20t/ha.

According to Bill Clark, director of Brooms Barn Research Station, that's the kind of yield we'll need to feed ourselves, given the predicted world food and water shortages in the relatively near future.

The subject crops up in David Richardson's column next week, but how realistic is this figure? What is going to be key to achieving this? Government funding, R&D, soil structure, the right plant varieties, the right cocktail of fungicides, the right weather...

Or more likely, a perfect storm of all of the above?
 

it really is pointless trying to increase yields.

every increase only lowers the price and raises rents, the landlords or supermarkets run off with all the benefit, while the farmer is left  to pay up the technology.

when we grew 3 ton  in 1980 at £120 that was real profit.

 Trials yields keep going up, but in reality we dont see this in the field. More consistant though.

Incidently, I have gone from growing the likes of Robigus back to Soissons and winter barley as the profit margins on OSR are so great that wheat is simply a break from rape for me, rather than the holy grail. A first wheat is not the best gross margin crop by some way. 

racheljones:

20t/acre.


 

I assume we're talking about wheat here? I can't really see that being a possibility. 20t/ha maybe, but even that's going to be a fair way off for even the best farms to achieve consistently, with all of those criteria met.

Motley keeps telling us that yields have fallen over the last couple of decades, which is absolute rubbish of course, but things haven't been increasing as fast as they were in the years before that. I don't think development has topped out yet, or even hit a plateau, but there would have to be something very dramatic happen in the genetics of the plant to achieve that sort of yield jump.

bovril:

I assume we're talking about wheat here?

Ah, the clue is in the thread title!!! I'd only read Rachels post, not the bit at the top!

bovril:

racheljones:

20t/acre.


 

I assume we're talking about wheat here? I can't really see that being a possibility. 20t/ha maybe

I meant to write hectare! Oops, have changed...

And yes, talking about wheat

Has anyone plotted a graph of wheat yields over the last 50 years? I suspect that the economic law of diminishing returns is already kicking in and that the rate of increase per annum is begining to slow. Is there not also a theoretical maximum based upon crop physiology?

To my mind the more important points mentioned above are the gross margin, profitability, and, often missed, the consistency of yield year-on-year. I do occassionally cite this latter point. Here a poor year can mean a yield of 70% below the average, in the UK it is 10%! A massively important factor when you are trying to finance a business.

Further, I frequently argue that crop insurance is not the way to go in Europe, it is far better to invest the money in real risk reduction tools like good management, good seeds, good breeding, irrigation, drainage, soil management, harvesting capacity, fertilisers, disease control....This is something that the UK farming community is generally very, very good at. It annoys me greatly when I read about proposals for crop insurance schemes, they just take money out of the industry. Far better to invest the money in the right technology and in management. These are what deliver consistent, food-secure, yields.

Stuart Meikle:

drainage

 

+1.

TeslaCoils:

Stuart Meikle:

drainage

 

+1.

Don't you need rain for drainage to make a difference?

bovril, dont tell me you are still in drought?

Yes, still completely dry! I always say we don't need rain on this soil, but a little bit wouldn't go amiss! I've never seen the pond at the yard completely dry like it is now, and a lot of crops aren't emerging. We're getting some reasonable dews, but no fogs, which are our usual source of moisture.

They're talking of a bit of rain on Thursday, but it may well go the way of what they forecast for today, and never appear!

scotland is drowning, fed up towing out the combine.

bovril:

Yes, still completely dry!

 

Good soil condtions for putting in some drains then. 

Thursday rain more likely than yesterdays. 

 

Thunderstorms and 10mm of rain today. Quite a lot of it came down as hail.

And it's the only day we didn't have any rain forecast!!

bovril:

Thunderstorms and 10mm of rain today.

 

2.5 inches on monday and similar forcast for tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have it, but in slightly more moderate doses would be good!

To come back to the original post and having read David Richardson's article about a lack of dramatic yield progress over the last few years, I think the suggestions that 11-12 t/ha is achievable is realistic for the UK. I have been a way from the subject for a few years, but something is telling me that we are running into plant-potential constraints. Given the 20 t/ha came out of Broom's Barn, I will however accept that there is a scientific basis behind the number, but is it one that should be targeted in the UK?

If we are honest about it, the UK is not going to feed the next couple of billion people. Protecting its own food security for 60 million is a different matter. The EU can be a net exporter but that has to be about the under-performing nations raising their performances, not about the UK out-producing others by 200% 300% or even 400%. The country that almost certainly has the greatest potential is Romania. It has natural resources that far outweigh those of the UK but a guestimate is that it is feeding less than 10 million of its 21-22 million people The common suggestion is that Romania can feed its own and the UK populations. There is plenty of slack in the system. God provided an upward blip in 2011 with some good weather but that is only masking the fact that things are not getting better. If we are going to talk about feeding the world and the impending food crisis then the EU and Brussels should be taking a much more aggressive approach with those that under-perform. A starting point maybe to start by not trying to produce a one-size-fits all cap, the divergence in agricultural performance across the EU is frankly still far, far too great.

So Broom's Barn can make 20t/ha - and I remember visiting a farm east of Edinburgh in the 1990s which had apparently made 24 t/ha and claimed the UK record.

So we know it can be done!

Why are more farmers not making such yields? What is it that is holding their crops back?  We blame hte weather of course, but have we got all the soil management correct, are the inputs optimal?  Sure it's a challenge  to rise to?

jsc, the question is will you make more money doing so? I remember working on the east bank of the Jordan river way below sea level in a warm/hot arid climate and looking at apples that had to be 'convinced' that they had been through a winter and at bananas that needed 1000 litres of water to produce a kilo of fruit. It could be done but there were better things to do with limited resources. The point is, anything can be done, but does it make sense to do it?

True - but  we are talking about the UK where no one needs convincing of winter!

there is also a much bigger issue to consider - i asked if it were a challenge for farmers but maybe i should have said it was a moral challenge for agriculture in the face of 7 billion mouths, over 1 billion of whom are malnurished or starving, and so how do we achieve these high yields to feed all our fellow humans.  We are potentially one of the best areas for wheat production, unlike your bananas in the desert. 

I put the question on the CAP reform post earlier, 'how many people die somewhere else in the World for every derelict hectare in the EU?' That is a moral question. Should a derelict hectare be considered a 'crime against humanity'? If so, that may make the policy makers think a little differently! Also should the emphasis be placed on the UK to go higher or for others elsewhere in the EU be asked to do the job properly?

Should a derelict hectare be considered a 'crime against humanity'?   Now there's an interesting thought .....

jsc, it is a crime against humanity

so if we wind the clock back to when that obscenity, set-a-side was first invented, how many people has the EU starved to death?

why didn't it continue to allow farmers to grow, but somehow 'buy' the crops from the intended set-a-side land and use the produce as 'aid' when needed to feed starving people.  that way the EU farming economy continues to run at full pace, employment and internal trade continue etc instead of decreasing the farming economy by 5-10%.

so looking ahead - to my original comment - why do we not push for higher yields where we can?  To whoever objected on the grounds of profit, can there not be some form of market in feeding the 1 billion starving?   Even if it is more "profitable" for some to let that happen?

So as not to further lead this thread away from the original topic, I have responded to Stuart's question on derelict land on the CAP thread.

So far as production is concerned I think it is up to farmers in all countries of the world whether they want to go for higher yields. Certainly governments, including the EU, should be encouraging food production, but as I said on another thread (regarding funding for research on soils) people can only be encouraged by research not forced. A system of penalties for low production is theoretically possible, but probably a non-starter. Improving the organic matter content of soils is an obvious practical and simple help towards increasing yields if the OM is low. I read David Richardson's article, and he seemed surprised at his neighbour ploughing back all the straw. When I was in Australia this was standard practice. 

I am not competent to comment on the maximum yield that is realistically achievable because I have never grown wheat in the UK.

I think there are a lot of us who worry that our failure to sustain the yield increases of the 70s and 80s is a failure on our part.

But I'm sure thats not fair. I think a lot of the blame has to be taken by the scientific establishment, government and some of our farming leaders - including David Richardson.

All these people have wasted so much time, expertise and money researching and extolling the benefits of GM in the belief that GM can deliver a 'silver bullet' that will address all farming's woes. But after some two decades of focusing our agri-research on GM we still don't have any crops that deliver increased yield - ok, some may offer beneficial traits or easier management but none demonstrate yield increase - and talking to scientists working in the biotech field the holy grail of GM nitrogen fixation and GM yield increase are still probably two decades away. 

Its time for these GM dinosaurs to stand aside and allow other disciplines - biotech, breeding and cultural - to help develop the tools we need if we are to stand a chance of achieving the increases in productivity needed to feed an increasing population from diminishinmg resources.