Optimisation of Cereal Farm Strategies for Mitigating Externalities Associated with Intensive Production

Intensive cereal farming results in various unintended consequences for the environment including water pollution. Current uptake of on-farm best management measures in the UK is delivering limited benefits and alternative management futures need to be modelled to make informed decisions. The Farmscoper (FARMSCale Optimization of Pollutant Emission Reductions) tool was used to examine two management scenarios for intensive cereal farms in eastern England. The first was based on increased uptake of those measures currently recommended by advisory visits and following walkover surveys. The second was founded on mechanistic understanding of on-farm pollutant sources embedded in the Farmscoper tool. Optimization of measure selection used a multi-objective genetic algorithm. The technically possible reductions (e.g., 10 to 21% for sediment and 12 to 18% for total phosphorus) of current pollutant emissions to water due to uptake of the mechanistic scenario exceeded those resulting from the current advice scenario (<= 5%), but with mixed impacts on costs ranging from a saving of 34.8 pound/ha/yr to an increase of 19.0 pound/ha/yr, relative to current best management costs. The current advice scenario generated corresponding cost savings of between 30.4 pound/ha/yr and 73.40 pound/ha/yr. Neither scenario is sufficiently impactful on unintended consequences, pointing to the need for structural change in land cover.

Automated summary

The intensive cereal farming in the UK leads to unintended consequences, such as water pollution. The current adoption of best management measures has limited benefits, and alternative management scenarios need to be explored. This study used the Farmscoper tool to examine two management scenarios for intensive cereal farms in eastern England. The mechanistic scenario, based on a better understanding of on-farm pollutant sources, resulted in greater reductions in pollutant emissions compared to the current advice scenario, but with mixed impacts on costs. Neither scenario had a significant impact on unintended consequences, highlighting the need for structural changes in land cover.