If we briefly view the three pillars of sustainability as being financial, environmental and social, many will say that the tillage sector is moderately well positioned going forward. It has a good environmental footprint, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and has a low impact on water and air quality.
Tillage land is particularly important for a number of bird species, such as the barn owl, the yellow hammer, the stock dove, the skylark and the lapwing
Social sustainability is quite good too, in that it has a reasonably high output with a local market for virtually all it produces. Much of its turnover is also local, in terms of its impact on the local economy.
Tillage land is particularly important for a number of bird species, such as the barn owl, the yellow hammer, the stock dove, the skylark and the lapwing. These all depend on tillage for their existence.
The financial challenge
The major sustainability challenge for tillage is financial, as the sector must carry high background costs. Also, inputs, fertilisers and compliance costs continue to increase. Mechanisation costs have also risen, as surplus machine capacity is increasingly essential to make the most of short working windows for planting, harvesting and crop protection.
On the output side, there has been little in terms of price increases. Prices are influenced by the growing importation of feeds sourced from the lowest-priced product in the world at any point in time. It is challenging for EU producers to compete where internal production is highly regulated, while imports can use inputs and technologies that are essentially prohibited in the EU.
Climate emissions
Tillage scores quite well on emissions, compared with the livestock sectors. Teagasc estimates that mainly tillage farms have emissions of around 2t/ha of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) and that roughly three-quarters of these emissions come from the animal enterprise on the same farm. The IPCC puts the equivalent figure at 1.18t/ha CO2-e, as outlined in the recent report by Prof Michael Wallace of UCD and the Crops 2030 report from the Teagasc stakeholders.
While the relative CO2-e figure for Irish cereals is low, we must be conscious that it does not include fuel usage or the carbon cost of our high input of pesticides
The latter report indicates that the equivalent emissions from South American maize is 27t CO2-e/ha, even before the carbon cost of transport. Such sources of feed challenge the claims of sustainability we make for our exports and so the market must come to realise the benefits of native cereals.
While the relative CO2-e figure for Irish cereals is low, we must be conscious that it does not include fuel usage or the carbon cost of our high input of pesticides.
This difference between the emissions rating of tillage (14%) compared with livestock enterprises is seldom recognised or even given prominence, but it is of significance.
the Wallace report identified a 57,400ha decrease in cereal area in the latter half of the last decade
Having a sector with a lower emissions profile helps dilute the future obligations imposed on others.
To put this in perspective – the Wallace report identified a 57,400ha decrease in cereal area in the latter half of the last decade. If all of this went to grassland and dairying, the change of land use alone would add about 425,000t of CO2-e emissions to agriculture’s annual output. If the country fails to meet its GHG reduction targets, this change of land use alone would equate to an additional €12.75m to €34m in carbon fines, at prices of €30 and €80/t of carbon, respectively.
Nitrogen footprint
Tillage can improve its nitrogen footprint by sowing leguminous crops, which produce all of their own nitrogen and leave some for following crops. The use of catch crops also helps to capture end-of-season nutrients (N and P) and retain them in plant tissue over winter, to be released again in the following cropping year.
While nitrogen use is intensive on many tillage crops, the total rates used are controlled and considerably lower than those used in intensive livestock systems. This means that the pressures from N loss as N2O or ammonia are lower, and this is further helped by the fact that tillage is mainly conducted on free draining soils, which are less prone to such losses.
Carbon loss and storage
One of the actions being undertaken by some growers to enhance soil carbon levels involves the use of non-inversion, shallow or zero cultivation. This can bring benefits on many fronts, but the practice depends on the continued availability of glyphosate, or an equivalent herbicide, to help with weed control.
Research is needed to quantify this storage capability
One of the challenges the sector faces is to have carbon-related values verified through research. Worn tillage land has the ability to soak up carbon and could be used to utilise excess nutrients from other farming sectors. Research is needed to quantify this storage capability. Furthermore, it needs to verify how different establishment systems can help to conserve soil carbon, on both worn land and to help conserve carbon loss if permanent pasture is used for tillage.
Altered management of tillage land has considerable capacity to capture soil carbon and some farmers using carbon navigators claim to be net accumulators of up to 2t of carbon per acre per year, with the help of catch cropping and minimal soil disturbance.
Greenhouse gas emissions from tillage are considerably lower than from livestock systems so land in tillage decreases our national reduction obligation.Land that has been in tillage for years has considerable potential to store carbon and hence further reduce GHG losses. The production of leguminous crops provides an option to avoid nitrogen application on that specific crop.
Over the past few weeks, we have covered many of the main sustainability issues facing the different livestock enterprises. This week, we look at the tillage sector and examine its sustainability credentials.
If we briefly view the three pillars of sustainability as being financial, environmental and social, many will say that the tillage sector is moderately well positioned going forward. It has a good environmental footprint, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and has a low impact on water and air quality.
Tillage land is particularly important for a number of bird species, such as the barn owl, the yellow hammer, the stock dove, the skylark and the lapwing
Social sustainability is quite good too, in that it has a reasonably high output with a local market for virtually all it produces. Much of its turnover is also local, in terms of its impact on the local economy.
Tillage land is particularly important for a number of bird species, such as the barn owl, the yellow hammer, the stock dove, the skylark and the lapwing. These all depend on tillage for their existence.
The financial challenge
The major sustainability challenge for tillage is financial, as the sector must carry high background costs. Also, inputs, fertilisers and compliance costs continue to increase. Mechanisation costs have also risen, as surplus machine capacity is increasingly essential to make the most of short working windows for planting, harvesting and crop protection.
On the output side, there has been little in terms of price increases. Prices are influenced by the growing importation of feeds sourced from the lowest-priced product in the world at any point in time. It is challenging for EU producers to compete where internal production is highly regulated, while imports can use inputs and technologies that are essentially prohibited in the EU.
Climate emissions
Tillage scores quite well on emissions, compared with the livestock sectors. Teagasc estimates that mainly tillage farms have emissions of around 2t/ha of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) and that roughly three-quarters of these emissions come from the animal enterprise on the same farm. The IPCC puts the equivalent figure at 1.18t/ha CO2-e, as outlined in the recent report by Prof Michael Wallace of UCD and the Crops 2030 report from the Teagasc stakeholders.
While the relative CO2-e figure for Irish cereals is low, we must be conscious that it does not include fuel usage or the carbon cost of our high input of pesticides
The latter report indicates that the equivalent emissions from South American maize is 27t CO2-e/ha, even before the carbon cost of transport. Such sources of feed challenge the claims of sustainability we make for our exports and so the market must come to realise the benefits of native cereals.
While the relative CO2-e figure for Irish cereals is low, we must be conscious that it does not include fuel usage or the carbon cost of our high input of pesticides.
This difference between the emissions rating of tillage (14%) compared with livestock enterprises is seldom recognised or even given prominence, but it is of significance.
the Wallace report identified a 57,400ha decrease in cereal area in the latter half of the last decade
Having a sector with a lower emissions profile helps dilute the future obligations imposed on others.
To put this in perspective – the Wallace report identified a 57,400ha decrease in cereal area in the latter half of the last decade. If all of this went to grassland and dairying, the change of land use alone would add about 425,000t of CO2-e emissions to agriculture’s annual output. If the country fails to meet its GHG reduction targets, this change of land use alone would equate to an additional €12.75m to €34m in carbon fines, at prices of €30 and €80/t of carbon, respectively.
Nitrogen footprint
Tillage can improve its nitrogen footprint by sowing leguminous crops, which produce all of their own nitrogen and leave some for following crops. The use of catch crops also helps to capture end-of-season nutrients (N and P) and retain them in plant tissue over winter, to be released again in the following cropping year.
While nitrogen use is intensive on many tillage crops, the total rates used are controlled and considerably lower than those used in intensive livestock systems. This means that the pressures from N loss as N2O or ammonia are lower, and this is further helped by the fact that tillage is mainly conducted on free draining soils, which are less prone to such losses.
Carbon loss and storage
One of the actions being undertaken by some growers to enhance soil carbon levels involves the use of non-inversion, shallow or zero cultivation. This can bring benefits on many fronts, but the practice depends on the continued availability of glyphosate, or an equivalent herbicide, to help with weed control.
Research is needed to quantify this storage capability
One of the challenges the sector faces is to have carbon-related values verified through research. Worn tillage land has the ability to soak up carbon and could be used to utilise excess nutrients from other farming sectors. Research is needed to quantify this storage capability. Furthermore, it needs to verify how different establishment systems can help to conserve soil carbon, on both worn land and to help conserve carbon loss if permanent pasture is used for tillage.
Altered management of tillage land has considerable capacity to capture soil carbon and some farmers using carbon navigators claim to be net accumulators of up to 2t of carbon per acre per year, with the help of catch cropping and minimal soil disturbance.
Greenhouse gas emissions from tillage are considerably lower than from livestock systems so land in tillage decreases our national reduction obligation.Land that has been in tillage for years has considerable potential to store carbon and hence further reduce GHG losses. The production of leguminous crops provides an option to avoid nitrogen application on that specific crop. 
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: